The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is disputing reports that acting Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Madhu Gottumukkala failed a polygraph after seeking access to highly sensitive intelligence, as an internal investigation and the suspension of multiple career cybersecurity officials deepen turmoil inside the agency, according to a report.

Politico reported that Gottumukkala pushed for access to a tightly restricted intelligence program that required a counter-intelligence polygraph and that at least six career staffers were later placed on paid administrative leave for allegedly misleading leadership about the requirement, an assertion DHS strongly denies.

The outlet said its reporting was based on interviews with four former and eight current cybersecurity officials, including multiple Trump administration appointees who worked with Gottumukkala or had knowledge of the polygraph examination and the events that followed. All 12 were granted anonymity over concerns about retaliation, according to Politico.

DHS pushed back on the reporting, saying the polygraph at issue was not authorized and that disciplinary action against career staff complied with department policy.

‘Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala did not fail a sanctioned polygraph test. An unsanctioned polygraph test was coordinated by staff, misleading incoming CISA leadership,’ DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. ‘The employees in question were placed on administrative leave, pending conclusion of an investigation.’

‘We expect and require the highest standards of performance from our employees and hold them directly accountable to uphold all policies and procedures,’ she continued. ‘Acting Director Gottumukkala has the complete and full support of the Secretary and is laser focused on returning the agency to its statutory mission.’

Politico also reported that Gottumukkala failed a polygraph during the final week of July, citing five current officials and one former official.

The test was administered to determine whether he would be eligible to review one of the most sensitive intelligence programs shared with CISA by another U.S. spy agency, according to the outlet.

That intelligence was part of a controlled access program with strict distribution limits, and the originating agency required any CISA personnel granted need-to-know access to first pass a counter-intelligence polygraph, according to four current officials and one former official cited by Politico.

As a civilian agency, most CISA employees do not require access to such highly classified material or a polygraph to be hired, though polygraphs are commonly used across the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community to protect the government’s most sensitive information.

Politico reported that senior staff raised questions on at least two occasions about whether Gottumukkala needed access to the intelligence, but said he continued pressing for it even if it meant taking a polygraph, citing four current officials.

The outlet also reported that an initial access request in early June, signed by mid-level CISA staff, was denied by a senior agency official who determined there was no urgent need-to-know and noted that the agency’s previous deputy director had not viewed the program.

That senior official was later placed on administrative leave for unrelated reasons in late June, and a second access request signed by Gottumukkala was approved in early July after the official was no longer in the role, according to current officials cited by Politico.

Despite being advised that access to the most sensitive material was not essential to his job and that lower-classification alternatives were available, Gottumukkala continued to pursue access, officials told the outlet.

Officials interviewed by Politico said they could not definitively explain why Gottumukkala did not pass the July polygraph and cautioned that failures can occur for innocuous reasons such as anxiety or technical errors, noting that polygraph results are generally not admissible in U.S. courts.

On Aug. 1, shortly after the polygraph, at least six career staff involved in scheduling and approving the test were notified in letters from then–acting DHS Chief Security Officer Michael Boyajian that their access to classified national security information was being temporarily suspended for potentially misleading Gottumukkala, according to officials and a letter reviewed by Politico.

‘This action is being taken due to information received by this office that you may have participated in providing false information to the acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding the existence of a requirement for a polygraph examination prior to accessing certain programs,’ the letter said. ‘The above allegation shows deliberate or negligent failure to follow policies that protect government information, which raises concerns regarding an individual’s trustworthiness, judgment, reliability or willingness and ability to safeguard classified information.’

In a separate letter dated Aug. 4, the suspended employees were informed by Acting CISA Chief Human Capital Officer Kevin Diana that they had been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, according to current and former officials and a copy reviewed by Politico.

Gottumukkala was appointed CISA deputy director in May and previously served as commissioner and chief information officer for South Dakota’s Bureau of Information and Technology, which oversees statewide technology and cybersecurity initiatives.

