A failed polygraph test taken by the acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has triggered an internal investigation at the Department of Homeland Security, placing at least six long-serving career officials on administrative leave and deepening turmoil inside the federal government’s lead civilian cyber defense agency.
The incident centers on Madhu Gottumukkala, the current acting CISA director, who assumed the role earlier this year amid sweeping staffing and budget cuts. According to interviews with eight current and four former U.S. cybersecurity officials, Gottumukkala failed a polygraph examination in late July that was tied to his request for access to highly sensitive cyber intelligence shared with CISA by another intelligence agency.
DHS Probes Career Staff After Acting CISA Director’s Controversial Polygraph
Following the test, the Department of Homeland Security opened an investigation into whether career staff misled Gottumukkala about the necessity of taking the polygraph test. As a result, at least six employees were suspended with pay over the summer while the inquiry proceeded. The episode, which had not been publicly reported before, has fueled anger among agency staff and raised broader concerns about leadership, accountability, and judgment at CISA.
“Instead of taking ownership and saying, ‘Hey, I screwed up,’ he gets other people blamed and potentially ruins their careers,” said one current official, who described Gottumukkala’s tenure so far as “a nightmare” for the agency.
In a written statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin disputed claims that Gottumukkala failed an official examination. She said the acting CISA director “did not fail a sanctioned polygraph test,” characterizing the exam as an “unsanctioned polygraph” coordinated by staff who allegedly misled incoming leadership. According to McLaughlin, the employees involved were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, adding that Gottumukkala has “the complete and full support of the Secretary.”
McLaughlin also said that polygraph tests cannot be ordered informally. “Random bureaucrats can’t just order a polygraph,” she said, noting that such tests must be approved by leadership with the appropriate authority.
Polygraph Test Controversy Highlights Leadership Gaps Amid CISA Turmoil
The controversy unfolded during an already unstable period for CISA. Since January, nearly one-third of the agency’s workforce has departed amid restructuring under President Donald Trump. Some remaining employees were recently told to either shift into immigration-related roles within Homeland Security or leave the agency altogether.
At the same time, CISA has lacked a permanent, Senate-confirmed leader since former Director Jen Easterly stepped down in January. Gottumukkala, a former senior IT official in South Dakota, was appointed deputy director in May and now serves as acting director. Trump’s nominee to permanently lead CISA, Sean Plankey, has yet to be confirmed.
According to multiple officials, the polygraph test was scheduled to determine Gottumukkala’s eligibility to view a controlled-access intelligence program. Such programs are tightly restricted and require a demonstrated need-to-know. The intelligence agency that shared the material with CISA reportedly required anyone seeking access to first pass a counterintelligence polygraph.
Several officials said senior staff questioned whether Gottumukkala needed access to the program at all. In early June, a senior official declined an initial request signed by mid-level staff, arguing there was no urgent operational need. The agency’s previous deputy director, the official noted, had not been read into the program. Only a limited number of staff are allowed access, and those selections are typically made by a Senate-confirmed director.
That senior official was later placed on administrative leave for unrelated reasons, and by early July, a second request, this time signed by Gottumukkala, was approved. Officials said he had been advised that less classified versions of the intelligence were available without requiring a polygraph, and that previous CISA leaders had declined such access. Despite this, Gottumukkala continued to pursue clearance.
Two officials said he expressed confidence that passing the polygraph would not be an issue. Afterward, however, he reportedly claimed he was following staff guidance, a narrative some inside the agency dispute. One official called DHS’s assertion that the test was unsanctioned “comical,” noting that senior principals are typically aware of and approve their own polygraph requests.
Six CISA Staff Placed on Leave Amid Polygraph Investigation and Security Concerns
On August 1, at least six employees received letters from then–acting DHS Chief Security Officer Michael Boyajian temporarily suspending their access to classified information. The letters alleged they may have provided false information about the requirement for a polygraph. A follow-up letter dated August 4, signed by CISA’s acting chief human capital officer, Kevin Diana, placed the employees on paid administrative leave.
Those affected include CISA Chief Security Officer Jeffery Conklin; Deputy Chief of Staff Masoom Chaudhary; Scott McCarthy, a former acting chief security officer; Adam Bachman, an action officer; Stacey Wrin, a contractor in the security office; and Brian Dōne from CISA’s intelligence division. None responded to requests for comment.
The investigation is being led by the acting general counsel of Homeland Security. Former DHS General Counsel Stewart Baker said it is common for the office to handle politically sensitive cases, particularly when tensions arise between political leadership and career staff.
While officials cautioned that polygraph results can be unreliable and influenced by anxiety or technical factors, and are generally inadmissible in court, some questioned why the acting CISA director himself does not appear to be under scrutiny.
“He ultimately chose to sit for this polygraph,” one official said. “There is only one person to blame for that.”
Another official expressed concern about the implications for national security, noting that CISA handles vast amounts of sensitive data. “How is failing a polygraph not a concern?” the official asked, when Gottumukkala is “supposed to be leading a national security agency?”
