> according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts

After all the examples of the media getting caught playing fast and loose with anonymous sources, I’m going to take this one with a huge grain of salt.

DHS and Musk’s people confirmed it. See Reuters back in May 21.

From Teuters: "officials quickly launched an investigation to find out who was leaking to the press"

Leading is a bit different than "loyalty tests" isn't it?

The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around.

> DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” a DHS spokesperson told Reuters.

Maybe that’s true? I think HN was ok with this because it felt like a rational reaction to bringing guys like Big Balls into the SCIF.

It’s not illegal for me to share non-confidential data of my employer either, but if you were hiring, would you want to understand an applicants attitudes towards such leaks especially after having issues with it in the past?

I would.

So it’s not involved in a criminal investigation. Then it’s a loyalty test. Specifically, it reassures them you can keep a secret.

To be fair, that's an important qualification for the job regardless of who is president.

It's just the political loyalty that's a bad requirement.

Why would political loyalty be bad? These are cabinet positions, not representatives of the voters whose actions change with changing voter sentiment.

The cabinet is chosen to implement the President’s policies. It would be odd to select for people opposed to the policies or those would actively try and stop them through leaks.

Political loyalty is not bad (to a degree) but it is never good when it replaces actual competence as the main qualification, or when the required degree of loyalty is unreasonable.

They are being asked if they have disparaged Patel or the administration. Not just keeping secrets. They want loyalty to the regime, not the nation. That is obvious enough given the overt actions of the entire DOJ.