Trump makes HUGE miscalculation over No Kings

29:16And God forbid, Trump might have an opportunity to see that they're not being, you know, supplicants in the way he needs them to be. What do you hear from these people? You know, when they're in private? Well, it's fascinating because most of them will say that they're for the release of the Epstein files. Many of them have actually co-sponsored this bill, the Massey bill that is now subject of the discharge petition. But they won't sign the discharge petition because what they say is, well, you know, we follow what leadership wants to do. So they're basically saying we if Mike Johnson wants to put it on the floor, we'll vote for it.

29:58But if he decides he's not putting on the floor, I'm not going to go around his back with a discharge petition to force him to bring it to the floor. Which is bullshit. I mean, they want they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say that they're that they're you know, that they want transparency as it relates to the horrific crimes that Epstein perpetuated. And yet at the same time, don't want to actually do the thing to actually get that transparency. Right. Because we all know that if it were up to Mike Johnson, he would never bring that bill to the floor because it is now part of the cover up for Donald Trump and perhaps others that we don't know about.

30:37So if Johnson's not going to do it, the only way to get it to a floor vote is the discharge petition. Right. And so they know if they just blame the discharge petition, that's not the way we do things that they will. They are doing Donald Trump's bidding, which for all of them at this point, as we've seen for the last nine months, 10 months, that is everything that they are doing. They have completely, you use the right word, supplicated themselves to Donald Trump. There is no check and balance from Congress. There's no independent Article One authority that they're using to hold the administration accountable in any way, shape or form.

31:20They're doing nothing. They are rolling over as an additional vessel of Donald Trump. And this is their way of continuing to do it. But they're in a pickle because they've already come out and said they want it to be these files to be released. There's no good explanation why they can say they don't want them to. So they're focusing on process, which, as you say, is total bullshit. So let's talk about that process for a moment. Is it true that if they get the requisite 218 votes to force this for the discharge petition to force a vote on the floor, then if it goes through, then it's just regular order after that.

31:57and they need 60 votes in the Senate and they need a signature from Trump? Yes, it would be a regular legislation. OK, so so knowing full well that Trump is never going to sign this thing at the end of the day, do you think that if the dam broke and we actually did get over that hump of process where where finally we do have a vote for this thing on the floor that in the event Trump doesn't sign it and there needs to be a veto proof majority, then do you think that there would be a flood of Republicans to reach that threshold to actually overcome a presidential veto? Well, again, it would have to come to the floor for that vote, which is controlled by Mike Johnson and Republican leadership.

32:47I think what Donald Trump wants to avoid is being in a situation where he has to veto a bill that is requiring the transparency that he and all of his followers have called for. And then it will just be completely, the cab will be out of the bag that he's just covering it up for himself. This way, he's got plausible deniability. But I think if it gets to a vote, there will be more than two thirds of the House that does vote in support of this bill. I don't know what will happen in the Senate, and that remains to be seen. But it is supposed to come to the floor for a vote if you get 218. And it's unclear to me what will happen after that.

33:44It is supposed to, but this Republican leadership has been able to manufacture so many different ways of obstructing regular order that I don't put anything past them. Right. I mean, that that was my other concern was, look, he can't keep Representative-elect Grijalva out of the house forever. At some point, he's going to have to swear her in. Maybe look, maybe like maybe he's thinking like, oh, try me, you know, challenge accepted. But the reality is at some point she's going to have to come in. she will sign this discharge petition. It will be in a situation where it should then come to the floor for a vote.

34:21But even then, I mean, if Mike Johnson is willing to keep her out of the house for as long as he has, almost three weeks, when usually these representative elects are sworn in within 24 hours, then who knows what he'll do when the rules, the norms stipulate that a discharge petition has to come to the floor. Let me give you an example. When Trump implements tariffs under some of the statutes, it is required to come before Congress in order to be essentially ratified. Congress gets a say to endorse the tariffs and the rationale for the tariffs. And you've got, it requires, I think there are 15 session days before it is ripe to come to the floor.