CISA said in a May press release that Gottumukkala has more than two decades of experience in information technology and cybersecurity across the public and private sectors.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said Sunday it restored a photo featuring President Donald Trump to its latest release of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents after a review determined the image did not depict any Epstein victims.

In a post on X, the DOJ said the photo was initially taken down ‘out of an abundance of caution’ after the Southern District of New York flagged it for additional review to protect potential victims.

Following a review, officials concluded no Epstein victims were shown in the photograph, and it was reposted without ‘alteration or redaction,’ according to the DOJ.

‘The Southern District of New York flagged an image of President Trump for potential further action to protect victims,’ the DOJ wrote. ‘Out of an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice temporarily removed the image for further review. After the review, it was determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph, and it has been reposted without any alteration or redaction.’

Earlier Sunday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the removal of the photo had ‘nothing to do with President Trump’ and was instead driven by concerns for the women depicted, he said during an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

The explanation came after reports that at least 16 files had disappeared from the DOJ’s Epstein-related public webpage less than a day after they were posted on Friday, without public notice or an initial explanation, The Associated Press reported.

The missing files included one that showed a series of photos displayed on a cabinet and inside a drawer. In the drawer, there was a photo of Donald Trump pictured alongside Melania Trump, Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, AP reported.

On Saturday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee criticized the removal of the photo, writing, ‘We need transparency for the American public.’

‘This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release,’ Democrats on the House Oversight Committee posted on X. ‘[Attorney General Pam Bondi] is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.’

The DOJ released the trove of files after The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Trump on Nov. 19, 2025, required AG Pam Bondi to release all unclassified records, communications and investigative materials related to Epstein within 30 days.

The agency posted thousands of pages on a government website Friday related to Epstein’s and Maxwell’s sex-trafficking cases. The files were released as the result of a deadline imposed by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Fox News Digital’s Lori Bashian contributed to this report.

Republicans from the House Oversight Committee released a report outlining what they allege are conflicts of interest, financial mismanagement and oversight failures associated with a Biden-era green energy grant program that sent $20 billion to just 8 different nonprofits.

The money stems from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which budgeted roughly $27 billion to advance clean energy and ‘environmental justice’ under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). An undercover recording of a former Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) political appointee, who described disbursements made through GGRF as akin to tossing gold bars off the Titanic at the end of Biden’s term, was cited by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in February when he announced that the agency would be looking into the matter. Republicans are currently trying to claw back the funds, which they claim were rushed out the door at the end of the Biden administration with little oversight and steered toward Democratic allies. 

‘Today’s report from the House Oversight Committee exposes the Biden administration’s sweeping green energy scheme, designed to funnel tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to enrich Democratic allies and fund partisan, politically motivated projects,’ House Republican Oversight Chairman James Comer told Fox News Digital. ‘Americans deserve better than this green energy scam disguised as environmental justice, and Oversight Republicans will continue to hold the Biden administration accountable to ensure the EPA operates as intended and that taxpayer dollars are spent transparently, responsibly, and in the best interest of the American people.’

The EPA terminated most of these grants after the Trump administration took office, but the move was met with legal pushback from Democrats. However, last week, a federal appeals court judge struck down a lower court’s ruling that blocked the Trump administration’s move to freeze the funds, arguing the administration was acting in accordance with its role to provide ‘proper oversight’ of how funds are distributed.

The EPA has referred the matter to the agency’s inspector general. The Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation are also running concurrent investigations, the EPA has indicated. However, up to this point, no criminal wrongdoing has been uncovered.   

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., declined to comment on the matter. Additionally, several other top ranking Democrats, including the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., did not respond to requests for comment.

However, in an Aug. 11 letter to Zeldin signed by several ranking Democrats, including Clarke, they accused Zeldin of ‘lying’ about the Inflation Reduction Act funding. 

