The Pentagon’s Press Purge | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: I want to go back to the first one that you said. [LAUGHS] I'm sorry. I'm sorry to laugh. It's just so-- first of all, the biggest security classified. leak threat within the Pentagon is Hegseth himself, I mean, that dumbass Signal chat where they were just, you know--. I think it was The Atlantic, right? Wasn't it Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. was just added to a group chat where. he was like, here's the coordinates of the attack, and here's what time we're doing it. Enjoy. [MUSIC PLAYING].

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to another Weekly Show podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. It is Wednesday. What are there-- October 22. There we got. Show's gonna come out tomorrow. I am still in the afterglow of all. that happened this past weekend, with millions. and millions of people coming out. to the streets and the President of the United States. showing a video of him as a king in an airplane,

dropping what can only be described as diarrhea. And really, more than you would think that plane. was capable of carrying. It was a lot of diarrhea that the president. dumped on the No Kings protesters in the video. that he did. And I just want to point out just very quickly that that's. the president of the United States. of America, long lineage of great men from Lincoln. to Washington, Roosevelt, Jefferson,

even the shitty ones. You know what I mean? Hoover, Garfield. You know, that kind of shit. And he alone, I think--. I really don't think even Nixon would have shown. a video of himself dropping, again, what I can only describe. as diarrhea on the American people, the people. that he purportedly is in charge of [LAUGHS].

and his diarrhea plane. But I think my favorite part of it. was Republicans who are asked about said diarrhea plane. and have to say things like, well, you. know, the American people know that Donald. Trump speaks his mind. And they really appreciate his honest reaction. of the diarrhea plane. Mike Johnson was--. Mike was the best, the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Little cowlick Mike Johnson. What do you make of the president showing. a video of him dropping diarrhea from a plane.

onto American people who are just expressing. their dissatisfaction? Well, you know, the president is a-- you know, he's very satirical. You know, I appreciate the satire. And I'm offended, not as an American, but as a comedian. What is this? What exactly is that? What is the satire? I'm just curious. Is the satire it's--. get it? Oh, it's diarrhea from a plane.

I get it now. Good one, sir. [LAUGHS]. But that being beside the point, we've got bigger fish to fry in this here American experiment. As you know, recently, the Pentagon. decided to make sure that it was very important. that reporters sign a pledge not to report anything. from the Pentagon, because why would you need. information from the Pentagon? I know they have a diarrhea plane. I don't even know if that was classified. That could've been classified information.

that has somehow got out. Someone's gonna pay the price for that. That's way worse than the Signal chat. The existence of the dia-- you know, let me tell you something. The Chinese have been working on a diarrhea plane. now for decades to try and get ahead of the United States. But the fact that the United States has developed it. to the point where they could deploy it on their own people, well, that's gonna send shockwaves. through the industry, I'm sure. But to getting more to the point about military reporting, we do have a show dedicated to what.

the fuck that was that they have to sign pledges. And so we're going to get to that right now. [MUSIC PLAYING]. All right, folks. So we're delighted to have our guest today to talk. about the changes that have been done to the Pentagon press. corps and just generally military. reporting in general and the difficulties of getting it done. and, you know, an organization that. prides itself on being somewhat opaque,

how do you permeate that? We're joined today by Nancy Youssef, a staff. writer at The Atlantic. She covers national security and Defense Department. Thomas Brennan, founder and executive director. of The War Horse, which does really. fantastic military reporting, an independent organization. And retired Marine Corps Colonel David Lapan, former acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. for media operations, and served as a press secretary. for the Department of Homeland Security. during the first Trump administration. So, guys, first of all, thank you all for being here.

I want you to know that you passed our very. stringent security procedures. You are free to roam about the podcast. and ask any questions that you wish. I want to just get maybe kind of a quick overview. Nancy, how long have you been covering the Pentagon? NANCY YOUSSEF: So I was based in Iraq from. 2003 to '07, and I came to the Pentagon. the first time after that. And then I spent about a year in Afghanistan.

from 2009 to '10. Then I moved to the Middle East from '12 to '14. and came back to the Pentagon in 2014. So on and off for 18 years. JON STEWART: On and off 18 years. So in that time, Nancy, has the Pentagon process. been generally consistent? Or does it vary wildly through different administrations. or through wartime and peacetime? You know, what's been your experience. in covering the building? NANCY YOUSSEF: It's been relatively consistent. I mean, every secretary kind of brings.

their own personality and approach. to engaging with the press. JON STEWART: Or lack thereof. NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right. Some are more eager than others. But the consistent thing had been. that if you pass a security background check, which is not as stringent as yours, but if you pass it, you can get an access pass to the building. You can walk to any part of the building. And you could talk to people. If you wanted to go on embeds with certain provisions, you could do so. And that there was an understanding. that we wanted a press engage.

And I should be clear, they weren't doing this as a favor. to us. They did it because they saw that by engaging with us. and opening up the building, it really introduced. the public to the US military. And it created a space where the public. was willing to invest nearly a trillion tax dollars. and send two million of its sons and daughters. to this department and put their lives in the hands. of these decision makers. So it's been relatively consistent.

up until this administration. JON STEWART: Now, Dave, you were on the flip side of that. You were working in the military. and with the press office. So I'm assuming you're the liaison between a lot. of these reporters and not. Is that your experience as well, that you get this security check, this background check, you have general access to the building, although I'm sure there are secured. areas within the Pentagon classified areas. that you are not allowed to? DAVE LAPAN: That's exactly right, Jon. So my history, I go back to the mid.

'90s, late '90s, my first Pentagon assignment. with the Marine Corps. When I went to the Department of Defense staff, it was at the end of Bill Clinton's second term. William Cohen was the secretary of defense. Then I was there through the George Bush administration. with Donald Rumsfeld as the secretary of defense. I was there during the Obama administration. and worked with both Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta.

JON STEWART: OK. DAVE LAPAN: And, as Nancy described it, you know, there are minor changes. But by and large, the process, the way. that we interacted with the Pentagon press. was pretty consistent. So as people understand, you know, Democratic administrations, Republican administrations. have been in uniform working with all of them. And important point that you make too, Jon, about the Pentagon is not this giant, secure building.

It's basically an office building. JON STEWART: Right. DAVE LAPAN: And there are lots of secure spaces where needed. JON STEWART: That's right. DAVE LAPAN: One great example, when I was the public affairs. advisor to the chairman of the joint chiefs, the senior military officer in the United States, I had an office where the press could come and talk to me. But I also, in another part of my office, had a secure, compartmentalized information facility, a skiff. JON STEWART: A little skiff for the people at home, a skiff.

DAVE LAPAN: Exactly. So I could go into the skiff behind a locked door. and go into a safe, which was also locked, and pull out information. I had, you know, access to classified. information through computer systems, all behind locked doors. But the other part of my office, the Pentagon press. would frequently come in and visit. And we'd chat about things. JON STEWART: Right. DAVE LAPAN: They weren't, you know, given access. to classified information. And the most important point for people to understand.

is it was my responsibility as the holder. of the security clearance to protect. the classified information. It's not the reporter's responsibility. JON STEWART: The reporter's job is to get as much information. as they can to fully inform the public. about whatever the affairs that are going on behind the scenes. And like you say, there are-- it is the responsibility. of the individuals who have the security clearance. not to give away information that might be detrimental. Now, Thomas, you have a different--. I wanted to make sure you were involved in this conversation,

too, because, you know, War Horse is a slightly. different operation. You are much more independent and I would say exist more. on the side of military families. and veterans themselves and a little bit outside the system. What's your experience interacting with the Pentagon. in that way and the restrictions. that are placed on getting that kind of information? THOMAS BRENNAN: Thank you. And thank you for having me. So I have never actually been a credentialed member.

of the Pentagon press corps. When I started reporting, I was a local reporter. covering Camp Lejeune, which is in Eastern North Carolina. JON STEWART: Now, was that the toxic exposure. case, the bad water at Lejeune that was sickening people? Or just generally, that was your beat. THOMAS BRENNAN: Correct. There was toxic exposure down there, military family, housing issues. I covered government sequestration. and shutdowns that happened in 2013 and 2014. And it was largely covering local military affairs. issues that had a broader national context.