35:07Mike Johnson literally put in one of the rules that they, Republicans, generally have to pass in order to bring a bill to the floor for a simple majority vote. He literally put in the rules that the clock on that particular bill introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Greg Meeks would stop. So it would never get to 15 days and it would never be ripe for a vote so that the Republicans would never have to vote on Trump's tariffs. So that just shows you the lengths he will go to to avoid normal process, regular order, and frankly, what the statute and law requires to protect Donald Trump and to supplicate himself to the president.

36:05Last question here. And I want to talk about an entirely different topic and just get your thoughts on this. We have heard so many Republicans, Mike Johnson, Pam Bondi, come out and basically try and declare that the upcoming No Kings Day protest is some gathering of Antifa. It's a it's a hate America rally. We've we've heard this this talking point over and over and over again. And so knowing that Donald Trump has already signed an executive order designating Antifa, this nebulous concept of Antifa as a terrorist organization, is there any concern that given the way that they're trying to brand the No Kings protest as some Antifa gathering that two and two can go together here and that they'll say anybody who then goes to this protest now that we've branded it an Antifa protest.

36:51is subject to the jurisdiction of the executive order I signed, and everybody could be rounded up by federal agents. Yeah, it's a great point. And I actually made that point when he first issued the executive order. Chris Wray, as FBI director, said very clearly when he testified that Antifa is an ideology. It is not an organization. So how you can name an ideology, a domestic terrorist group, is beyond me. But the point of doing it is to allow this massive flexibility and leeway, because it's undefined, to define it however you want to define it. And there's no question that they are doing this so that they are designated as a domestic terrorist group, which doesn't actually exist in statute in any meaningful way.

37:49There's no real enforceable definition. But optically, they can say, yeah, we're rounding these people up. They're domestic terrorists. And so I think that is a real concern. And it's why, you know, I think everybody should go to these rallies, should strongly advocate and for our democracy, for our rule of law, for health care. But it has to be peaceful. And it's very important that all of the attendees at these rallies are peacefully protesting, which is how they have been to this point. So I don't expect anything else. But given that what we've seen with ICE essentially creating violence in cities in order to claim that there's anarchy and chaos, we also have to be careful as to how much the administration and the federal government will try to drum up some sort of violence, essentially.

38:54Yeah, that's an excellent point. We'll leave it there. Congressman, as always, thanks for the time. Thanks, Brian.

39:24of your money and start building a better future with Acorns. Acorns is the financial wellness app that helps you invest for your future, save for tomorrow and spend smarter today. Acorns makes it easy to start doing more with your money. In fact, you can start automatically investing with just your spare change. You don't need to be a finance whiz. Acorns puts your money into an expert-built portfolio to make sure that you're investing wisely, not wildly. Plus, Acorns can support your money goals in life. A new car, a first home, investing for your kids, saving up for retirement and so much more.

39:53Acorns even has checking accounts that automatically invest for you and emergency funds that grow your money. It's all in one easy-to-use app. I've been using Acorns for a long time because I don't have the financial literacy or the time to be able to do this stuff on my own. That's where Acorns has been so helpful for me. So sign up now and Acorns is going to boost your new account with a$5 bonus investment. Join the over 14 million all-time customers who've already saved and invested over$25 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com slash BTC or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement, compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns, tier two compensation provided, investing involves risk, Acorns Advisors LLC, an SEC registered investment advisor, view important disclosures at acorns.com slash BTC.

40:36I'm joined now by the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia. Thanks for joining me. Happy to be here. Thank you. So we are now fast approaching what will be the longest delay of a House member being prevented from being sworn in. And that is all owed to the fact that Mike Johnson continues to do Donald Trump's bidding and do whatever he can to prevent the discharge petition from being signed. As we know, Representative-elect Grijalva would be the 218th signature. So do we have any update now in terms of Mike Johnson's willingness to actually do his job and swear in this new member of Congress?

