May 6, 2025 • 58 mins
The Pentagon is embroiled in a crisis of credibility as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth finds himself caught in a web of contradictions over information security practices. What began as a seemingly straightforward disciplinary action against alleged leakers has evolved into a revealing portrait of double standards at the highest levels of military leadership.
When three senior Pentagon advisors—Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darren Selnick—were unceremoniously escorted from the building and subsequently fired, they raised a troubling claim: they were never told what specific information they allegedly leaked, nor were they given any opportunity to defend themselves. "We have not been told what we're being investigated for," Caldwell stated bluntly in a follow-up interview, questioning whether a legitimate investigation ever took place.
The situation took a dramatic turn when reports emerged that Secretary Hegseth himself had been sharing sensitive operational details about military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen—not through secure government channels, but in Signal chat groups that included family members. This followed an earlier incident where Hegseth participated in another Signal group that accidentally included a journalist from The Atlantic. Security experts and congressional representatives have expressed alarm, with Rep. Jim Himes highlighting that "preparations for an attack... are to be classified top secret."
This controversy strikes at fundamental questions about accountability and equal application of rules. While Hegseth publicly decried leakers and anonymous sources as "hoaxsters," his own information-sharing practices appear to violate the very standards he's enforcing among his staff. Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican and retired Air Force general, described Hegseth's actions as "amateur hour," noting that "Russia and China are all over his phone and for him to be putting secret stuff on his phone is not right."
What makes this pattern particularly concerning is how it mirrors broader issues of due process throughout government enforcement. As similar stories emerge from immigration enforcement and other sectors, we're confronted with critical questions about the consistent application of rules and the protections afforded to those accused of wrongdoing.
Has our rush to address perceived security threats led us to abandon core principles of fairness? Does the digital age require new frameworks for handling sensitive information? Join us as we explore these pressing questions—and be sure to subscribe for our continuing coverage of this developing story.
REAL ID Enforcement Begins - Digital Surveillance COMING SOON?
https://youtu.be/ZYBoH35OjXs?si=rEhZWO-h0mU_DwQL
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You know what a big surprise that a bunch of a few
leakers get fired and suddenly abunch of hit pieces come out
from the same media that peddledthe Russia hoax.
That won't get back theirPulitzers.
They got Pulitzers for a bunchof lies.
Pulitzers for a bunch of liesand on hoaxes, time and time and
time again.
And as they peddle those lies,no one ever calls them on it.
(00:25):
See, this is what the mediadoes.
They take anonymous sourcesfrom disgruntled former
employees and then they try toslash and burn people and ruin
their reputations.
Not going to work with mebecause we're changing the
Defense Department, putting thePentagon back in the hands of
warfighters, and anonymoussmears from disgruntled former
employees on old news doesn'tmatter.
(00:47):
So I'm happy to be here at theEaster Egg Roll with my dad and
my kids.
This is what we're doing.
It for these kids right here.
This is why we're fighting thefake news media.
This is why we're fightingslash-and-burn Democrats.
This is why we're fightinghoaxsters, hoaxsters this group
right here full of hoaxstersthat peddle anonymous sources
(01:09):
from leakers with axes to grind,and then you put it all
together as if it's some newsstory, and when we know it, we
know exactly what it is.
So I'm really proud of whatwe're doing for the president,
fighting hard across the board,and I'm going to go roll some
Easter eggs with my kids Overthe last few days your senior,
(01:30):
advisor, Dan Caldwell, DarrenSelnick, Colin Carroll, who is
chief of staff, deputy secretaryof defense.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
The other one, Darren , is now former deputy chief of
staff.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
We'll let go.
Did you let them go?
Will let go.
Did you let them go?
Right, it was a result of aninvestigation ongoing at the
Pentagon where we identifiedthere was sufficient evidence.
Potentially again, there's aninvestigation ongoing that will
have to complete itselfsufficient evidence to believe
that they or others near themwere party to leaking.
And then I have a statutoryresponsibility, brian, if I
(02:01):
believe that's the case, toultimately ensure they no longer
have access to that and thatthe investigation commences.
There are a lot of ways tocommunicate in this building.