And I would reach out from North Carolina to people. like Dave at the Pentagon to arrange interviews, get quotes from national leaders. And then I was the last military reporter covering. Camp Lejeune in 2014, when I used. my GI Bill to go study journalism. at Columbia University. And after that, I wound up starting War Horse. And we, again, are not a credentialed, you know, part of--. we're not credentialed as part of the Pentagon press corps.

We've embraced what the military. calls decentralized command. And we have reporters all over the country that freelance. or staff reporters for us and contribute. from military communities around the country. JON STEWART: So we've got kind of a baseline. of what the reporting is. It's inside the building, outside the building. There's independent organizations. that are going on there. There's a little game of cat and mouse, as there always is in any kind of governmental organization. Nancy, talk us through why this change or these changes.

have created such an uproar in the fact. that there were about 100 credentialed reporters, I guess, in the Pentagon that are. in the building, that are allowed in the building, that. are walking around. 85 of them walked out in mass after these new restrictions. were put in place. Nancy, what exactly went down? NANCY YOUSSEF: So even before these rules. were put into place, we had seen. a slow erosion of our ability to do our jobs in the Pentagon.

Within weeks of Secretary Hegseth. becoming the defense secretary, he. kicked out NBC News, CNN from their booths, and told The Washington Post, New. York Times, and others that they. couldn't sit at their desks. JON STEWART: Wait, couldn't sit at their--. would they have to get a standing desk? NANCY YOUSSEF: Well, they would literally sit at the next desk. So, you know. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] You guys have assigned desks? NANCY YOUSSEF: We did. But then, like, you know, we all kind of got to be. flexible because there were--. our press corps has shrunk. And so there were open desks.

And so it wasn't like a space issue. There were open desks. And so--. JON STEWART: It was like WeWork. You're like--. NANCY YOUSSEF: Yes, it's a We-- yeah. JON STEWART: You're like a WeWork. NANCY YOUSSEF: It's a WeWork, but not as clean. JON STEWART: Not as clean as WeWork. NANCY YOUSSEF: And then a few weeks later, those journals. who didn't have booths anymore were. told that they couldn't use the briefing room to do live shots. And then in May, we were restricted to a few hallways. in the Pentagon. That's 17.5 miles of hallway in the Pentagon. We got to maybe, I don't know, a mile of it total.

JON STEWART: Mile of hallway. NANCY YOUSSEF: And then this conversation. started that we're gonna now put. new restrictions on how you can get. a badge to enter the building. And so we started hearing about this in September. And the two big restrictions are, one, we cannot solicit information, nor can we publish. information unless it is approved by the Pentagon. under these rules. And two, we have to agree that we understand. that the publication of information, even unclassified.

information not authorized by the Pentagon, is a potential security risk. JON STEWART: OK, so I want to go back to the first one. that you said. [LAUGHS] I'm sorry. I'm sorry to laugh. It's just so-- first of all, the biggest security classified. leak threat within the Pentagon is Hegseth himself, I mean, that dumbass Signal chat where they were just all, you know--. I think it was The Atlantic, right? Wasn't it Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. was just added to a group chat where. he was like, here's the coordinates of the attack,

and here's what time we're doing it. Enjoy. NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: Hey there. Kids, you got the internet, right? You're on there. What are you doing there? What are you typing there, searching, whatever. the hell you're doing? You got a for you page? You got a massage so that your friends don't think you're, like, seriously troubled? Maybe you freak. I got something for you. Today's video is sponsored by Incogni. Thousands of companies, as you know, collecting, aggregating, and trading your personal data.

Trading. That's true. You don't know anything about it. You've got the right to request data brokers to delete. whatever information they have about you. and to protect your privacy. You have that right. Most people don't understand that, but you do. That's the good news. The bad news, of course, it would take. you years to do it manually. They make it hard on you. That's the purpose of what they do. They make it purposefully opaque. Incogni can do that messy work for you automatically.

It helps protect your privacy and takes your personal data. off the market, reaches out to data brokers on your behalf, requesting your personal data removal. and dealing with their objections to that. And with Incogni's custom removals feature. in the unlimited plan and family unlimited plan, you can point to any website where your personal information. is visible, and one of their privacy agents. will take care of the rest for you. Legally, by the way. This isn't one of those, like, hey, nice personal information.

website you got there. It'd be a shame if something happens to it. Like, there's a-- you know, they do it the right way, the legal way. Victims may spend months or years. repairing the financial and reputational damage. Don't let that be you. Protect your data and privacy with Incogni and their custom. removal feature. Go to incogni.com/stewart and use code STEWART for 60% off. 60%. Incogni helps wipe yourself from the internet.

They can't harm you if they can't find you. Click the link below to claim your 60% off. and get your personal data off the market. Incogni.com/stewart. [MUSIC PLAYING]. All right. They made a provision that you couldn't report on anything. unless they approved it. NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right. JON STEWART: So you are no longer--. you're not a reporter. You work for them. Dave, you worked for them. I'm assuming that the idea that the Pentagon would have.

to approve everything that came out of the reporting. would seem insane to you even as someone. who's working to protect the Pentagon's interests. DAVE LAPAN: It is insane. It's dangerous. It's damaging both to the military and to the public. that we serve. [LAUGHS] You know, the predicate. on which this new policy sits is trust us.

We'll tell you what you need to know. JON STEWART: Trust us, the Pentagon. DAVE LAPAN: Right. We'll tell you what you need to know. Not what you should know--. JON STEWART: Dear God. DAVE LAPAN: --but what we decide you need to know. And over the last nine months, is there. any good reason to trust everything that. comes out of the Pentagon? JON STEWART: Forget about nine months. Let's go-- when did it-- when did they build it, the '40s? Was it Roosevelt? NANCY YOUSSEF: 1943. JON STEWART: 1943. DAVE LAPAN: Right. But again, over the last nine months,

we've seen, as Nancy has talked about, this erosion. So the irony here is that even in defending the new policy, the Pentagon has said things that are both inaccurate. and that mischaracterize the truth. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Now, what has been inaccurate, Dave, of what they have said? Is it the inaccuracy of the access that reporters have. to the building or the fact that they had to go. through certain security? What's inaccurate about even the way that they. are framing these changes?

DAVE LAPAN: So a couple of things. One, this idea that they have to start wearing their badges. They've always worn badges. They've had badges that clearly identify. them as members of the press. JON STEWART: So that's not new. That's what they do already. DAVE LAPAN: Right. That's what they've done for decades. They did that when I was there. Contractors wear different badges. The people there, the uniform folks. wear different badges, right? That's nothing new. This idea, again, that the Pentagon.

itself is this giant, secure facility that we can't let. reporters roam around because of all this classified stuff, as I've talked about before. It's an office building. JON STEWART: Right. DAVE LAPAN: Right? So it mischaracterizes this idea. that we can't allow reporters to walk around. wherever they want, because they could, you know, learn our secrets. JON STEWART: They could open an unlocked door. And inside it is maybe they're training. cats to operate lasers.

And you open the door, and you see it. And the whole-- and the whole game is blown. DAVE LAPAN: And the other part is it goes back. to my point about whose responsibility it is to protect. classified information. JON STEWART: Right. DAVE LAPAN: So if you have a security clearance, you shouldn't be in the food court talking. about classified stuff. You shouldn't be in the bathroom talking about stuff. You shouldn't be walking down the hallway talking. about classified information where, oh, my God, a reporter could overhear it. Well, so could a contractor.

So could a family member. So could the people that work at the CVS in the building. Again, it's ludicrous. JON STEWART: OK, breaking news. The Pentagon has a CVS and a food court. NANCY YOUSSEF: And a Taco Bell and a McDonald's. and a Panera's Bread. And all of those employees can move around more freely. than we could starting in May. DAVE LAPAN: It's a shopping mall. JON STEWART: Wait, the people who work at Panera. can move around more freely than the people. that are reporting.

So very clear. So, Thomas, I want to talk to you. As you listen to these restrictions and things, you're an independent journalist, never been credentialed to go into the Pentagon. You guys do fabulous reporting. You know, I remember when Kelly Kennedy began reporting in 2008. on the burn pits in Balad and some of the health effects. that were going on there. It speaks to this. You know, how important is access?

