The U.S. Secret Service is under intense scrutiny following explosive whistleblower allegations that the agency ignored insider-threat warnings and hired an applicant who failed the terrorism portion of a polygraph exam. The allegations have sparked concerns over systemic security breakdowns within one of the nation’s most vital protective agencies.
A former Secret Service agent, speaking under whistleblower protections, testified before Congress that the agency knowingly overlooked serious internal warnings. According to his account, he raised red flags about a specific applicant who failed the terrorism section of a polygraph test—a failure that would typically disqualify a candidate. Instead of being dismissed, this individual was hired and placed in a sensitive position evaluating the security clearances of other agents.
🚨🚨EXCLUSIVE AND BREAKING: SECRET SERVICE ACCUSED OF FAILING TO RESPOND TO ‘INSIDER-THREAT’ COMPLAINTS
AGENCY HIRED APPLICANT WHO FAILED TERRORISM SECTION OF POLYGRAPH TEST AND NOW ALLOWS HIM TO EVALUATE OTHERS’ SECURITY CLEARANCES, WHISTLEBLOWER ALLEGES
The Secret Service… pic.twitter.com/7MUh1ARn9U
— Susan Crabtree (@susancrabtree) March 31, 2025
This represents a grave deviation from standard protocol, especially given the agency’s responsibility to protect the President, Vice President, and other top U.S. officials. The whistleblower’s statements suggest that political favoritism may have played a role, with well-connected applicants allegedly allowed multiple polygraph retakes until they pass—something not afforded to typical candidates.
Equally troubling is the revelation that the Secret Service does not require mental health evaluations for new hires—unlike the FBI, CIA, and many local law enforcement agencies. When RealClearPolitics reached out for comment, the agency refused to answer why these evaluations are not mandatory.
The whistleblower cited multiple coworkers who described the applicant in question as mentally unstable, yet no formal psychological screening was conducted before the hire. He submitted concerns to the agency’s Inspections Division, which oversees internal affairs, but no investigation was launched.
Instead of addressing the threat, the whistleblower claims he was retaliated against. After serving more than 20 years in the Secret Service, he says he was pressured to resign and now faces threats to his security clearance for continuing to pursue legal complaints.
“Instead of investigating the individual for posing a potential threat to the agency and the top U.S. officials it protects… the agent alleges he was retaliated against,” wrote RealClearPolitics’ Susan Crabtree.
Such alleged retaliation is not only unethical—it may be illegal, particularly under whistleblower protection statutes.
These revelations raise serious national security concerns. The Secret Service occupies a unique and essential role in the federal government. Its agents are entrusted with the physical safety of the most powerful figures in the country, from the President down to visiting foreign dignitaries.
If the agency is indeed ignoring red flags, waiving security protocols, and retaliating against those who speak out, it calls into question the integrity of the entire protective operation.
Congressional oversight bodies are likely to escalate inquiries, and demands for a full internal investigation—potentially even a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General probe—are expected.
