Nancy Guthrie Update Today: Polygraph Reports Surface as Investigators Say Glove DNA Hit a Dead End and Cross-Border Checks Continue

Nancy Guthrie, 84, remains missing today, Thursday, February 19, 2026, in USA Eastern Time, as investigators press forward with a case they have described as an abduction from her home near Tucson, Arizona. The latest developments center on three pressure points: reported polygraph activity tied to the investigation, a setback involving DNA recovered from gloves found near the scene, and continued coordination with authorities in Mexico as a precaution given the region’s proximity to the border.

No official public confirmation of her location has been released, and there has been no publicly verified proof-of-life update.

What’s new today in the Nancy Guthrie case

Here are the most notable updates circulating today, with clear separation between what officials have publicly stated and what is still developing:

• Polygraph reports: New reporting today says polygraph tests are being conducted at the Pima County Sheriff’s Office in connection with the case. Officials have indicated an “update” would be provided, but publicly available details about who is being tested and what role the tests play have not been confirmed in a formal, detailed release.

• Glove DNA update: Investigators have said that DNA from gloves recovered near the area did not produce a match in a national DNA database. That’s a meaningful setback because a database match can quickly identify a suspect or connect a person to prior cases. Without it, investigators must lean harder on traditional work: video timelines, phone and vehicle data, interviews, and targeted forensic comparisons.

• Border coordination: Investigators have made clear they are exploring multiple pathways, including notifying Mexican authorities about the case. Officials have also emphasized that there is no confirmed evidence she was taken across the border; the outreach appears to be a precautionary step, not a confirmation of a cross-border move.

• Reward and tip volume: The reward structure around the case remains a major lever. In addition to a six-figure federal reward previously publicized, an additional privately offered reward has been reported in some coverage, and authorities continue to describe a very large number of tips coming in. High tip volume can help, but it also creates triage pressure, because most tips are noise and only a few are actionable.

What investigators are signaling without saying it outright

Two themes keep surfacing in official comments: first, that this was not random, and second, that the case is being treated as solvable if the right detail breaks loose.

Local officials have suggested the abductor may have had a “target” in mind. That framing matters. It pushes the investigative theory away from opportunistic burglary-gone-wrong and toward a scenario where the suspect arrived with intent, a plan, and some expectation of control.

At the same time, the DNA setback on the glove indicates at least one early forensic hope did not pay off. That does not mean there is no usable DNA in the case. It means the particular sample they tested did not immediately identify someone through a database hit, which is a different question than whether investigators have evidence that can be compared to known individuals later.

Behind the headline: why polygraph talk shows up at this stage

Polygraph mentions often appear when investigators are doing two things at once: narrowing the field of plausible storylines and putting psychological pressure on people who might be holding back information.

A polygraph result is not the same as proof, and it’s not a substitute for physical evidence. But it can be used as an investigative tool to guide interviews, surface inconsistencies, and encourage cooperation. Even the public discussion of polygraphs can change behavior, because it signals that investigators believe they are close enough to a person of interest to apply higher-pressure tactics.

The incentives here are straightforward:

• Investigators want one clean lead they can corroborate quickly.

• People around the suspect may be weighing loyalty against fear, guilt, or the reward.

• The public wants certainty, which can fuel misinformation that slows tip sorting and complicates witness interviews.

What we still don’t know today

Despite the headlines, the most important unknowns are unchanged:

• Where Nancy Guthrie is now, and whether she is being held or has been moved repeatedly

• Whether there has been any credible communication from an abductor, and whether any message was authenticated

• Whether investigators have identified a specific suspect, vehicle, or route based on camera footage and data

• Whether the case is trending toward a ransom motive, a personal grievance motive, or something else

These gaps are exactly why officials continue to ask the public for video footage and specific, timestamped observations rather than theories.

What happens next: 5 realistic scenarios and the triggers to watch

1. A tip becomes actionable because it includes a specific object or timestamp
   Trigger: someone recognizes a distinctive item, vehicle, or repeated pattern and provides a precise time and place.

2. Investigators tighten the circle with targeted interviews and warrants
   Trigger: corroborated data from cameras, phone records, or purchases narrows the suspect pool.

3. A formal public briefing clarifies the role of polygraphs and the status of leads
   Trigger: pressure to reduce misinformation and reassure the community.

4. Reward dynamics prompt a second wave of credible tips
   Trigger: someone close to the suspect decides the risk of silence is higher than the risk of speaking.

5. Public messaging becomes more restrained to protect operational details
   Trigger: investigators believe they are nearing a break and want to limit what a suspect can learn from coverage.

As of today, the cleanest summary is this: Nancy Guthrie is still missing; investigators are continuing cross-border coordination as a precaution; glove DNA did not yield a database match; and polygraph-related activity is being reported as part of ongoing investigative steps.