Are we arguing with them about something that is moot? I mean, very clearly, they're showing their hand. The Pentagon is saying, we control this space. We don't want reporters anywhere near there. They're not trustworthy. But should they be trustworthy in the first place? And is the access worth the restriction? And, Thomas, you know, what's your overall thought on that?

THOMAS BRENNAN: The access, to me, is so important, because public affairs and journalists. have a shared goal. And that's to get the story right. We both want it to be correct. JON STEWART: You're saying public affairs. from the military. THOMAS BRENNAN: Military public affairs wants the story. to be correct, just like the journalist doesn't. want to get things wrong. And, you know, we're talking about an organization. that has a trillion budget. And less than 5% of all journalism. focuses on these issues. And while they're putting restrictions on journalists,

there's been this decimation of military reporting. across the ecosystem. I mean, New York Times shut down. their At War blog years ago. Washington Post shut down their Checkpoint blog years ago. Military.com just got sold to a Canadian hedge fund. During the Trump first administration, he-- major cuts to Stars and Stripes. You know, and then you look at local news. We're working on a study with Medill. right now that looks at the intersection of news deserts. and military communities. And what they're finding is that military communities are.

impacted by news deserts three times worse. than civilian communities, and that less than 10%. of all military communities have a newsroom in them. So while they're increasing the restrictions, there's also a volume issue when. it comes to military reporting across our country. where it doesn't, you know, reflect. the line item in the budget. JON STEWART: And it's sort of-- it's corroding in the same way. that local news is. Nancy, what have you found in terms of the access? What has that given you in terms of insight? Because Thomas says something interesting,

which is public affairs wants to help us get it right, too. That goes counter a little bit to what. I imagine or my experience has been in terms of dealing. with the Pentagon is they want it right, but they want it along the lines. of how they want it framed. Would that be accurate? NANCY YOUSSEF: And my job is to sort of just work through that. and kind of give the public the information they need to know. So if you think of reporting as sort of like being in a very. dark room with a very small flashlight, the ability to walk.

around the Pentagon, to talk to leaders, to see their reactions to the decisions they're making, they're all ways to widen the aperture so that I can present. a more fulsome picture to the American public. about what's happening in the building. So it's not a necessary thing in that I can still do my job. And, in fact, since the eviction that happened, you have seen exceptional journalism happen. Just this week alone, US Southern Command commander. unexpectedly retired.

New York Times wrote that story. That there were two survivors on the semi-submersible. outside the Caribbean. Reuters broke that story. The secretary was flying on a fighter jet with the chairman. during a shutdown. Washington Post broke that story. We can still do our jobs. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: But we lose the nuance, the detail that really. shows the sort of layered involvement. behind all these decisions, you know, like--. sometimes it's not even a tangible, but it just-- it ends up shaping.

how you think about coverage. It allows you to bring depth to it. You know, I was in the Pentagon, for example, in the final days of the US days in Afghanistan. And I was there when Abbey Gate happened. 13 US service members were killed. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: It said something. to watch the building absorb what. had happened as the death toll kept going up and up and up. Like, it's that kind of color, it's. those little one on one meetings. that you get to learn about how people got to be in their jobs, what sort of vantage point and experience. are they bringing to these decisions.

JON STEWART: Mm-hmm. It gives you a more three dimensional picture--. NANCY YOUSSEF: Yeah. JON STEWART: --of the humans that are making the decisions. that go along there. Dave, what about that interplay between information. that the Pentagon does not want framed. in certain ways versus the interpersonal relationships? You know, I know that the CIA, I guess, instituted similar kinds of restrictions and people. And the loss of access--. I think it was James Risen was talking about this.

The loss of access was, he thought, the best thing that ever happened to those reporters, because it reshaped the relationship. as what it should be, which is slightly adversarial. And is that difficult to do in a building, Dave, when you have these relationships? You know, does it--. does it color the reporting in negative ways? DAVE LAPAN: So I'd make two points on that, Jon. One, from the military point of view, again,

given the experience that I had in the building, having a Pentagon press corps there resident in the building. was advantageous to the Department of Defense. because we could call them in a moment's notice. when something was happening around the world. We could put together a press briefing in 10 minutes, because they were all there. Right? We didn't have to put out a press release. and go through all this stuff. They were already there. So it benefited the Department of Defense.

to have reporters in the building. that we could pull together at a moment's notice. When I was the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense. for media operations, I did what were known as gaggles, an on the record but off camera briefing every day, Monday through Friday. JON STEWART: Right. DAVE LAPAN: And the resident press corps. basically came into my office. And we would just talk about all the things. I would have the opportunity to present the information. we wanted to get out. They would ask me questions about what.

they wanted to get out. And there was always a bit of that tension. There was always gonna be a bit of an adversarial relationship. But I think that the folks that I worked with in the Pentagon. press and outside would tell you. that I am a straight shooter, you know, that I told them the truth. Did we always agree? Did we always get along? Absolutely not. That's not the way that it works. But we respected one another's positions. And again, as we've talked about,

the need for the military to get information out. to the American public, the need of journalists. to be able to do their job to get. information to sort through those different things. So while there was some tension in that relationship, it was mutually beneficial, because we're all. serving the American public. NANCY YOUSSEF: It's not just the eviction. If it were just the eviction-- there have been a number. of things that have happened. Military leadership are not allowed to go to events. and conferences anymore. Breaking defense broke yesterday.

that they have to now check with the department. before they talk to Congress. There's a climate of fear that's. happening in the building. There are some who've been told that they could face polygraph. for engaging in any way. You know, in some ways, our eviction. was sort of the canary in the coal. mine in terms of a restriction on information. flowing generally. And we're seeing that play out right now. The US is conducting strikes on boats in the Caribbean. Till this day, we've done seven or eight of them. I don't know what kind of ordnance. was used, what part of the military did it,

where those strikes came from. I take James's point that sometimes, maybe it was too close. That's a fair criticism. And if it were just this eviction, I think there's a discussion to have. But it's not. This is a pattern. JON STEWART: Through the whole administration, not just. at the Pentagon, I think, it's probably. that idea of polygraphs and don't talk and be adversarial. You know, that seems to be permeating the whole operation. NANCY YOUSSEF: And now, the Pentagon's putting together. a list of new journalists. They are recruiting journalists to be a part of the new press.

corps who are like minded, who are. gonna sign these restrictions. JON STEWART: Sure. They've done that in the White House press corps. NANCY YOUSSEF: But at least there's a pool. There's some independent journalism here. This is-- all of the major news organizations. are now out of the Pentagon. You're gonna have recruited journalists in there. What happens at a briefing? Who's gonna get questions? Who's gonna get to travel? How is that gonna shape how we understand what's happening? I worry that the consequence of all of this in totality.

is that facts become negotiable, right, because it's depending on how you're viewed. And that's the erosion that happens in terms of how. we understand the Pentagon. I'm not here to be an advocate for a cause. I really believe that my job is to inform the public. And so-- JON STEWART: Sure. NANCY YOUSSEF: --when we think about these, the eviction, I think it has to be thought as part of a bigger shift that's. happening within the Pentagon. JON STEWART: Right. In your experience, Thomas, is that shift. just making the Pentagon's relationship.

to truth more explicit? And I'll give you an example. I remember-- so we were at a War Horse symposium in Chicago. And I had interviewed at the time Deputy. Secretary Kathleen Hicks. And we began the talk where I said, you know, War Horse is an independent journalism. operation, you know, mainly concerned with, you know, reporting for veterans and military families and things.

like that. It's interesting that you chose to be here, Secretary Hicks, because the Pentagon obviously has a complicated relationship. with journalists. And the first thing she said to me. was, oh, no, we love journalists. We're very much about transparency. And I thought, well, here we go. That's just bullshit. Just off the jump bullshit. Thomas, is that-- I guess my point is,

are we kidding ourselves here? Isn't that just making explicit, you know, their idea of maybe very literally creating, you know, a kind of palace guard of journalists and. all that? Has it been your experience that that's. very much the case anyway? Maybe that's too cynical of you. THOMAS BRENNAN: I think that this just puts it. on full display for the American public. to see with their own eyes. JON STEWART: That's my point. THOMAS BRENNAN: Yeah, instead of just journalists. experiencing it one on one.

