The FBI director, Kash Patel, reportedly granted polygraph waivers to his deputy director, Daniel Bongino, and two senior officials, allegedly exempting them from a crucial step in the bureau’s standard background qualification process. 

It wasn’t immediately clear why the waivers were granted or if Mr. Bongino was administered a polygraph test in the first place, or if he had received a “preemptive exemption,” according to the liberal investigative journalism outlet ProPublica, which was the first to report on the existence of the waivers. 

Mr. Patel’s assistant, Nicole Rucker, and an FBI liaison with Congress, Marshall Yates, also received waivers despite them both not clearing their polygraph exams, ProPublica reported. The waivers, which were granted by Mr. Patel, allows both employees to get a “high-level security clearance,” despite their roles not being as senior as Mr. Bongino’s.

At some point this year, the FBI Security Division assistant director, Robert Turner, fielded a formal complaint from a member of his team, claiming the waivers violated FBI policy. That complaint was shared with the Department of Justice’s Office Inspector General. 

In September, during Mr. Patel’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary committee, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, cited “highly credible sources” that members of the senior executive team had received “disqualifying alerts on their initial polygraph exams.”

Mr. Patel declined to answer Mr. Durbin’s questions on whether anyone on his team received “disqualifying alerts” on their polygraphs and were given a waiver by either him or Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

“I have to get back to you,” Mr. Patel said during the hearing.

In a statement to ProPublica, an FBI spokesman, Ben Williamson, called the report on the failed polygraph tests  “false.” 

“The FBI follows all laws and procedures on personnel security measures, and any implication otherwise is false. Furthermore, while the FBI does not comment on confidential security information, particularly in matters of personnel, this article is riddled with falsehoods — it misrepresents polygraph protocol, inaccurately portrays FBI security measures, and makes multiple false claims about FBI employees who have done nothing wrong.”

All FBI employees are required to undergo an FBI background check in order to receive “FBI top secret security clearance.”

“You must go through this background investigation, and you must pass, before moving forward with employment” — and this includes “a polygraph examination,” per FBI policy.

The ProPublica report comes just a day after the FBI unveiled a new “FBI Rapid Response” account on X intended to counter the “avalanche of smears” at a time when bureau leadership is facing intense scrutiny over the misuse of a government jet and its inconsistent handling of high-profile cases like the death of Jeffrey Epstein.

“No FBI has had the temerity to put truth as we have, they bent the knee to lies and DC swamp. We changed that on day 1, and now will go even further and more direct,” the account posted on X.  “The days of bad-faith attacks and fake-news narratives are over.”

The new @FBI_Response account is modeled on a similar Rapid Response account used by the White House.

An FBI spokesman did not respond to a text from the Sun asking about the timing of the X account’s release and how long the account had been in the planning stages prior to release. 

But since its auspicious debut, the account has been the subject of scorn, including from Trump allies.

“This is pathetic,” the New York Post columnist Miranda Devine wrote on X, later calling out its “whiney uncool verbiage.”

The FBI Rapid Response quickly reposted Ms. Devine’s criticism while including its own “facts” such as  “an over 100 percent increase in arrests from the year before, and “a 35% increase in espionage arrests.”

“Cry babies,” former CIA analyst Sarah Adams wrote on X, adding the FBI should “finally wrap” up the terrorist sleeper cell that was allegedly supporting Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the man behind the deadly New Years Eve in New Orleans.

“I get it—you prefer easy entrapment cases and low-hanging fruit. Real terrorists require hard work, and that seems to be where you tap out.”

The timing of the account’s debut was also notable. News of Mr. Patel’s frequent use of a private government jet — including trips to Scotland, to an exotic hunting resort in Texas, and to a wrestling event in Pennsylvania where his girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, sung the national anthem —has irked Justice Department officials and the White House, which cautioned Cabinet officials to “limit their travel,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Ex-FBI agent turned conservative podcaster Kyle Seraphin, a frequent irritant of Mr. Patel, was among the first to report on Mr. Patel’s use of the private jet during the government shutdown.  One journalist quipped on X “FBI establishes dedicated @KyleSeraphin rebuttal channel.”

As FBI director, Mr. Patel is considered a “required use traveler” and is mandated by law to fly on planes that are equipped with SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) communications. He is also required to  reimburse the government for when the plane is used for personal reasons — all at the cost of a commercial plane ticket. That of course is a fraction of the price of a trip on the government jet.  

Prior to becoming FBI director, Mr. Patel called his predecessor, Christopher Wray, a “government gangster” for flying the jet in likewise fashion.  

As of press time, the FBI Rapid Response account had yet to respond to ProPublica’s report.