This is a long one, give me a bit.> Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff9-cXStQW0> https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/21/cisa-acting-director-madhu-gottumukkala-polygraph-investigation-00701996At least six career staffers at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were suspended with pay this summer after organizing a polygraph test that the agency’s acting director, Madhu Gottumukkala, failed.The Department of Homeland Security opened an investigation into whether the staff provided “false information” about the need for the test — which was scheduled after Gottumukkala sought access to certain highly sensitive cyber intelligence shared with the agency.This article is based on interviews with eight current and four former U.S. cybersecurity officials, including multiple Trump administration appointees, who have either worked closely with Gottumukkala or have knowledge of the polygraph examination and the chain of events that followed. They were granted anonymity for fear of retribution.The incident this July and the subsequent fallout — which has not been reported before — have angered career staff, alarmed fellow Trump administration appointees and raised questions about Gottumukkala’s leadership of the nearly $3 billion cyber defense agency.“Instead of taking ownership and saying, ‘Hey, I screwed up,’ he gets other people blamed and potentially ruins their careers,” said a current official, who described Gottumukkala’s tenure at CISA so far as “a nightmare” for the agency.In an emailed statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that Gottumukkala “did not fail a sanctioned polygraph test.”
>>1468267“An unsanctioned polygraph test was coordinated by staff, misleading incoming CISA leadership,” McLaughlin wrote. “The employees in question were placed on administrative leave, pending conclusion of an investigation. We expect and require the highest standards of performance from our employees and hold them directly accountable to uphold all policies and procedures. Gottumukkala has the complete and full support of the Secretary and is laser focused on returning the agency to its statutory mission.”When asked for clarification on what is considered an “unsanctioned” polygraph, McLaughlin said that “random bureaucrats can’t just order a polygraph. Polygraph orders have to come from leadership who have the authority to order them.”The repercussions over the polygraph come at an already turbulent period for the agency, which has experienced sweeping personnel and budget cuts under President Donald Trump. Nearly a third of its staff have left the agency since January, and some were recently given an ultimatum to either move into immigration-related roles at the Department of Homeland Security — which houses CISA — or leave the agency altogether.Compounding that instability, CISA has not had a permanent, Senate-confirmed leader since former Director Jen Easterly stepped down in January at the start of the Trump administration. Gottumukkala, a former senior IT official in South Dakota under Kristi Noem, was appointed by the governor-turned-secretary as deputy director in May. He is currently the most senior official at CISA and also holds the title of acting director.Trump’s pick to lead the agency, Sean Plankey, has not been confirmed, meaning Gottumukkala could remain as acting director for the foreseeable future — a prospect some cybersecurity officials are wary of.
>>1468267Aren't Polygraph tests inherently unreliable? Why was this even a thing in the first place.
>>1468267Several current and former officials interviewed also expressed concern that his handling of the polygraph incident reflected a lack of accountability and sound judgement — traits they said are needed to lead an agency tasked with protecting federal networks and U.S. critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.“We’re a sinking ship. We’re like the Titanic,” said a second current official.Neither Gottumukkala nor CISA responded to requests for comment. Gottumukkala failed the polygraph test in the last week of July, according to five current officials and one former official.The test was scheduled that month to determine his eligibility to review one of the most sensitive intelligence programs shared with CISA by another spy agency, three current officials and one former official said.That material was designated as a controlled access program — meaning its circulation was supposed to be tightly restricted to those assigned as need-to-know — and the agency that furnished it to CISA further required that any need-to-know employees first pass what is known as a counter-intelligence polygraph, according to four current officials and one former official.As a civilian agency, the vast majority of CISA employees do not need to view these types of highly sensitive materials, nor do they have to pass such an exam to be hired. But polygraphs are widely used across the Pentagon and U.S. spy community to ferret out those whose foreign connections or personal liabilities could threaten the government’s most sensitive information. They have also, over the last year, become an increasingly common tool under Noem to root out those suspected of leaking information to the media.Senior staff raised questions about whether Gottumukkala needed to review the intelligence materials on at least two occasions. But he continued to push for the access, even if it meant taking a polygraph, according to four current officials.