And what's scarier for me is, like, this--. it appears that the Pentagon is at war. with journalists and journalism and the fourth estate. JON STEWART: But haven't they always been, I guess is my point? Or at least that seems to be my experience. THOMAS BRENNAN: Yes, but it seems. much more forceful and deliberate and just wide. out in the open. And at the end of the day, journalists like myself. and Nancy and so many other people. who report on them, like, we're not against the Pentagon.

Like, we are for the Pentagon and the millions of service. members that it represents and the families. that it represents. And that's why we do the reporting that we do. Same thing with the VA. Like, newsrooms like The War Horse. are for the veterans that have served our country. And the pitting the DOD leadership, pitting the, you know, people like Dave and public affairs officers. against journalists like Nancy, like, that's just-- that's wrong. Like, we both have a shared goal of, you know, defending American ideals.

We're at work, but we're not at war with one. another, just like Marty Baron of The Washington Post. would say. JON STEWART: Right. Dave, how did you negotiate that relationship. between journalists, you know, and what. the Pentagon wanted to frame? Because I'm really talking about framing. You know, it's-- you talk about, you know, the history of military conflict. also includes a history of, you know, misinformation shaped--.

I'll give you an example. Judith Miller, in the run up to the Iraq War, reports that Saddam Hussein has these aluminum tubes. And they can only be used to enrich uranium, and he's building a weapons program. And they pop it into The New York Times. It's a front page story. And literally the next day, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza. Rice go on Meet the Press and all kinds of other places. and say even The New York Times, no friend. of this administration, the Bush administration,

is reporting that Saddam Hussein has a nuclear program. And we've got to get in there. And what it turned out to be was--. and I think that the famous phrase was, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.". That was the big warning. Well, it turns out that phrase came. from the Iraq working group. It was from a PR person. And that information was fed to Judith Miller. from the administration.

So, you know, when you see things like that happen, it's easy to get discouraged about that relationship. So, Dave, how do you make us understand why these reporters. shouldn't just be adversarial? DAVE LAPAN: So I would say what we are seeing. now is an administration that wants to turn journalists. into stenographers. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVE LAPAN: Right? And just tell-- you know, report.

what we tell you to report. JON STEWART: But how is that--. I guess I'm saying is how is that different than what. they always wanted? DAVE LAPAN: So what's different is. that, yeah, that journalists--. as Nancy described, part of the job. is to go seek different sources of information. You just don't take the Pentagon's view at face value. Right? You take that, and you say, here's what official people. are telling us. But here's what we're also hearing from other people. Right? And so for me, as a public affairs officer,

it was about relationships, building trust and credibility. so that they knew that I was telling the truth to the extent. that I could, right, that I couldn't divulge. classified information, or I couldn't, you know, do certain things. But they didn't just take what I said at face value. As journalists, they got other, you. know, views and perspectives to provide that context that Nancy. was talking about earlier. So for me, and I've said this before, the North Star is always tell the truth.

And if you can't tell the truth, explain why you can't tell the truth. Right? Is there always some level of spin involved? Much more when you get into the political realm, certainly. You know, for a uniformed military officer, it was easier, you know, to stay truthful. JON STEWART: Because you were generally. dealing with operational aspects, not--. DAVE LAPAN: Exactly. So-- sorry, Jon. I've told this story a few times. The first day when I was the acting deputy assistant.

secretary and conducted my first gaggle, one of the members of the Pentagon press. asked me point blank front of the entire group, Colonel. Lapan, as a uniformed military officer, is it appropriate for you to defend administration policy? And my answer was, no, it's not. If you have those questions, you. go talk to Jeff Morel, who was my civilian counterpart, political appointee. JON STEWART: Right. DAVE LAPAN: If you have talk-- if you want. to talk about military operations and those things, that's me.

JON STEWART: OK. DAVE LAPAN: Right. And so again, it's much more straightforward for me. to stay in those lanes. When it gets political is when it gets very complicated. JON STEWART: Right. And Nancy, is that your frustration that what you won't. be able to get as easily is those operational details. and kind of, as you said, the color in the building? Or is it that the sources that you are relying on. are now reacting to the changes that are being made to policy,

and you can't get anything? NANCY YOUSSEF: I mean, it is much harder to get information. But that's not why we sort of walked out together. We did it because to sign it would be to sort of. say we're not journalists anymore. And we couldn't do that. I think we were really trying to protect precedents and our--. what defines our job. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: You know, it's funny you mentioned Judy Miller. in the run up to the Iraq War. Because at the time I worked for Knight Ridder newspapers,

which was known for really pushing back--. and it's not, yes, you can be swayed by the fact. that you're in close proximity of decision makers. who are trying to spin you. But if you're doing your job well, you understand that and contextualize it. What made Knight Ridder so singular. is that it didn't just put those things out at face value. And you know what happened to Judy Miller. She was discredited. The New York Times took a credibility hit. That is, the access doesn't shape the coverage.

It's the understanding of how to approach the job. by the journalists doing it. And I'll tell you, having been on this beat a pretty long time. now, the journalists who are coming up after, you know, if you're 30, you were born in 1995, when you were 10, this was the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: There's a more adversarial relationship. there right now. They're seeing National Guardsmen. deployed on American streets. They're seeing a different military than I was brought up.

under in terms of, like, the sort of unquestioned sort. of reverence to them. So there's an adversarial relationship. across generations. But the kicking out of the press corps, on top of the sort of experience. that everyday Americans have had over the past 30 years, you can see it really already reshaping it. But it's not the axis by itself. I think, frankly, lazy journalists. might do it that way. But the challenge of the job is to figure out what.

to put in front of the public. And it's so funny to hear Dave describe. During his press conference, he says, he and I had back and forth all the time. And it was great. Now, would you see that in an [INAUDIBLE] sort. of frame story? No, but you would see it in the order that I would put things, or you would see it in how things were framed. So there are extremes where we have done not the best. work in questioning officials.

But I think you'll see an equal number of instances. where we have really challenged and brought things to the fore. The use of MRAPs were brought to the military because of it. So again, I take your point--. JON STEWART: When she talks about-- just for the audience, the MRAPs were the vehicles that could withstand. mines and mine resistant I think assault--. what is it assault--. NANCY YOUSSEF: Mine resist, yep. DAVE LAPAN: Ambush protected. JON STEWART: Ambush protected, yeah. NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right. JON STEWART: And so the troops that. were in Iraq and Afghanistan did not have the proper MRAPs.

They had been delayed. And the reporting on that--. and it did cost American lives. And Thomas, you were in the middle of that because you were. deployed at that time, I think, in obviously the Battle. of Fallujah and other places. You probably experienced that on the ground. Nancy, I wanted to say, I think that's. a really good point and one that I think, you know, we should stand. I was focused on access.

What you're saying is, this isn't. so much a question of access and what. it hinders and doesn't hinder. It's a question of principle. It's a question of even if the access was not explicitly. helping, and there wasn't spin, and there wasn't people trying. to prevent it, the idea that they would say to you, you have to sign this and only approve it, as a principle cannot stand. Would that be accurate? NANCY YOUSSEF: I think that's part of it, yes, because we're saying, how can I sign a document that.

says, I will not publish anything other. than the Pentagon approves it? How can I do that? What am I telling my readers? I'm not a journalist at that point. You know, this job requires sometimes. a very adversarial relationship with your sources. And what am I doing for my colleagues who come after me? I just-- I don't know how we could do it without. sort of signing off on our--. on the whole profession. JON STEWART: Right, right.