‘Time and again, you have boasted about the unlawful activities EPA is conducting under your leadership without any credible evidence to justify your actions,’ the letter stated.

While there may not be any criminal wrongdoing alleged thus far, the picture painted by the investigation by House Oversight Republicans shows the Biden administration ‘turned the Environmental Protection Agency into a vehicle for rewarding political allies, all while risking the stability of our energy infrastructure,’ according to Comer.

‘Today’s report from the House Oversight Committee exposes the Biden administration’s sweeping green energy scheme, designed to funnel tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to enrich Democratic allies and fund partisan, politically motivated projects,’ Comer added.

The report released by Oversight Republicans details how committee staff reviewed ‘tens of thousands’ of documents produced by the GGRF awardees in question. The documents also included EPA materials for reviewing and awarding the GGRF funds, among other records.

The report shows how the EPA judged the applicants using a scoring system that awarded points for different parts of the nonprofits’ proposals. For example, flawless ‘financial risk management’ awarded a total of 85 points, while flawless ‘legal and compliance risk management’ could provide an applicant up to 40 possible points. Meanwhile, the EPA weighted ‘equity and environmental justice’ the same way it did ‘financial statements’ and more than it weighted good ‘governance’ or ‘legal and compliance risk management,’ among other categories. 

‘By doing so, the EPA all but ensured that the grants would go to President Biden’s political allies. All awardees of the GGRF had ‘climate equity’ or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in place or committed to putting equivalent policies in place,’ the House Oversight report argues. ‘EPA criticized multiple applicants because their targeted reductions in emissions were too low. In other cases, the EPA staff complained that there was not enough ‘environmental justice’ expertise represented in leadership or on the boards of the nonprofits. The Biden EPA insisted on climate equity metrics over merit.’

After receiving their scores, the program provided a ‘reconciliation process’ for EPA staff to discuss their assessments and adjust their scores, according to the Oversight report. The ultimate decision was then passed to a single ‘selection official’ who made the final determination.

The report also claims that the disbursement review process was ‘full of contradictions.’ It says documents showed EPA officials had concerns about the groups receiving the funds related to overly optimistic projections for financial benefits or emissions reductions, lack of access to private capital, high uninsured cash balances, and lack of transparency. Simultaneously, in other documents, the EPA justified the GGRF recipients as entities ‘with track records, staff, risk management policies, and other programmatic capabilities,’ according to the House Oversight report.

One of the groups under scrutiny, Climate United Fund, was established for the purpose of utilizing the GGRF, according to the Oversight report. The report points to claims from EPA staff indicating the group is ‘a new-entity purpose built for the execution of our program plan and does not have a robust reporting history.’

Climate United, reported just $95,557 in assets for fiscal year 2023 but received $6.97 billion from the EPA, representing a 7,293,980% increase in reported assets since 2023, the Oversight report points out.

Other groups also saw similarly significant increases.

Power Forward Communities received $2 billion as part of the GGRF disbursements. The group, not established until after the Biden administration announced the GGRF application process, reported just $100 in assets in its first and only tax filing – meaning that following the $2 billion GGRF award, the entities’ assets increased 2,000,000,000%, according to the House Oversight report.

‘These tired allegations distract from the fact that EPA’s illegal funding freeze will drive up energy costs for hardworking Americans across the country. When household bills are skyrocketing, Congress should be focused on deploying cheap, clean energy technologies rather than resurfacing false claims,’ Brooke Durham, a spokesperson for Climate United told Fox News Digital when reached for comment. ‘Climate United welcomes the opportunity to explain our work and the benefits of the NCIF program to Congress, federal agencies, and to the public.’

The spokesperson also noted that while the Climate United coalition – which is made up of three separate organizations – is new, the organizations that make it up are not.

