Pentagon requests $30.3 million for AI lie detector development

The Pentagon has asked Congress for $30.3 million to build an artificial‑intelligence‑driven lie detector, a program it says will be rolled out over the next five years and used in military interrogations and security screenings. The request was filed in the Defense Department’s annual budget proposal and earmarked for a new research effort under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The move comes as the U.S. government seeks faster, more reliable ways to assess truthfulness after years of mixed results with traditional polygraph tests. Recent advances in machine learning have made it possible to analyze facial micro‑expressions, voice stress and physiological signals at scale. Officials argue that an AI system could reduce human error and speed up decision‑making in high‑stakes environments, from combat zones to airport security. Critics, however, warn that the technology is still unproven and could be vulnerable to bias, especially when trained on limited data sets.

DARPA’s “Deception Detection” project will lead the effort, partnering with universities and private firms that specialize in computer vision and speech analysis. Early prototypes have shown promise in lab settings, detecting deception with accuracy rates that exceed those of human operators by a modest margin. The program will initially focus on controlled experiments with volunteer participants, before moving to field trials in military bases. Civil‑rights groups have already filed comments with the Office of Management and Budget, urging safeguards to protect privacy and prevent misuse.

If Congress approves the funding, the Pentagon plans to begin full‑scale development within the next twelve months. The first phase will involve building a data‑rich repository of truth‑verification scenarios and training the AI models. Subsequent phases will test the system in real‑world interrogations, with the goal of integrating it into existing security workflows by 2030. The outcome could reshape how the military and other agencies evaluate credibility, but it also raises questions about accountability and the ethical limits of automated surveillance.