US Lawmakers Call for CISA Polygraph Probe

A group of House lawmakers is calling for an investigation into a series of escalating controversies surrounding Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency leadership, following allegations that ex-Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala bypassed established intelligence protocols – then retaliated against career staff after failing two polygraph tests tied to access to highly sensitive intelligence programs.

See Also: New Trend in Federal Cybersecurity: Streamlining Efficiency with a Holistic IT Approach eBook

In a Friday letter sent to the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security, five Democratic lawmakers urged an independent probe into what they described as a troubling chain of events involving security clearance suspensions, internal investigations and potential violations of national security directives. The letter focuses on a July 2025 incident in which Gottumukkala sought access to a controlled access program, a classification tier reserved for the most sensitive intelligence activities that requires both a demonstrated need-to-know and successful completion of a counterintelligence scope polygraph.

According to the lawmakers, led by Virginia Rep. James Walkinshaw, Gottumukkala failed two polygraph examinations and may not have followed required escalation procedures, including notifying the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and triggering a formal review of his clearance status. The letter alleges that Gottumukkala directed a newly-formed internal investigatory unit to examine whether agency staff had provided him with incorrect guidance about the polygraph requirement – rather than referring the matter to inspectors general for independent oversight.

The fallout from that decision rippled across the agency, the lawmakers argued. At least five career CISA staff members and one contractor involved in scheduling and coordinating the polygraph examinations had their security clearances suspended in early August and were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the internal investigation. Those employees remained sidelined as of February.

“The long-term suspensions of key CISA leadership also raise questions regarding whether CISA’s Chief Security Officer function is sufficiently staffed,” the lawmakers wrote, pointing to growing risks analysts and former CISA officials have warned about in recent months surrounding agency continuity and oversight (see: No Vote, No Leader: CISA Faces 2026 Without a Director).

The letter also raises the possibility that actions taken against career staff could constitute prohibited personnel practices if they were retaliatory in nature – especially if employees were punished for relaying accurate information about security requirements, or disclosing the polygraph results through appropriate channels.

The controversies surrounding CISA’s ex-acting director mark the latest flashpoint in a turbulent period for CISA, which has faced mounting scrutiny over leadership decisions, workforce attrition and questions about its strategic direction amid broader political and budgetary pressures. Current and former officials have recently described CISA in interviews as an agency struggling to maintain stability following leadership shakeups and a partial government shutdown that sidelined much of its workforce (see: CISA Leadership Shakeup Amid DHS Shutdown).

The ongoing shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security – of which CISA is a component – and continued disruptions to CISA’s workforce come as the agency was already navigating internal tensions over the role of emerging technologies and decision-making processes at the top of the agency. Earlier reporting revealed that Gottumukkala’s use of artificial intelligence tools in sensitive operational contexts had alarmed some cybersecurity officials, who warned that the adoption of such technologies without clear guardrails could introduce new risks into critical government workflows.

Analysts have also raised concerns about whether the agency was drifting from its core mission following policy changes and budget cuts under the Trump administration, which officials said forced CISA to recalibrate its priorities while attempting to rebuild core capabilities. Gottumukkala previously told lawmakers the agency was “trying to get back on its mission” following a year defined by a mass talent exodus at the agency, with nearly 1,000 staffers leaving since President Donald Trump took office in January 2026.

Under intelligence community directives and related security executive agent directives, officials seeking access to Controlled Access Programs must meet stringent vetting requirements, including successful completion of polygraph examinations designed to assess counterintelligence risk. Failures in those examinations typically trigger a defined risk mitigation process, including notification of oversight authorities and potential reevaluation of clearance eligibility – steps lawmakers now question whether Gottumukkala followed.