And Thomas, you know, when you were serving, you know, I remember. I've seen footage of different things. There were a lot of embeds that were with you guys. You know, that's a different kind of access. and a different kind of military reporting. And I imagine one that's much harder, A, to control through public affairs. or through Pentagon policy, and B, one that gets really interesting in terms. of the personal relationships, because in essence, you're.

preventing them or trying to prevent. them from being killed or harmed. while they're going out there. What's that relationship like in the field? And Nancy, you've done that embedding as well. So Thomas, you've been on the other side of it. as a soldier with embeds. What's that like? THOMAS BRENNAN: So as far as the embed goes, what I experienced in Iraq, in Fallujah, and then. in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, were drastically different. In Fallujah, we were more concerned.

with getting to the next house and staying alive. And I mean, we cared about the journalists getting there, too. But them getting their footage was not at the top. of our priority list. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Right. You know, you don't have them go, all right, everybody, we got to be quiet for room tone. Hold on. THOMAS BRENNAN: Yeah, we got to white balance the shot. real quick. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. THOMAS BRENNAN: So yeah, there was very little concern. outside of their safety for what type of shots. they were getting. And then fast forward to Afghanistan, eight years later in my career, I had a photojournalist.

who was embedded with us. And that was a slower pace. We still saw contact almost daily for a good period of. time there. And while the journalist was there with us, it allowed for much more intimate conversations. to happen. They actually got to know the members of our squad. We're still in touch to this day. I mean, he wound up to be my co-author of my book. So the embed in Afghanistan was, I think, exactly what Dave. would have wanted from an embed that he would have placed,

where it was a journalist who understood their role. They knew that they couldn't just wander off on patrol. and, you know, potentially get one of us hurt. So they had to, you know, operate. within the confines of the mission that we had there. But they also-- he spent over a month with us. He really got to know us. And that allowed for him to do some really strong reporting. about what the bond among Marines. looks like on the front lines at a place like Afghanistan. And that is of real benefit to the American public.

I mean, they're paying for the war. They're paying for the service members to be there. JON STEWART: Right. THOMAS BRENNAN: When any of us die, they're gonna pay the funeral. They're gonna pay the death benefit of all that. So all of that is taxpayer money. And the types of stories that Finbarr was telling. about our squad helped to illuminate. the military experience and what the war in Afghanistan. was like for all the readers that he had. And that was something as a service member, you know--. I was more nervous about my guys being out of uniform. and me getting in trouble or there being something--.

some military custom or courtesy or something. that represents discipline that the chain of command. would've had a problem with, and that it would. became my headache. JON STEWART: Or even a situation. like what occurred, which is Abu Ghraib, you know, where you talk about those photos. from the prison that showed abuses, various things. I mean, Dave, that's, you know--. there's so many different elements. It's so interesting to me because my vision of, you know, here's this now trillion dollar a year--.

you know, we're talking about defense contractors. We're talking about a department that has never. passed a financial audit. We're talking about a department that. puts Americans in harm's way. We're talking about an organization. that once they are done with our soldiers. ignore their future problems. They've done a better job of it, but, you know, make them fight for the benefits.

that they had earned. Like, this is a incredibly, in my mind, dysfunctional and opaque and complicated operation. And as I'm hearing you guys about, like, what's the negotiation between the elements that are trying. to get at the heart of those things, it's kind of fascinating. Because you rely on each other to some extent.

DAVE LAPAN: Absolutely. And I'm glad you brought up the media embed program. One, I was involved in one of my roles. in helping to create that program for the war in Iraq. So I'm very well acquainted with that. And it gets back to the ludicrousness. of this new policy is that we put journalists. on the front lines with US troops, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. Space Force didn't exist then.

JON STEWART: You put them on the moon, Dave. DAVE LAPAN: Yeah, but we put them out there. and allowed them to do that reporting, one, because we. wanted firsthand independent views to counter the propaganda. and the disinformation we knew were gonna come out. of the Saddam Hussein regime. JON STEWART: Mm-hmm. DAVE LAPAN: And the idea that we would trust. military journalists inside--. not just military journalists, I correct that--. journalists to be there on the front lines in combat with us.

And now we don't trust them to walk around the inside. of an office building? Really? They put their lives on the line. That's the other thing Thomas will tell you. He and his Marines, well trained, well armed, ready to do battle. Reporters? You might put on a helmet, and you might wear. a flak chest that says press. But you're carrying a camera or a notebook. You are much more vulnerable. JON STEWART: Dangerous. We saw what happened to Bob Woodruff.

We saw, you know, what has happened to-- there was a Fox. journalist who was hit by mortar, the journalists that. were killed in Gaza. I mean, it's the most dangerous place in the world--. DAVE LAPAN: Right. JON STEWART: --for journalists. DAVE LAPAN: So again, we collectively, the Department. of Defense in this case, you know, trusted journalists, put them in these situations, and it's now a slap in the face that we're treating them. the way they're being treated by Hegseth. and the administration. JON STEWART: Nancy, what's your thought on what this is?

Is this just this administration's, you know, we are the alphas, and you are not? And we are-- is this just a we must teach you your place? You're the fake news. You know, is fake news any news that doesn't. flatter their perspective? You've done the tours overseas. You've done there. What are they trying to do here? NANCY YOUSSEF: Well, I mean, every time we've.

written stories that they don't like, we've sort of seen new rules. The restrictions on movement happen. after there was a lot of push back on reporting that the US. strikes on Iran had not been as successful. as the president claimed. So any kind of criticism has sort of-- we've. seen sort of a tangible effect. My fear when it comes to the military. is that this Pentagon no longer believes it needs to reach. the entire American public. Remember, the military throughout its history, modern history, has really celebrated the fact.

that it looks like the American people, that it comes from every part of the country, that it's here to defend the nation. We have heard a secretary of defense who is not subscribed. to that, that he thinks there is too much DEI. at the building, that we should have a military more focused. on threats in this hemisphere. We've seen an administration put. troops on the border, National Guardsmen in American cities. So my fear is that one reason that they don't want us there.

is because they don't need us there, that they no longer feel. that they need to communicate to the entire American public, but rather to their base, because they want. a military that serves their base. rather than serve the American people. And if that's true, then you don't need to reach. New York Times readers. You like the idea of sort of having Talking. Points USA or other conservative outlets. representing the facts as you want to present them.

I don't know that. But we are starting to see a pattern where, in terms of what they say and some of their actions, that they want a military that is more in line with sort. of their values rather than a military that represents. the collective interest. JON STEWART: Well, you know, look. He's the defense secretary, and he's allowed. to create certain policies. But I think-- and maybe I'm wrong about this. But Thomas, you know, if their idea is, if we restrict access in the building,

we will no longer have adversarial coverage, seems insane. I mean, it seems wildly naive if that's the idea that, OK, we're gonna bring in some sycophants, and they're gonna sit in the building. The best reporting on the military. doesn't necessarily ever come from the building. You know, the MRAP stories, the burn pit. stories, the Walter Reed scandal, the sexual assault stories. Like, those aren't necessarily coming from inside the house.

So not only is this Anti-American to some extent. in terms of the way that it restricts freedom. It strikes me as foolish and naive. that they think they'll be able to control that. THOMAS BRENNAN: Foolish and naive. And I think that Secretary Hegseth is displaying. a complete disregard for the leadership traits. and principles that the enlisted and commissioned. officers within the military are taught.

and live by every single day. Like, what he says demonstrates no tact. He demonstrates no apparent integrity. You know, the poor judgment, flip flopping. back and forth on messaging. Like, the military teaches selflessness. I think he demonstrates selfishness. And speaking as a Marine veteran, like, if he had been my lieutenant, I would not have followed him into combat for those reasons. He is displaying a complete disregard. for norms in the military and a disregard for the life.

and safety of service members. I can point to that, the gathering of 800 generals that. were brought into Quantico. Like, the military lives by an acronym. called EMDCOA, Enemy's Most Dangerous Course Of Action. I can think of nothing more deadly. than having your top-- every--. from the secretary of defense, president of the United States, and 800 generals all being crammed into one room. That is a massive national security threat that completely. disregards their safety, you know, our national security.

as a country. And at the same time, he stood in front of there. and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the leadership. traits and principles that he is. speaking about his own service members upholding. JON STEWART: It's surprising, because his work. on the weekend Fox and Friends I thought was exemplary. DAVE LAPAN: Jon, I just want to jump on to Thomas, because he talks about leadership. traits and principles. Here's the other thing. JON STEWART: Yeah. DAVE LAPAN: Using the word "principle.". DOD policy, which has existed for decades.

and still exists today, there's something called. the principles of information. Amongst those, it says information will be made. fully and readily available. A free flow of general and military information. will be made available, without censorship or propaganda, to the men and women of the armed forces. and their dependents. JON STEWART: Mm-hmm. DAVE LAPAN: And it says information will not. be classified or otherwise withheld.

to protect the government from criticism or embarrassment. That's what's in the DOD principles of information. That policy exists today. All of these things run completely counter to that. JON STEWART: But if we are being fair--. and this gets back to my original point. It is-- that is bullshit. [LAUGHS] And they don't--. it may be in there. But for sure, they don't--. I've watched too many of those where they come out and say,

we told the Israelis, be careful with what--. the bombs we gave you. You know, there's--. I'll give you an example. And this goes back to PACAC stuff. So there's some veterans that were at Karshi-Khanabad. And I'm sure I'm pronouncing that poorly. They call it K2. Right? They were the first kind of tip of the spear. when 9/11 had just happened. They were deployed to this base in Uzbekistan that was--. they were there for a day or two,

and people started getting incredibly sick. It was very clear that this was an old base. that had been used for some chemical weapon things and all. So, you know, as they were bulldozing. berms and setting stuff up, a lot of soldiers got sick. So they sent in an environmental team. that they got in with hazmat suits and the whole thing. This environmental team found traces of nerve agents.