41:13Well, first, it's obviously very clear now that Mike Johnson is now involved in this cover up. It started with Donald Trump, Vance, the DOJ, Pam Bondi. You know, they had they had the files. They want to release them. Mike Johnson had largely stayed out of the state out of it. And now it's very clear that he is doing Donald Trump's bidding and ensuring that these files not see the light of day. He doesn't want to vote. Adelita Grijalva, her election has been certified now by the secretary of state and the governor. She has 800 ,000 constituents that are waiting for representation. She can be sat whether it's a shutdown or whether the government is open.

41:48There is no reason why she should not be right now a full member of Congress. But we know that Mike Johnson doesn't want her to be the deciding vote of which she will be. She's already pledged to to actually get these files and a vote in Congress to get these released. And so it's outrageous what he's doing right now. Arizona's Attorney General Mays has said that what Mike Johnson is doing is illegal and that they have lawyers right now drafting litigation. Can I have your reaction to the prospect of litigation? because Mike Johnson is so hellbent on refusing to allow a duly elected member of Congress to actually be sworn in so that she can serve her constituents to the point where he risks being sued by the attorney general of Arizona.

42:33That's exactly right. I think the attorney general is completely right. That lawsuit hopefully will pressure Johnson to do the right thing. The reality is that she has been elected. She's been certified. She should be a full member of Congress. And it was sad to see her this last week. They've given her an office with no phone lines, no staff. She's at the Capitol trying to represent her constituents with no support. She can't, of course, vote. And so it's outrageous that other members of Congress have been sworn in immediately, even before certification, yet he refuses to do so for Adelita. So I think the speaker now is not only just on the verge of ripping away more people's health care, as we know, because because of these premiums are going to go up, which is a big reason why this shutdown is actually in place.

43:26But now he is denying the people of Arizona fair representation. So I'm hopeful that the attorney general in Arizona is successful. Well, it seems that while Mike Johnson is doing his best to help Donald Trump with that cover-up. There actually does seem to be some movement here. Can I have your reaction to the fact that Britain's Prince Andrew has relinquished the entirety of his royal titles because of these continued accusations against him in very much the same world as what we're dealing with on the Epstein front? Well, you know, look, Prince Andrew is a terrible, terrible person who's done horrific, horrific things to women and girls.

44:07And this is going to continue to come out. Our investigation on the Oversight Committee, I mean, just about a month ago, put out flight logs and would appear to be possible payments to Epstein and Maxwell through Prince Andrew. And the idea now that he is stepping down as more explosive information is to come out in the weeks ahead is the right decision. And I think that he is someone that is involved in horrific, horrific sexual violence. And look, this is a good day for justice for the survivors. And we're going to continue to put information out. And I think more information about Prince Andrew, I think will be coming out in the weeks ahead.

44:52Well, if it's serious enough that what still remains to be uncovered, still remains to be released is bad enough to get him to step down and relinquish his royal title. Wouldn't that be even more incentive for Mike Johnson to recognize that what is contained within the Epstein files is actually pretty serious, serious enough to scare Prince Andrew? And so maybe instead of burying it, maybe instead of making himself part of this cover up, he should actually be helping get some accountability, get some transparency on this issue? That's absolutely right. I mean, this is a moment where Mike Johnson can do the right thing.

45:30And he, the hypocrisy, he sat just right next to me. We were listening to the survivors when they were in D.C. And these women were looking and talking to the speaker and asking him for transparency and for justice. And look what he's doing right now. What did he say to them when they were appealing directly to Mike Johnson? I mean, look, he, you know, he talked about his own faith and how horrible it was, what had happened to them. But clearly, he's not taking action on his words. I mean, like, he presents himself. And that's the thing, like, he presents himself as this pious guy. He leads with his religion.

46:08He predicates his whole identity on his Christianity. And even in this situation that you're describing, he talked about how this is, you know, the links here between what's happened and how it makes him think about his own religion. But then why use that as a shield and not actually do anything about it? I think that's exactly right. And he is a huge hypocrite here for saying, leaning into his faith, leaning into support for these women, and yet playing cover up and being a part of this massive cover up around Jeffrey Epstein for Donald Trump and for who God knows who else. Because we know at the end of the day that there are very powerful men, very wealthy men in this country who right now are walking free, who have not been convicted or have any type of justice or accountability for what they've done.