‘The organizations that make up Climate United have been investing in communities for over 30 years, and are experts in the capital markets who have collectively managed more than $30 billion in institutional and public funds,’ Durham said. She added that the group was proud to tout a 946.5 point evaluation score by the EPA out of a possible 1050 points, which Durham noted was among the highest of all the awardees.

Power Forward declined to comment. However, the group’s CEO, Tim Mayopolous told CBS News last month that the GGRF award process ‘was a highly structured, competitive process that the United States government went through.’

‘The organizations that are part of our coalition that actually do this work – they have been around collectively for nearly a century, and they have invested or disbursed over $100 billion of capital into communities all over America over those years,’ Mayopolous added. ‘We’re not inexperienced people.’    

Climate United, along with some of the other groups in question, are also under fire for allegedly inflating their executives’ salaries and travel benefits in proposed budgets. The CEO’s salary at Climate United was slated to be over $500,000, and at Power Forward $800,000, with an increase to over $900,00 in a year. One group produced a budget that paid its executive staff of seven employees a total of $24,862,419 over three years, according to the report.

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest, which Zeldin has described as ‘blatant,’ were also laid bare in the report. The director of the GGRF selected by the Biden White House was a former policy director at the group that wanted to pay their executive staffers close to a combined $25 million over three years, according to the report. The report says the director had to recuse himself from the award process because of the conflict.   

At Climate United, the group currently staffs a former Biden climate advisor who worked during the last two years of the former president’s term. Their board makeup while pursuing the GGRF award also had ties to the Obama administration. However, Durham contested the implication that there were conflicts of interest, telling Fox News Digital that no staff or board members at Climate United helped with the design of the program, or the selection of the award recipients.

Power Forward’s GGRF application process was also accused of being led by Democrat allies in the Republican Oversight report. Power Forward was founded by executives at nonprofit Rewiring America, co-founded by top Obama administration advisors, the report states. It also claims that Power Forward had planned on awarding Rewiring America with nearly $500,000,000.

‘The nonprofits receiving awards are littered with connections to Biden Administration staff and allies. The executives and board members at some of the GGRF’s awardees even helped write the policies that created the GGRF and are now benefitting from exorbitant salaries provided by taxpayers,’ the House Oversight report states. 

‘The GGRF was a huge step for the Left in realizing the Green New Deal. The program is a National Green Bank that will flood the economy with billions in taxpayer dollars to fund partisan projects regardless of whether they merit investment or not.’

The federal trial of Ryan Routh, the accused would-be assassin of President Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club last year, is scheduled to begin Thursday. 

After several rounds of jury selection that began Monday, a panel of 12 jurors — along with four alternates — were seated Wednesday. The group includes six White women, four White men, one Black woman and one Black man. The alternates consist of two White women and two White men.

Opening arguments are scheduled for Thursday at the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida, where prosecutors are expected to move swiftly into presenting their case.

Roughly 180 people were summoned for jury duty in three waves of 60. Both prosecutors and Routh, who has declined public defense and has chosen to self-represent, questioned candidates to determine whether they could serve impartially.

Routh peppered prospective jurors with offbeat questions, asking about Ukraine, the war in Gaza and even what they would do if a turtle crossed the road while they were driving.

The most recent high-profile federal defendant to represent themselves was Dylann Storm Roof, the mass murderer responsible for the 2015 Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting. Roof briefly represented himself in the federal death penalty phase of his trial in 2016. He requested to proceed pro se and was allowed to do so for part of the proceedings before ultimately reverting to court-appointed counsel.

By the end of Tuesday, the court had already dismissed more than 70 of the initial 180 prospective jurors, many citing strong opinions about Trump, connections to law enforcement or concerns about impartiality in a highly politicized case. 

Routh has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate and assaulting a federal officer. Prosecutors say he was armed with an AK-style rifle when Secret Service agents stopped him near Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach in September 2024. The attempt came just months after Trump was shot and narrowly survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pa.

The trial is expected to last two to four weeks with Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon at the helm of the trial.

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report.