They found obviously the normal, you know, PFAS, and they found the normal toxic-- you know, the general levels of, you know, benzenes and dioxins. and all kinds of other shit. And what they also found was yellowcake, uranium. They had Geiger counter readings. There was a gentleman named Nick Nichols who. was part of that team and who filed. a report about the conditions at this base. This is in 2002, I believe.

Since then, many of these soldiers. have gotten incredibly sick with all kinds. of-- from osteoporosis to cancers. to all kinds of other things. And they have not been able to get the government. to recognize, for the most part, up until a little bit. last year, the toxins that were there, even. though that report was there. They to this day deny that that report found.

what it found or existed. And I've been on the calls with--. there was a general that we were on a call. with about that report. And when Nick went over what the yellowcake and uranium. readings-- because they'll say it's depleted uranium and not, you know, yellowcake uranium. When they went over the report, the general said on the call,

this is the first time I'm hearing about it. This call was in 2023. That's 20 years, 21 years afterwards. What Nick said was, that's surprising, because you were the officer that I presented this report. to originally 20 years ago. So that gets to the kind of--. I understand what it says in the Pentagon. rules of information.

But that's not how they operate. That has to be worth something in terms of. don't we need a complete redo of how the Pentagon operates. in terms of information? THOMAS BRENNAN: I think yes. Speaking as an enlisted Marine, there. is a two tiered justice system that. exists within the military. And I think that it is one of the biggest issues.

that our service members face. There's no transparency. Try to go to a court martial on base. and see how you can get through the front gate. And I just think that it is emblematic of the secrecy. and lack of transparency that the military embodies, because these are people that are having their lives ruined, you know, their lives completely changed. Sometimes warranted for crimes that they. did, but other times not. And like, the lack of transparency in the court.

system, I think, is emblematic of the lack of transparency. across the rest of the DOD. And the American public would never--. they would never be satisfied with court records. in a civilian court of law not being. readily available to normal reporters. or to the American public. Yet for some reason, that type of secrecy and withholding. information is normal at the DOD. and accepted by the American public. And I think it's time for the American public. to speak up and demand the transparency.

that we deserve from a one trillion. dollar military machine. DAVE LAPAN: I was gonna say, one, I agree. Reform is needed. Two, part of the reason I was reading that part is. that this administration is going completely. the opposite direction. It's making things more opaque and less transparent, even if they weren't, you know, transparent before. and reform is needed. Instead of moving in that direction,

they're moving in the complete opposite direction. to make it even harder to get information. and to build any kind of trust with the American public. JON STEWART: And Nancy, what-- so what's your frustration. with the system as a whole? You know, this is the line that has been drawn. And I guess my overarching question is, shouldn't we. draw a line much clearer beyond, like, I'm. not signing this pledge?

Isn't there a deeper issue here that maybe this gives. us an opportunity to address? NANCY YOUSSEF: Well, a couple of things. I think the challenge that I have is, I don't think anybody would disagree that reforms need. to be made and that journalists would want more information. more than anyone else. I just don't see how these changes--. and I'm not talking just about evicting the press. In his September 30 speech on Quantico, Hegseth said, we're going to change the rules around the DOD. inspector general.

We're not gonna punish people for minor infractions. He has laid the groundwork not for more information or reforms. to transparency. But he was saying, I want to get more information. to the American public. I think you should know more. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: That's a different conversation. But he's not saying that, and he's not acting that way. And, in fact, we've already seen that they provide less. information about key things. It's extraordinary that we don't. know who the US is killing in international waters. We don't know. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: And we can't get the answer. And now it's they can't talk to Congress.

And we're hearing from the Hill, we're not getting answers either. So I think there do need to be changes. I think one of the things you've. seen this press corps fight for way. before this was for more information. And it's one of the reasons we did the embeds. We were willing to do anything to get. some fidelity on what was being asked. of troops, what was happening. So I think you are seeing a press. corps trying to address this. And part of that is by reporting the stories.

just in the last week that they don't want out there. I'm not sure that we would know that those two people survived. were not reported by Reuters. I'm not sure that we would know about some. of the changes that are happening in the Pentagon. without that reporting. So I think you make a valid point. There-- the information hasn't--. there are changes that need to be made. But I don't know. I feel like it's a doctor saying you have migraines, and the prescription's a sledgehammer to the head. And you don't have a headache anymore, which is true.

You know? But--. JON STEWART: My point is, they're gonna want to take. the hammer to the head. And maybe what it's going to do-- they always. say, like, you know, certain people, if you lose your sight, other senses kind of grow there, that maybe it can be a net positive for-- you know, I've seen the reporting that Thomas's group does. And that's with very little access. and, like, really scrappy. And maybe the recognition that, oh, these guys are, like,

really want it to function like it does in more authoritarian. countries is going to spark this sort of much. more decentralized kinds of information gathering. and reporting that may ultimately do exactly. what you're saying, Nancy. NANCY YOUSSEF: It may. It may. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. NANCY YOUSSEF: I just think-- there should--. I don't know. It gives me pause that somebody who's. in charge of the department doesn't want.

to answer questions from anyone other than those. who agree with him. I worry about information where the American public is. potentially getting two different versions. of the same event, because there. is what sort of these approved media say. and what the unapproved media say. JON STEWART: Right. NANCY YOUSSEF: And I think because the organization is so. big, when you give an organization nearly. a trillion dollars, they have their fingerprints. in everything. The military touches things beyond comprehension. And the hesitancy that you're hearing to me. is because we've already seen less information coming out,

and we're seeing more and more deployment of US troops. in ways we haven't seen them in a more. law enforcement capacity. I think that could lead to it. But I'm also seeing service members being threatened. I've had spokesmen say to me they're. afraid to talk to me because of the restrictions. that are being put in place. You're seeing generals and admirals. afraid to talk to their predecessors. because they don't know if they're gonna get questioned. I've reported in an authoritarian regime, and I spent two years in Egypt in the sort.

of post-Arab Spring era. And yes, there was incredible independent journalism. that happened. But there was also less fidelity in terms. of what was happening. And there will come a moment when. the United States finds itself in some sort of conflict. And the ability to have that information, that back and forth--. the lack of that will be harmful. I mean, I'll give you a very small example. JON STEWART: Yeah, please. NANCY YOUSSEF: So during the Iran strikes,

some of my colleagues had learned about it. And the military came to us and said, for the safety of the crew, can you not report it. until they're in safe space? And we did that. Now, we don't do everything that they ask for. But there was an acknowledgment that we have to treat. that information responsibly. I just-- I can't wrap my mind around the idea. that having less engagement leads to better understanding.

And that's-- maybe it's my own personal hiccup, but that's the roadblock that I keep hitting. I think you already are seeing a better press corps. I think you could continue to see it. But I just can't reconcile the idea that we are--. JON STEWART: You think access is really a crucial--. NANCY YOUSSEF: Not access, the engagement. that happens, that we as a country. expect those who are accountable for the lives. of two million troops, those who are making. those decisions, answer questions, answer questions. that they don't like.

JON STEWART: I think that, to me, is the simplest and most direct case to be made for. that to come. And Thomas, you were vigorously nodding when you said, I've had sources say that they were afraid. Because I think what Nancy is pointing out. is really the heart of it, which is somebody standing up. in front of somebody else and answering to the issues that. are occurring. And that seems like that's going to be going away.

