Anyone with a security clearance is subject to a polygraph exam at any time. Depending upon the sensitivity of what you do, it can typically be never, seven years, five years, or yearly. Each exam may consist of multiple sessions.
(I was cleared to a bunch of different stuff over 40 years, and I did not get my first polygraph until 30 years ago (about 13 years in). I was getting annual polygraphs for five years, then got them every five years for the remainder of my career.)
My circumstances were not typical, but five years is a typical cycle. It coincides with the "periodic re-investigation" interval, which can also be different, depending upon the nature of the clearances.
Subjects are informed that they are never to discuss or reveal details of their polygraph exam. Doing so could be prosecuted as a Title XVIII violation.
(Note: I don't agree with a lot of the mantra regarding the effectiveness of the polygraph. IMHO, the machine does nothing more than create an excuse for an interrogator to pressure the subject into confessing their wrongdoings. I've known a few sociopaths (including high-level security officers) who would pass with flying colors, because they were 100% comfortable with their lies.)
The (flagged) article tries to ridicule the current administration for enforcing the same policies that every previous administration has enforced: Obeying the orders and the rules.
downvoted, there hasn't been a pervasive oath to loyalty in an administration in recent history. this is just bad defending of a horrible authoritarian.
And there likely isn't any sort of "oath" at all related to any polygraph. The poly isn't about signing agreements, it's about truthfully answering questions. The scope of the questions is different depending upon the agency and the clearance. The NYT is not an unbiased source. To quote the article:
"In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts."
So this can be true and misleading at the same time. Some of the questions asked relate to social media activities and posts related to classified work. I can imagine a scenario where answering these questions would lead to a discussion about Kash Patel. Having a poor opinion of your boss while working in a classified environment could make a person more prone to leaking sensitive information. The FBI has been leaking like a sieve lately.
(I was cleared to a bunch of different stuff over 40 years, and I did not get my first polygraph until 30 years ago (about 13 years in). I was getting annual polygraphs for five years, then got them every five years for the remainder of my career.)
My circumstances were not typical, but five years is a typical cycle. It coincides with the "periodic re-investigation" interval, which can also be different, depending upon the nature of the clearances.