By Matt Underwood Pentagon plans widespread random polygraph testing, nondisclosure agreements, Washington Post reports. Hmm, okay, so let’s unpack this, shall we? The news, as reported by the Washington Post, indicates the Pentagon is gearing up for a widespread rollout of random polygraph tests and new nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs. My initial thought? This feels…unsettling. Not because these tools are particularly effective, but because of the underlying implications.
The whole idea of widespread random polygraph testing in 2025 feels a bit archaic, doesn’t it? Polygraphs, or lie detectors, have been around for ages, but the scientific community has largely debunked them. They’re essentially pseudoscience. The results are inadmissible in most courts, because of the inherent unreliability. The false positive rates are significant, meaning innocent people can easily be flagged as deceptive. It’s like hiring a psychic instead of using scientific methods.
And then, there are these new NDAs. The article states that these agreements would prohibit the release of non-public information without explicit approval. Now, while NDAs are common, the context here is crucial. It seems the intention is to create a climate of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, especially concerning internal dissent and potentially illegal or improper activities. The courts have already ruled on NDAs for government employees, so they can’t use them to hide illegal orders or testimony.
This is the part that makes me scratch my head. Isn’t this already a thing, to a certain extent? The government already has controls in place to prevent the unauthorized sharing of sensitive information. There are also laws and penalties for those who violate these controls. The question is: why the extra layers, especially if the tests aren’t even reliable?
It’s hard to shake the feeling that the true goal is to silence potential whistleblowers and create a culture of unquestioning obedience. This could be connected to broader worries about the military’s direction. There is a concern that anyone who would hesitate to follow possibly illegal orders is being singled out, which potentially leads to the purge of those who might not fully endorse those actions. And this whole plan really feels like it’s designed to destroy morale.
The article really implies that the people are not happy about this. The people who are supposed to be the enforcers. So, it’s not the smartest of plans. The more you look at it, the more you start to feel that this could lead to a further deterioration of trust and open communication within the military. Random polygraphs and tightened NDAs might backfire, alienating personnel and potentially hindering the very mission they’re supposed to support.
The issue becomes particularly acute if people are afraid to speak up about corruption or wrongdoing. The government’s running the government like a business, and it’s not the most pleasant of work environments. NDAs often feel like they’re designed to cover up bad stuff. It raises questions about what’s being hidden and who is potentially doing something illegal.
The timing of this, as the article suggests, really can’t be separated from the political climate. The implication is that there is a desire to create a military that’s loyal above all else, possibly to the point of political alignment, rather than to the principles of the Constitution. This also sounds like they’re preparing for something. The whole setup feels like something Putin would do.
The fact that polygraphs are unreliable, and their results aren’t even admissible in court, begs the question: what’s the point? It seems like a smokescreen. This further cements the idea that the goal isn’t about truth-finding, but about control, compliance, and potentially, something much darker. And you know what’s the most important? Do not surrender in advance.