I do it every day, I was justdoing it this morning Official
channels by which we communicateclassified information.
If you want to do it and do itthe right way, you should.
If we think you are leaking tothe press, that's a very real
(02:22):
problem.
We take that very seriously atthe Pentagon.
I'm here to do one job, one jobfor the president and the
American people Secure thecountry.
America first.
Peace through strength.
I don't have time for leakers.
I don't have time for the hoaxpress that peddles old stories
from disgruntled employees.
We should be talking about thedecimation of the Houthis, how
we're pushing back the Chinese,how we have a new defense area
(02:44):
at the southern border.
Instead, disgruntled formeremployees are peddling things to
try to save their ass, andultimately that's not going to
work.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
It seems like the fastest way to derail the whole
project the Trump administrationand the United States of
America is a war with Iran, andthat's why I've just been
watching it as carefully as Ican, because I feel like, again,
if you hated Donald Trump andyou hated what the
administration is doing onimmigration, trade, anti-wuked,
(03:17):
whatever, and you wanted to stopit, the first thing you would
do is apply pressure to have theUS military engage in a war
with Iran.
I mean, that's my perspectiveon it anyway.
Speaker 5 (03:30):
I think that and also continuing to do what we've
been doing previously, in Russia, for sure.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
For sure, though I don't know why.
I'm going to ask you all aboutthis, but it feels like Wyckoff
is helping a lot there.
I mean, I've already said he'sa godsend, god bless, steve
Wyckoff.
Speaker 5 (03:48):
I couldn't agree more .
People knew that you weren'tfully on board with the regime
change program.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, I was very open about it.
I was very on the record aboutit, and most of the time when I
was saying that we shouldn't dothis, it was actually in support
of you know the president'sstated preferences, like the
president clearly doesn't dothis.
It was actually in support ofyou know the president's stated
preferences, like the presidentclearly doesn't want this.
In the first term, there werepeople in his administration
(04:11):
that wanted it.
He didn't clearly.
He clearly didn't want it, andso it was supporting people who
didn't want the war, and so Iwas essentially but Donald Trump
had said, has said and now hisactions make perfectly clear he
would strongly prefer adiplomatic solution.
Correct.
I don't want to speak for thepresident, but it's fairly
obvious that that's what hewants.
(04:31):
Well, he said it.
Speaker 6 (04:32):
I mean, he said it again and he ran on it.
Speaker 7 (04:35):
Welcome to the Derrell McLean Show.
I'm your host, derrell McLean.
Let's get into this episodeepisode.
So you just heard, uh, thesecretary of defense peak exit,
uh, because there's been somenew, new signal gate thing again
.
And the last voice you heardwas that of dan caldwell.
Uh, one of the people who were,who was let go, who has been
(05:01):
actually very, very loyal to theSecretary of Defense, who's
saying like no, I did not leak.
And there's also a big problemtoo, which is Secretary of
Defense, said that these werefrom anonymous sources.
Well, one of his people whowere, well, one of his people
(05:26):
who were ceremoniously marchedout of the building, marched out
of the Pentagon, said look,there was no investigation,
there was no polygraph test.
We were told that there wouldbe an investigation next day.
You know we're getting frogmarched out.
And he wrote in his own wordswhat has been going on.
(05:48):
So I'm going to get into a fewof these articles now.
So I just want to be totallydirect with you.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Did you leak classified information against
the wishes of your superiors tomedia outlets?
Absolutely not.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
Did you photograph classified material and then
text pictures of that materialto an NBC news reporter?
Absolutely not.
Did you photograph classifiedmaterial and then text pictures
of that material to an NBC newsreporter?
Absolutely not, and I have notspoken to an NBC reporter while
at the Pentagon.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Are you?
Do you know what you've beenaccused of?
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Sitting here right now, myself and Darren Selnick
and Colin Carroll.
The other two individuals thatwere escorted out of the
Pentagon, initially placed onleave and then fired on Friday.
We have not been told as ofthis recording.
One is there what we were beinginvestigated for?
Two is there still aninvestigation?
And three, was there even areal investigation?
Because there's a lot ofevidence that there is not a
real investigation.
