Summary
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has ordered lie detector tests for DHS staff to identify leaks that allegedly foiled immigration raids, including a failed Colorado operation targeting Venezuelan gang members.
The directive, leaked to Bloomberg, requires polygraph questions about unauthorized communications with media and nonprofits. Despite polygraphs’ unreliability, DHS insists they are necessary for national security.
The crackdown follows frustration from Trump’s border czar Tom Homan over compromised raids and aligns with broader MAGA-era efforts to control government communication.
I think it’s meant to “snuff out” as in “kill” the leaks, not necessarily the perpetrators. Like, we’re gonna do this to end the leaks. The wording is somewhat awkward and questionable, but not necessarily incorrect. Snuff out is used to refer to extinguishing candles, so it’s not unheard of to use it in contexts other than ending human lives.
I see your line of thinking, but let’s also remember that polygraphs wouldn’t end leaks even if they really were lie detectors. The most they could do in that fictional scenario would be to reveal the leaks; to sniff them out. To snuff them out would require some additional, separate action.
Also snuff out applies to candles only because the snuff is literally part of a candle’s wick. The phrase is not being used literally here, which leaves us with the common non-literal meaning: to murder.
I still think the most charitable interpretation is that author confused it with sniff out, and failed to consider the grisly meaning of what they wrote.
If you want to go the linguistic history route, “snuff” literally meant “to sniff at in order to examine” starting in 1810, so it’s technically (the best kind of?) correct to use it in this context, although still awkward in terms of modern colloquialisms.
I’m going as far back as the 1400s, and your 1810 usage doesn’t match any common meaning of “snuff out”, so I don’t think it really applies here. But thanks for the interesting etymological diversion. :)
In any case, polygraphs still cannot put an end to leaks, so I stand by my original interpretation.
And I stand by mine, as “snuff something out” in the modern Cambridge dictionary is “to cause to end suddenly,” and of course that’s what they’re trying to do by using a polygraph as “evidence” (which it’s not going to accomplish, but that doesn’t stop attempted improper usage of the device). Their approach (as in many things) is horribly wrong, but the reporter’s word usage is not improper.