47:00And our job on the Oversight Committee is to get to the truth, but also to show women and girls across this country that if you commit these horrific crimes and acts, that you are going to be held accountable. Because you are a powerful man, you don't get to just walk away. And we don't care again if you are a Democrat or a Republican or who is in these files. We're going to expose every single person. What is the long term play for Mike Johnson? Because he's clearly not going to be able to keep Representative-elect Grijalva out of Congress forever. There's going to come a point where, you know, whether it's days from now, weeks from now or months from now, and I wouldn't put it past Mike Johnson to make it months from now, but there's going to come a point where she's going to get into Congress and she will be that 218th vote.

47:43And so is this just a play for Mike Johnson where every day, every individual day, if he can just get through a 24 hour period where Grijalva doesn't sign on to this discharge position, that's a win in his book. Is there no long term thinking whatsoever? It's just, OK, let's get to tomorrow. Let's get to tomorrow. Let's get to tomorrow. And that's it. Look, I think they're going to try to delay the release of the files and they're going to try to stop our investigation every single chance they can. And, you know, they're going to lie. They're going to try to throw out misinformation. They're going to try to trick the public.

48:19And so it's our job to cut through that and to just carry on every single day until we get the full truth and a full release of the files. That is what we are doing. That's what we're we're if Mike Johnson thinks we're going to stop or he's going to somehow tire us out. You know, he's crazy because we're not we're going to we're going to stay on this. And I think it's important for us on the Oversight Committee to continue and press on every single day until we have justice for for these women. Switching gears here, there's been some concerns, some rumblings that Donald Trump is going to look at No King's Day or other cities where he's deployed the military and use any violence, violence that, by the way, he is trying his level best to gin up as some pretext to be able to take some severe action like invoke the Insurrection Act, for example.

49:07Do you have any worry that that he'll try to do that? I'm always worried with Donald Trump. He's illegally deploying National Guard and military into our cities without any requests from governors or mayors. He's causing more problems by going into many of these cities and actually solving anything. And we know like in places like Portland and others where there is enormous amount of peace and folks are peacefully protesting and they're trying to just show their First Amendment rights and freedoms to peacefully protest and demonstrate. He has the military and ICE and federal agents and law enforcement.

49:43And so I don't put anything past him. I think what's important for those of us who are going to be out and anyone that is going to be out for these No Kings rallies and parades is to peacefully protest, right? To stay peaceful. Donald Trump wants folks to overreact or he wants a reason for folks to be deployed. And we just can't give that to him. I think we've got to continue to do what we do, which is use our freedom to demand that in this country we do not have a king. And that is what this weekend is going to be about. We have seen judges in Los Angeles, Judge Breyer, Judge in Portland, that's Judge Immergut, and a judge in Chicago, Judge Perry, all deny Trump's basis for being able to deploy these troops.

50:27Judge Emmergut, who Trump himself appointed, said that the pretext he used to be able to justify this troop deployment was untethered to the facts. The Seventh Circuit just recently in this latest ruling affirmed a lower court's decision to block the release of these of these troops to be deployed into Chicago. So can I have your reaction first and foremost to the unwillingness of the judiciary to bend to Trump's will in his bad faith efforts to try and justify these deployments? Look, this has been a real bright spot, right, in how we've been taking on Donald Trump is we are winning in the courts.

51:06And I think the courts overwhelmingly are doing the right thing. We're not winning every case, obviously. But in many of these instances, you are seeing judges, both judges that have been appointed by Republicans and Democrats in many cases, do the right thing and really be that group of folks that are out in this country saying enough. And this presidential check of power has to be in place that our Constitution matters. And I think you're seeing that in these judges, very courageous. And right now you see the far right attacking judges. They're going out in some cases, intimidating the courts.