But you seem to be agreeing that, like, people. are afraid now, even within the organization. THOMAS BRENNAN: Yes. I think Nancy's probably had this, too. I mean, you obviously talk about source. protection with the people that you speak with. And that was always part of the conversation. But now it's, you know, absolutely. one of the first things that are discussed. Or hey, can we move this to Signal or Proton or, you know, some type of secure area. And the fear in talking to the press--. the generals and senior officers. were always a bit more hesitant to talk to me.

And I had much more of a foothold. in the enlisted side of things. And, like, the fear among the lower. enlisted troops right now of speaking up and being outed. is very intense. And I would say it extends outside of the building. to our allies. We've tried to follow up to some of the Afghans. that were brought to the United States. And even they don't want to talk. out of fear of deportation. So, like, these policies are impacting myriad areas. of the Defense Department and service members. and veterans in multiple ways.

JON STEWART: Dave, are you getting. a sense that that too is--. that now there is a culture that is not about protecting. the security of the United States, but just about exerting control? DAVE LAPAN: Absolutely get that from, you know, people in the government and people. recently out of the government that I speak with. This really-- and Nancy talked about authoritarian regimes.

I mean, this reminds me of the old Soviet days of minders. Right? Remember where the Soviets would have people that. would rat one another out? That's this culture of fear. And Nancy talked about it earlier. That's what the Pentagon has done. is create this culture of fear that people are. afraid of getting polygraphed, of getting demoted, of getting fired, of being threatened. for telling the truth. And that, to me, is the most dangerous part of all of this, is that--.

JON STEWART: A culture of retribution. seems to be taking place. DAVE LAPAN: Absolutely. JON STEWART: So here, I want to flip it on its head, because I remain optimistic. And I'll tell you why. This feels like they are grafting an alien culture. onto American culture. Americans are not accustomed to this level. of sycophancy and control.

And I truly do believe they'll reject it. and that this type of-- you know, Nancy, you mentioned Egypt. But these are societies that were-- you know, Mubarak was there for God knows how long as an autocrat. They had a year of Morsi and then back to Sisi. And, you know, again, our culture is not--. this is not indigenous to how we view ourselves. and how we view the press's role. and how we view the government's role.

I think this is going to be a harder. blanket for them to smother us with, if that makes sense. Does that resonate with any of you at all, Nancy? NANCY YOUSSEF: I mean, my concern is there is an erosion. of trust in the media. That's part of what we've been discussing. And there is-- we haven't talked about it, but there's a social media element. What I've discovered in the course of my career. is that readers increasingly expect us to validate.

their point of view. And so I worry that once we create these sort. of separate systems, ecosystems of journalism and information, that this will further put people on their own islands. rather than sort of encourage the kind of engagement. that this country is founded on, because you're right. The whole premise of this country. was we are gonna have the people govern, and we're gonna do it through engagement. and discourse, not violence. And it started with a free press.

That's part of that process. So I'm optimistic in that I think. people value a free press. I think that 60 or however many it was--. I don't even know how many organizations--. dozens of organizations independently came to this. conclusion and weren't willing to give. up that principle for something that could've been--. allowed them to stay in the building makes me hopeful. But I just can't help but worry, because I'm watching.

how our readers are engaging. And there's so much--. people on their own sort of ecosystems of information. that before it gets better, I worry that this can become more. entrenched in the short term. JON STEWART: Yeah, it's an interesting--. it's an interesting question, which. is, will there be a demand? As much as people--. I think, you know, the silos that people. are in in terms of social media is not necessarily. the country at large. And I still think this country has the ability to be shocked.

And I know that ultimately those kinds of, you know, larger moments were, like, the Pentagon Papers or the fact. that there were no WMDs. Those things still have an ability. to stun the public at large. And I think the more that they try and suffocate. that flow of information, the more opportunity they give. for that kind of moment to happen again, even if it's a Snowden type moment.

NANCY YOUSSEF: Look, it's a fair point. You know, as we were packing up, I was getting unsolicited messages from sources saying, I'm gonna continue to talk to you. And they weren't doing it to be defiant. of their civilian leadership. They were doing it because they understood they took. an oath to the Constitution. It does create opportunities for the right journalists. to stand up and do it. It's gonna be harder. It's gonna be more challenging. But there is a cost as well is all I'm saying, which is we are still not gonna get. answers to basic information. And we're already seeing that play out.

With everything, there's an opportunity. I agree with you. And I'm so proud of this press corps. that they're already treating this as such in some ways. Don't see them sort of resigned or begging. to get back in there. They are persevering. It's just there will be a cost as well. It's just, to me, not binary where we fall in that spectrum. in terms of information--. new information coming out and basic information not coming. out is--. hasn't settled yet. JON STEWART: Dave, is that the kind of thing that you. can see starting to maybe grow from a more kind of bottom.

up way? DAVE LAPAN: Yes and no. Again, I agree with Nancy about the echo chamber effect. and so many people in their information silos. that aren't going to see anything wrong, because they're. consuming information that doesn't. provide the full perspective. You know, it's-- we're often using the boiling frog analogy, because it's accurate. So I guess I share some of your optimism, Jon,

and some of Nancy's pessimism. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] So do I, by the way. I don't want to give you the impression that I do that. Thomas, I'll give you the last word. on maybe how you see this resolving, cracking, negotiating, and turning out. THOMAS BRENNAN: I'm actually nervous that this. is gonna broaden the military and civilian divide. And--. JON STEWART: Oh, that's interesting. THOMAS BRENNAN: If you think about it, most Americans don't have a connection to the military.

And their first and maybe only experience that they're. having right now is the National Guard coming. into their neighborhood in Chicago or the Marines. going into their community in LA. And, like, if that is the only interaction that you are having. with service members of the military, then I feel like that's going to significantly. damage the relationship between Americans. and the military that--. and its military. So getting back to, like, the human implications.

of all of this, like, there are American sons and daughters. on the border right now in Texas and in Chicago right now. And like, I am very nervous about where. military civilian relations are going to go because. of domestic deployments and the rhetoric that exists. right now, not toward journalists, but also within the military. People saw what Hegseth and the commander in chief.

did with those 800 generals in there. They saw their leadership on full display. And like I said, I wouldn't follow. them into combat after that display of leadership. And I think that I wasn't the only person who was watching. So I'm nervous about where this is. gonna send us on the military and civilian divide journey. DAVE LAPAN: Absence of leadership is what we saw. THOMAS BRENNAN: Yes. JON STEWART: Yeah, I think that's such a great point. But I think actually, Thomas, you, I think, really brought it.

around to a really fantastic human point, which. is, you know, the military's already a relatively. opaque organization. There's only, you know, less than 1%. of Americans that are in it. In a large respect, it's kept that way purposefully. so that you don't have to expend. a lot of political capital to do whatever you want. with the military, because, as you said, its tentacles don't reach. It's really the burden of it falls on military members. and their families. And if that divide, if there's less understanding.

between those communities than even there is now, that could be a really tough situation. And Nancy, I think that's probably. what you were getting at a little earlier as well, yes? NANCY YOUSSEF: Yeah, Thomas said it better. [LAUGHS]. THOMAS BRENNAN: No. JON STEWART: But I'm telling you, like, as soon as you said that, I was like, oh shit, that's so--. boy, that's the roughest thing. And unfortunately for you, Thomas, that makes War Horse and the work that you guys. do independently that much more important, because that's kind of the focus anyway.

And I think, Nancy, for you as well, like, that makes-- that makes what you guys do even. more crucial in this moment. So I wish you guys the best. And Dave, you know, you're on the other side of it. but understanding it really, really well as well. Guys, I want to thank y'all for coming. and having the conversation. And it just points, again, to the importance of getting. the information out about what this trillion dollar behemoth. that all of our lives unfortunately it impacts.

as well as for military members and their families. Nancy Youssef, staff writer at The Atlantic covering. national security and defense. Thomas Brennan, the founder and executive director. of the War Horse. And retired Marine Corps Colonel David Lapan, former acting deputy assistant secretary of defense. for media operations. Guys, thanks so much for being with us. NANCY YOUSSEF: Thank you. THOMAS BRENNAN: Thank you for having us. DAVE LAPAN: Thank you. Thanks for the conversation. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: You know, I was interested.