>>1468270In early June, a senior agency official did not approve an initial request signed by mid-level CISA staff to grant Gottumukkala access to the program, on the basis that there was not an urgent need-to-know, according to the third current official. The agency’s previous deputy director, this person noted, had not seen the program.In addition, the third current official said, the request wasn’t approved because only a set number of agency staff are allowed to review the program, and it is traditionally the agency’s Senate-confirmed director who chooses who those people should be.The senior official who denied that read-in request was placed on administrative leave in late June for a reason unrelated to the polygraph, according to three current officials. As a result, that senior official was no longer in their role by the time a second request for a read-in — this time signed by Gottumukkala — was approved in early July, the third current official said.Gottumukkala “had trusted advisers he could have leaned on, and he didn’t,” said the third current official.Then, in mid-June, a separate senior official advised Gottumukkala that some former senior leaders at CISA had opted not to take the polygraph because access to the most sensitive programs shared with the agency was not considered essential to their job, according to two current officials.Less highly classified versions of the requested intelligence materials would have been available to Gottumukkala without taking a polygraph, said the third current official.Still, Gottumukkala persisted.Two current officials said Gottumukkala told a colleague it wouldn’t be a problem for him to pass the polygraph. He “asked to see the intelligence,” and only later started claiming he was “just doing” what career staff told him to do, recounted a fourth current official.
>>1468271The second current official called the allegation from DHS that the polygraph was unsanctioned “comical,” since someone in Gottumukkala’s position would eventually have to sign off on their own polygraph request. “No action officer or assistant signs for their principal to go to a polygraph without them knowing,” the official said. Those interviewed could not say definitively why Gottumukkala didn’t pass the July polygraph, and several cautioned that people may fail the examinations for innocuous reasons, such as anxiety or a technical error. Polygraph results are not reliable enough to be admitted as evidence in most U.S. courts.But on Aug. 1 — not long after Gottumukkala took the polygraph — at least six career staff who were involved in scheduling and approving the test were informed in letters from Michael Boyajian, then-acting chief security officer of DHS, that their access to classified national security information was being temporarily suspended for potentially misleading Gottumukkala, according to five current officials and one former official, and a copy of one of those letters viewed by POLITICO.“This action is being taken due to information received by this office that you may have participated in providing false information to the acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding the existence of a requirement for a polygraph examination prior to accessing certain programs,” the letter reads.It continues: “The above allegation shows deliberate or negligent failure to follow policies that protect government information, which raises concerns regarding an individual’s trustworthiness, judgment, reliability or willingness and ability to safeguard classified information.”
>>1468272The suspended staffers were then told in a separate letter on Aug. 4 from Kevin Diana, the acting chief human capital officer at CISA, that they had been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, according to four current officials and three former officials. POLITICO also viewed a copy of one of these letters.The staffers placed on leave included both senior and junior officials: Jeffery Conklin, CISA’s chief security officer; Masoom Chaudhary, the agency’s deputy chief of staff; Scott McCarthy, an executive action officer and former acting chief security officer; Adam Bachman, an agency action officer; Stacey Wrin, a contractor in the agency’s security office; and Brian Dōne, an official in CISA’s intelligence division.Conklin, Chaudhary, McCarthy, Bachman, Wrin and Dōne did not respond to requests for comment.The investigation is being led by the acting general counsel of DHS, according to three current officials.Stewart Baker, a former general counsel of DHS, said it is common for the general counsel’s office to handle politically sensitive internal investigations — especially if “the political leadership suspects that the incident has a ‘career vs. political’ element.”It’s unclear whether Gottumukkala told his superiors that he was advised he did not need to access the highly classified materials, or that he signed a second request to review the program.Two current officials said the letter from Boyajian was predicated on the defense that Gottumukkala could have requested a waiver from senior officials in the Trump administration to access the program without a polygraph — a plausible, but highly unusual loophole that may not have been readily apparent to career staff.Many of those who spoke to POLITICO characterized the administration’s decision to go after staff who executed on Gottumukkala’s order to schedule the test as misguided at best.
>>1468273“He ultimately chose to sit for this polygraph,” said the first current official. “There is only one person to blame for that.”It’s unclear if Gottumukkala came under any scrutiny from DHS following the polygraph. One current official and one former official said that the result was worrying, given that CISA has access to reams of sensitive data that would be of interest to foreign and cybercriminal hackers.“How is failing a polygraph not a concern,” a fifth current official asked, when he’s “supposed to be leading a national security agency?”>Fin~, goddamn
>>1468267>CIA >Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)holy fuck the tds foreigner think tank worker is back, and he understands less about America than ever
>>1468275Sorry, fucked that up.Copy and pasting eleven hundred characters was a nightmare, I'm not redoing it.
>>1468277You are brown
>>1468277Why would you post the full article? No one reads them. And this doesn't look interesting.
>Trying to deflect from the fact that the CISA is lying about what he's using top secret information for, Ergo he's pulling a trump and stealing it to sell on the black market like trump did after he stole top secret nuclear information and sold it to the saudis for 2 billion.
>>1468293I read them and it's good to have context. Besides it's a board tradition.
>>1468267So for what country is he secretly a foreign agent? India? Russia?