51:40And so it's a shame that the court that is probably doing the most harm right now is the Supreme Court. And you're seeing the lower courts and the appellate courts and others largely doing the right thing. It's the Supreme Court that we have a lot to worry about. These cases move up that ladder. But right now, what's happening in Los Angeles, especially around some of the ICE activity and what Donald Trump's trying to do with the National Guard, there's obviously been good legal movement there. Yeah. I mean, obviously, the Supreme Court is always cause for concern. But as of right, at least as of right now, we could take, you know, there is some silver lining to take from what we're seeing at the trial court and the circuit court level.

52:18So with that said, Congressman, I appreciate your time. Thanks so much. Thank you. I'm joined now by former senior State Department and CIA official Ned Price. Ned, thanks so much for joining me. Brian, thanks for having me back. Ned, there is a major story regarding Pete Hegseth that's in the news right now, and that is that he tried to put forward a brand new Pentagon policy expecting that everybody would fall in line. That is not happening in the slightest with news organizations, not just from the left, but even from the right or the far right opting to defy him here. So can you give a lay of the land of what's happening right now?

52:53Yeah, absolutely. Look, Brian, it's sometimes hard to keep track of all this because there are so many things emanating from this Pentagon that are alarming, that are dangerous, that are even corrosive to our democracy. And I actually think this one fits into all three. There was a directive that came out from the Pentagon around mid last month, and it basically told reporters, you can continue to have access to the building as reporters have had for decades in places like the Pentagon and the White House and the State Department. But, and here's the big but, you can only do so if you agree to report only that information that the Pentagon itself has approved for release.

53:33So if you were to report on classified information or even information that wasn't classified but that we tell you is sensitive, you're going to lose your access to the Pentagon. And some people might say, well, who cares if reporters have or don't have access to the Pentagon? If you're a reporter whose beat is Pete Hegseth and his team and the generals around him and what the Pentagon that's funded by one trillion dollars annually in U.S. taxpayers. If that's your beat and you don't have access to the building, you're going to be at a steep disadvantage. And chances are you are not going to hear or gain access to the stories that are really important for the American people to know.

54:16Now, I should say Pentagon reporters have done an admirable job over the past month or so trying to soften this. And they've achieved some gains. But this is still a really pernicious policy that the Pentagon is putting forward. They're basically now saying, OK, fine, you don't have to show us your reporting before you print it. But look, you at least have to acknowledge that if you print something we don't like, you can lose your access to this building. And so is the ultimate goal here basically just to put themselves in a situation where they feel like their own access to be able to get to any of these people to continue doing their jobs is predicated on only publishing glowing stories about this administration in a way to kind of quash dissent?

55:01Yeah, it's absolutely an attempt to cow the press corps that covers the Pentagon and that has covered the Pentagon day in, day out for decades now. Essentially what Pete Hegseth and the team around him wants, they don't want independent reporters. They want stenographers. They want people who are going to write press releases rather than stories about them. And look, if you're Pete Hegseth, you might understand why you're a little nervous about independent reporters walking around your building. After all, you're the one who's sending classified information over Signal. You're the one who has fired or forced out, you know, all of your top advisors, nearly all of your top advisors in the first month of your tenure.

55:44You're the one who has little access to the president and the broader administration. There are lots of unflattering things about this secretary of defense and the team around him. But the answer is not to essentially clamp down on their First Amendment rights. If you're Pete Hegseth, I think the better advice would be to do a better job and to be perhaps a bit more proud of the work you're doing and how you're doing it. So I want to put a list right here on the screen of all of the news outlets that refused to sign versus the one that did sign. So among those who refused to sign, I'm going to read this as quickly as I can.

56:23We have ABC News, The Alabama Monitor, Associated Press, Atlantic, Aviation Week, Axios, Bloomberg, Breaking Defense, CBS, CNN, Defense Daily, Defense News, Defense One, The Economist, Financial Times, Federal Times, Fox, The Guardian, The Hill, HuffPost, Military Times, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, Newsmax, NPR, PBS, Politico, RealClearPolitics, Reuters, Task and Purpose, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Washington Times, WTOP. of those who decided to sign on to this was, and I hope you're all sitting down for this, One America News. That's it. And so what does it say that even some of these very conservative outlets, like these are not, this is not like the coalition to defend Black Lives Matter exactly when you have, you know, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times all signing on, all refusing to sign on to this effort put forward by Pete Hegseth.