I wonder how you guys feel about this. In their-- in their honest feeling about the veracity. of the information that they get. and the lack of spin around it, it seemed as though, like--. I understand the factual stuff and all that. But, you know, I guess my view of the Pentagon. is that it's so opaque and so spin oriented that I.

guess I was surprised by that. GILLIAN SPEAR: Mm-hmm. I guess when your baseline is you're expecting that there's. a story in what they do decide to tell you, like, there is a value to it, even if you're familiar with the spin. that sometimes comes with. JON STEWART: Right. GILLIAN SPEAR: Not having access to even the spin, I guess for them, it's like what--. I think what Nancy said about just, like, making the aperture smaller and smaller. of just, like, what you can even learn. and what you have access to.

Like, I don't know if they take everything at face value, but I think that they appreciate the opportunity. to talk to people. JON STEWART: Right, right. I think they'll still have that, I hope. GILLIAN SPEAR: Well, for now. [LAUGHS] I think the point they were. making about the sources was--. JON STEWART: That's the toughest one. GILLIAN SPEAR: --being scared is tough because--. JON STEWART: Yeah. GILLIAN SPEAR: --that's what you really. need to report from the inside is the people who are. experiencing it who don't necessarily. have the power to change it. And earlier this year, the Justice Department. reinstated that rule, making it easier for them to,

like, find journalists records and leak investigations. JON STEWART: Oh, yeah. GILLIAN SPEAR: And, I mean, none of this. is happening in a vacuum. And it's no great mystery why this administration. is against the media. The scale of corruption and incompetence is staggering, so. JON STEWART: Gillian Spear going in hard. Listen. GILLIAN SPEAR: Staggering. JON STEWART: Why do you got to fly a diarrhea. plane right into the--. I mean, yeah, no, it's--. I completely agree with that.

And the hope is that as the aperture gets smaller, life finds a way, that it goes around it, and hopefully that it doesn't rely on a Snowden, an Ellsberg. Like, hopefully it won't rely on the heroism. of a whistleblower, but rather that cracks. in that dam will occur. GILLIAN SPEAR: Become more of the culture. JON STEWART: Yes. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: But also, to lose access to a Taco.

Bell in your basement? That's also devastating. Criminal. JON STEWART: Brittany, I got to tell you, I didn't want to say anything about that because I know. how devastating that can be. But, you know, for me, for vegetarians, like, Taco Bell is it, man. Crunchwrap Supreme, no beef. GILLIAN SPEAR: OK, that's a hot tip as another vegetarian. JON STEWART: Oh. Taco Bell is wherever you are on the road. Taco Bell, like, there's always the, like, McDonald's Big Mack, no meat. But then you got to spend at least five minutes. at the drive in, the drive-through going.

like, no, no, no, no, no meat. He goes, well, that's not a Big Mac. No, I'm saying--. [LAUGHTER]. GILLIAN SPEAR: It's like they've. never heard the words before. JON STEWART: Like, you find yourself performing. Here's what I want. No beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. But not the beef patty. I want the other parts of the song, but not the beef patties. So the Big Mac, no. [LAUGHTER]. It takes a while. Brittany, what have we got from this week?

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Just a caveat. As a friendly reminder, if you don't. want to answer any questions, you can. always pass or phone a friend. JON STEWART: Oh, pass. All right, here we go. Let me hear it. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: First up. JON STEWART: Pass. [LAUGHTER] Oh, I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. I jumped the gun. That was not-- that was my fault. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: What are your thoughts. on Ellison now wanting to buy Warner Brothers? When is enough enough? JON STEWART: He should have it all. He should have it all. My guy should have it all.

He should be the leader of all. Why-- can I ask you a question? Why are there other media companies? Shouldn't they all just be one? Shouldn't we get to a point where we're all just fired. and hired by the same guy? Just one guy controls all of the media. What could go wrong? That's what I say. GILLIAN SPEAR: Nada. We definitely all know who we're talking about or talking. shit about our bosses. JON STEWART: Yes! GILLIAN SPEAR: The same guy who would really.

bring the country together. JON STEWART: It's about time we all shared the same ideas. I have always said my complaint with the media. is that there's just too many different aspects of it. [LAUGHTER]. And if we all just shared the same IP, we all become one. Isn't that what diversity, equity, and inclusion is all about? GILLIAN SPEAR: We solved it. We all become the same thing. JON STEWART: Why should we be fiefdoms? GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. I, for one, am excited to work at one company. and shop at one store and watch one channel and one movie.

I think it's gonna be simplicity. JON STEWART: The stress I feel when I go to the library, and I look up, and there's all these different books, and I think, wouldn't it be easier. if there was just one book? GILLIAN SPEAR: The King James Bible. And enough copies for everyone. JON STEWART: Right, Gutenberg Bible and done. Move on. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Your wish may come true. JON STEWART: It does look that way, doesn't it? It is wild to think of though. Like, it's, you know-- because now there's gonna be like,

you know, a bloodletting at Paramount, I think. It might even be this week or next week. And then if they merge with the other thing, like, another one, like, this is how it all runs. now in the media industry. It's wild. It's a wild time. What was the other? There was another one, Brittany? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yes. OK. Instead of demolishing the White House, wouldn't it be more cost effective for Trump. to just make Mar-a-Lago the new White House and Palm. Beach the new Capitol? JON STEWART: That's so smart. That's a smart-- I don't know who wrote that in, but that's somebody that is fiscally responsible.

That is somebody that is looking out for the debt. that America has [INAUDIBLE]. That is a way to cover-- by the way. I don't know if any of you have ever had to, like, even try to, like, redo a bathroom. But it is a shit show when it comes to permits. and everything else. And these guys just were like, I'm gonna build a ballroom. All right, Tuesday I'll have a--. I mean, he's got a literal wrecking ball. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Bulldozer. JON STEWART: And my favorite thing. was there was an article that just came out that was,

because of outcry, White House is. considering releasing their plan to rebuild the ballroom. And I'm like, wait a minute. There's no plan. There's no plan. GILLIAN SPEAR: Nobody asked? JON STEWART: Because he had said, he had literally said, we are not affecting the structure of the White House. The White House will remain sacrosanct. It will not be touched. And then the first picture is, like, a giant, like, Miley.

Cyrus on a wrecking ball going right through a window. on the East wing. And they're like, oh. Oh, you wanted to see it. Like, is the White House not a historic building? Like, have you ever tried to fuck with a historic building? It is nearly impossible. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: And The New York Times article. was like, it was always hard to believe, given the scale of the project. I'm like, was it? Was it hard to believe? Like, the marble buildup was no tell to what was coming.

You couldn't have asked? JON STEWART: Well, they said, like, somehow the ballroom, which was going to hold 600 people, is. now gonna hold 1,000 people. And you're like, how many-- when? GILLIAN SPEAR: It's unbelievable. JON STEWART: They're gonna have a building. larger than the White House. That's-- like, they're gonna have to rent. this fucking thing out for bar mitzvahs. to make any money back. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Like Mar-a-Lago. Full circle. JON STEWART: Going back to the original idea, which. one of our astute listeners came up with, which was just. switch it. He's gonna be president forever anyway.

What's the difference? And if not, he'll just hand it over to one of the--. I mean, he's got a whole brood now. So he can hand it over to one of them. Just keep it down there. I'm very excited about this. And then they'll put up the Arc de Trump. Yeah, everything's going great. Son of a bitch. Brittany, how do they keep in touch with us? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, are we weeklyshowpod. Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Blue. Sky we are weeklyshowpodcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment. on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Is that-- those are the only options, right? Like, subscribe, and comment.

There's no other. I wonder if social media's gonna--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Those are all of the options. LAUREN WALKER: Share? JON STEWART: That is-- share! LAUREN WALKER: Share. JON STEWART: Well done, Lauren. Thank you guys very much. As always, lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedovic, producer Gillian Spear, video editor and engineer Rob Vitolo, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, executive producers Chris McShane, Katie Gray. Thank you, guys, once again for helping. me through another episode of The Weekly Show podcast. We'll see you next week.

Oh, boy. [MUSIC PLAYING]. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.