WASHINGTON () – When news broke in the media that the federal government’s staffing department intended to recruit someone for transporting executives within the organization, authorities promptly initiated an inquiry aimed at identifying the individual responsible for tipping off journalists. This account comes from three individuals privy to these details.

Hiring a driver at the Office of Personnel Management was not considered classified or top-secret information; an official from the agency remarked to a coworker that this detail would inevitably need to become public when advertising the job opening.

However, the intentions to employ a driver—initially revealed by —proved cumbersome for OPM and the White House during a period when the agency was leading initiatives by the Department of Government Efficiency aimed at reducing the federal workforce, thereby eliminating hundreds of positions within its own ranks.

The incident underscores President Donald Trump’s determination to crack down on leaks to the press, even those involving unclassified information or the everyday workings of the government.

I spoke with nine present and past workers from the federal government under the current administration, who detailed an organized initiative aimed at uncovering various types of information leaks.

The investigations have a dual purpose – plugging leaks while also purging federal employees considered disloyal to Trump’s political agenda, four of the government employees said.

“President Trump has stated unequivocally that he won’t accept federal government workers disclosing information to the so-called fake news outlets. This is just basic commonsense,” declared White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in an official statement.

Government workers who dedicate their time to informing the press rather than fulfilling the responsibilities expected by American taxpayers ought to face consequences.

At multiple federal departments such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, officials informed their staff members that they needed to take lie detector tests, also known as polygraph exams, following instances where unclassified data had been disclosed in news outlets. This directive came from representatives at these organizations who spoke with six government personnel directly involved in this matter.

The outcomes from polygraph tests are seldom accepted as evidence in American courts due to uncertainties about their accuracy.

At the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), officials informed staff members that they were required to take these tests—not specifically due to confirmed leaks, but out of concerns that some employees might be discussing internal matters with journalists. This information comes from four federal employees.

The Department of Homeland Security staff members were informed that they could lose their jobs if they refuse to take the tests, according to the four individuals who shared this information.

ATTENDEES POLYGRAPHED

After details of a DHS meeting in March involving Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the then acting FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton leaked to the press, DHS managers ordered polygraph tests on at least four meeting attendees, according to an additional two former Federal Emergency Management Agency officials. FEMA is part of DHS.

The attendees, including Hamilton, sat for polygraphs at the Transportation Security Administration headquarters in Virginia.

One FEMA staffer in the public affairs division was placed on paid leave after a polygraph came up inconclusive, the two former FEMA officials said, although it was unclear whether the test was tied to the meeting.

Reached by , the staffer on paid leave declined to comment.

A DHS worker mentioned they quit after being requested to undergo a lie detector test, as they were concerned about potentially being falsely accused of disclosing information.

DHS workers were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements about the tests, the employee said.

When prompted for a response, the Department of Homeland Security stated they were “unapologetic” regarding their efforts to identify whistleblowers. A DHS representative mentioned, “Our stance remains indifferent to your position, experience, political designation, or role as a permanent government employee—we will pursue and take legal action against those who leak information to the maximum degree permitted by law.”

OPM did not reply to requests for comments. In March, the DOD stated that they would utilize lie detector tests to identify individuals leaking information.

Leaking information typically isn’t considered a crime—unless it involves classified material or similar protections, such as disclosures related to national security that might endanger individuals.

Historians and political analysts suggest that certain leaks – even ones involving uncategorized data – could serve the public good. However, these disclosures might also hinder a president’s policy objectives and diminish the effectiveness of an administration, they noted.

“Not all leaks are helpful to peace, good government and constitutional liberty,” said historian Timothy Naftali, a former director of the Nixon Presidential Library in California.

‘TURN OVER EVERY STONE’

In addition to restricting employees, the administration aims to gain more access to reporters’ records. In April, the U.S. Justice Department simplified procedures for investigators looking into information leaked to the press, making it simpler to obtain subpoenas for journalistic records and testimonies.

The directive by Attorney General Pam Bondi reversed departmental policy during President Joe Biden’s administration that barred prosecutors from seizing reporters’ phone and email records unless the journalist was a suspect in a criminal investigation unrelated to newsgathering or they had obtained information through criminal methods.

New regulations allow prosecutors in criminal investigations to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to compel “production of information and testimony by and relating to members of the news media,” according to a memo from Bondi.

Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the memo’s reference to non-classified leaks suggested a policy shift.

“That’s a pretty marked contrast to the leak-hunting under the first Trump administration where, for instance, the speech by Attorney General Jeff Sessions announcing a leak crackdown was quite focused on national security leaks.”

Critics of the Trump administration say leak investigations are a politicized tool to root out perceived disloyalty.

“The Trump White House is trying to make a very clear point here: they will turn over every stone and utilize every tool to crush any leaks regarding which they don’t approve,” said Brad Moss, a national security lawyer in Washington.

The first Trump administration referred more media leaks for criminal investigation in each of its four years than any of the previous 15 years, according to Department of Justice records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Both parties have sought to stem the flow of information. Democratic President Barack Obama had prosecuted more leak cases than all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Rottman, of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

By the time Trump left office after his first term, he had pursued six leak investigations, positioning himself to surpass Obama’s tally, as stated by Rottman. (The article has been updated with a revised title.)

(Reported by Marisa Taylor, Ted Hesson, and Alexandra Alper in Washington and Helen Coster in New York; additional reporting by Nandita Bose and Sarah N. Lynch in Washington. Edited by Paul Thomasch and Suzanne Goldenberg.)