57:23And so what's your reaction to the fact that the only organization they did get to sign on to this thing was One America News and that even plenty of these right wing networks thought this was a bridge too far? Yeah, look, I mean, it's interesting and a very good thing that the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, among others, signed on to this. But I think the really important one is Fox. And I say that not because Fox has the market share, really defines the narrative and the conversation on the right. But I say that because this is Pete Hegseth's former employer. You know, Pete Hegseth would not be secretary of defense were he not the Fox News weekend host over recent years.

58:03And so when you say it like that, it makes it sound like it like it wasn't the sterling qualification that set somebody up to be secretary of defense. Yeah, it's it's it was untraditional to. to put it mildly. But, you know, perhaps that will send a signal to Pete Hegseth and the team around him that even he has gone too far for his former employer and his frequent host, the cable news show that he's frequently on. But look, I think there was also another notable element in all of this. Yes, these print reporters came together. Yes, the Correspondence Association from the White House and the State Department issued a joint statement.

58:43But I think what may be most notable is the fact that the TV correspondents came out with a joint statement and essentially rejecting this as that long litany of others did. And I say that's notable because this is an administration that craves the spotlight. They need attention. They need the press coverage that they know their boss, Donald Trump, is going to watch day in, day out on Fox News, on some of these other networks that have signed on to this. And so, look, if these TV networks continue to band together and they are jointly kicked out and there's no glowing coverage from Fox or there's no coverage at all from anyone of this Pentagon, that ultimately is going to be a bad thing.

59:27yes, for our democracy, which I care about. Yes, for the right of the public to know, which I care about, but also for Pete Hegseth. Because when Donald Trump turns on Fox, he's not going to see Pete Hegseth there standing at the podium, really in a self-aggrandizing way, praising his boss. And that's going to be a problem. In your honest opinion, why do you think that some of these right wing networks, and in fact, I'm just remembering now that even the Daily Caller, certainly far to the right of Fox and Washington Examiner and Washington Times. Even they refuse to sign on. Why do you presume that these news outlets decided to take this stand, knowing that, you know, in reality, they are probably going to give the exact type of glowing coverage that Pete Hexeth wants anyway?

1:00:13And so whereas it would have been easy for them to just kind of sign on to some to say that they would do something that they likely were going to do anyway, why take this stand? Yeah, so I think two primary reasons. Number one, and perhaps most importantly, this is so far-fetched and this is just so outlandish that the Pentagon would ask independent news outlets, even though that have partisan affiliations on the right or that lean right politically, even they realize just how in contravention this is to their work that is protected by the First Amendment. The idea that they would have to pre-clear or that they couldn't ask certain questions or any questions they might like of officials in the Pentagon, even for Fox, even for the Daily Caller, the Free Beacon or the Washington Times or others, that was just a bridge too far.

1:01:05But second, look, you know, these news organizations, and in some cases that is a charitable term, they need to have some degree of credibility. Look, OAN has clearly decided that it is just a MAGA outlet, all MAGA, all the time, all glowing, nothing else. But, you know, for The Washington Times, for The Free Beacon, for The Daily Caller, I think they do need to ensure their audiences and try to reassure them that they're not stenographers and that while their coverage may often be positive, if not fawning towards this administration, that they're going to call balls and strikes as they see them.

1:01:46And if they were to sign on to this, I think any sort of perception that there was any bit of independence there would be totally eviscerated. So it's also in their interest to work with these other outlets and trying to shut this down. And so we've seen the effectiveness of these organizations coming together to get what they want. And it's very likely that there's going to be some change that has to take place because otherwise, to your exact point, there won't be any coverage. And I think the last thing that a president who is solely focused on central casting and media attention wants is just a media blackout when it comes to the Pentagon.

1:02:19But then in that case, if the news outlets recognize the effectiveness of this strategy, why not employ it at other moments? Like, for example, when the AP was banned from the press briefing room for daring say that the Gulf of Mexico is still called the Gulf of Mexico and not kind of adhering to the White House's edict that it just be called the Gulf of America. Yeah, look, you put your finger on something that's really interesting, I think. And my own view is that this stems from where these reporters are. This is the Pentagon Press Association. You know, these are serious reporters who day in, day out aren't there chasing the political stories, who's up, who's down.

1:03:00They are there really covering the matters of national security, what this institution that again is the recipient of a trillion or so dollars annually in U.S. taxpayer funding is doing, is not doing, how it's running, how it's not working in some cases. And so these are serious people, and they've come together in a serious way, despite some of the ideological divides in the case of some of these more partisan or politically leaning outlets. I think the White House press corps is quite different in that sense. It's a much more fractious bunch. It is a crew that is much more interested in the horse race and the politics of it all.

1:03:42I don't want to say they're more focused on trivial matters, but in some cases they're focused more on personality over substance. And it's much harder for them to come together because everything they do is under a much larger political magnifying glass. But look, my hope is that the White House Correspondents Association and reporters who cover this administration across D.C. and around the world will really get a spine after seeing what these Pentagon reporters are doing. They've already eked out some, at least small, changes. And I think you're right. Given the stakes and given the possibility that Pete Hegseth is facing his own media blackout, I think they will extract more concessions.

1:04:24And in turn, I hope that provides a good lesson for their colleagues across the river at the White House. I don't know, Ned. I take issue with the suggestion that Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend, Brian Glenn, is not a serious reporter. Sorry to offend. You're in his sensitive sensibilities there. Yeah. OK, let's finish off with this. You had alluded to the fact that there would be changes here. What kind of changes do you anticipate we'll see here? And frankly, recognizing the power that all of these media outlets have by virtue of banding together, can't they really create big changes if they want to see them?

1:05:02I mean, recognizing that the power they have by organizing here, really, they don't have to necessarily just settle for changes around the edges. can't they just get exactly what they want and stand their ground and not feel like they have to settle for some half measure or, okay, we're not completely surrendering all of our autonomy and so that's good enough for us? They see that they have effect. They did the hard part already. They banded together. They said no. They got the Fox News and Daily Callers to agree with The Atlantic and ABC News and Washington Post and New York Times. That's the hard part.

1:05:38So at this point, why not go all the way and try to get as much protection and and as as firm, you know, guarantees as they possibly could? Yeah. So I'd say a couple of things. Number one, this is a group of reporters that really can't surrender. And I say they can't surrender because surrendering, surrendering here would be tantamount to confessing they're not going to do their job or not being in a position to do their job. But at the same time, I think this is an administration that in many ways is unwilling to surrender entirely. And so I think there has to be some sort of middle ground here that allows both sides to at least claim the victory.

1:06:18And look, the nub that continues to prevent these reporters from going along with this is the idea that they have to sign to at least acknowledge that they understand the Pentagon guidance that they are not to publish this and that it could be if they do publish classified or even unclassified but otherwise sensitive information grounds for expulsion from the Pentagon. Look, I think one potential off-ramp here is that the Pentagon sticks with these rules and says, look, if you publish classified information or information that's unclassified that we don't like for whatever reason, we reserve the right to kick you off.

1:06:57But we're not going to make you sign this. We're not going to make you acknowledge that you understand that. That could be one off-ramp. Look, I don't want to say that's the ideal scenario. We don't want an administration that even purports to dictate what independent journalists can or can't report. But at least that will get us off the impasse. And if reporters aren't forced to acknowledge or to sign and they print something that the administration doesn't want, then we can save this for the next battle when the administration actually tries to make good on the guidance that it put out. And even if they didn't force reporters to sign this in the first place.

1:07:34We'll leave it there. Ned, as always, I appreciate your time and thank you for the expertise. Thanks so much, Brian. Good to see you. Thanks again to Adam Schiff, Daniel Goldman, Robert Garcia, and Ned Price. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week.

1:08:00and leave a 5 star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels or you can go to BrianTylerCohen.com to learn more.