Speaker 7 (06:49):
So let me go ahead and say this right off the bat
that last part that he said wassomewhat chilling, but also it
seems to be telling because it'sthe nature of what's been going
on in the currentadministration, this lack of due
process.
(07:09):
So if you've been payingattention to the news and I do
apologize that I haven't beenable to deliver it to you
because my laptop is actually inthe shop and so the way I
process the show would have beenvery different but anyway, you
have this migrant massdeportation thing that was
(07:35):
promised during the campaign andall these people that are being
, for the lack of a better term,disappeared with no due process
.
You have people saying well,this person here is MS-13.
They've been confirmed thatthey're MS-13.
(07:56):
And you'll look at the evidenceand it's an informant that says
the person was MS-13 in NewYork.
You do the background theperson never been to New York,
somebody who, in the immigrationthing, kind of confirms what
(08:17):
the other thing said, eventhough it's verifiably untrue.
You look at the criminalhistory.
There are no criminal record.
There is a record of being aasylum seeker.
There's a record of a judgesaying this person cannot go to
(08:40):
this area because they'reactually targeted by a group
that you say they're a part of,and then they get deported to a
country they are not from.
You look at the record.
There is no criminal record inthe country and they're not
(09:01):
deported to the country they arefrom.
They're deported to a prisonthat the United States has a
contract with, with no dueprocess.
And what is good for the gooseis good for the gander, because
now you have somebody who is,for all intent and purposes, has
been loyal to the Secretary ofDefense for years and is
(09:27):
unceremoniously frog-marched outwhen there was no investigation
and they're saying I did notleak.
And then you have to thinkabout well, there's no mechanism
in place, when you're accusedof something, to to fight, fight
(09:47):
your your, to face and fight,defend yourself against your
accusers.
If it's not going to happen onthe uh, I guess law enforcement
side, then I suppose we shouldnot be shocked that it's not
going to happen on theadministrative side as well.
(10:09):
And then I postulate and ask aquestion here Is this the type
of thing that we want?
Is this the type of governmentthat we want to live in?
How can you run a anydepartment like this?
And then what makes it moretroubling is one of the people
(10:31):
that was frogmarshed out was oneof the lone voices who was
fighting against the militaryindustrial complex when there
was conversation about bombingIran recently.
So how do you know that it wasnot the deep state actually
(10:55):
trying to frame this person toget them out of the Pentagon so
that the voices that aresurrounded by the president are
all the pro-war voices?
You don't know, because youdidn't do the due process and
the due diligence of having areal investigation.
And that's what makes thisthing so dangerous.
And when it comes to this wholeleaking thing, we have to be
(11:18):
very concrete, serious aboutthis.
The secretary of defense used towork for Fox News.
His wife is some sort of aproducer.
Do you think that, with astraight face, that a former
journalist like the Secretary ofDefense was, or a political
analyst or whatever you want tocall him?
(11:38):
You think he didn't leak before?
You think he has not receivedanonymous sources while he was
working at Fox News?
This is kind of the way the DCgame is played, but at any rate,
now there have been some callsfrom people inside of the camp.
(12:01):
Who is actually saying theSecretary of Defense has to go.
It is not going well.
So this is coming out of theWashington establishment
(12:24):
representatives from a districtthat is heavily influenced by
the military industrial complex.
There's a lot of weaponsmanufacturing in the area and
this representative, who is RepBacon, says that now the
(12:47):
Secretary of Defense, pete Hex,has to go.
So Washington is actuallyaghast at the Trump
(13:16):
administration's officials,including the Vice President and
the Defense Secretary, discusswar plans in a signal group chat
.
Many raised concerns about thepotential mishandling of
classified information as wellas sensitive details regarding
US war plans.
Only one word for this FUBARrep Pat Ryan, a Democrat from
(13:43):
New York and an Army veteran whosits on the Armed Service
National Committee, wrote on X.
If House Republicans won't holda hearing on how this happened
immediately, I'll do it my damnself.
Get the fuck out, said oneDemocrat congressional aide,
capturing the general feeling onCapitol Hill that the important
(14:07):
security protocols have beenbroken.
It's an operational securitynightmare, the person said.
The aide and others weregranted anonymity, to be candid
about a sensitive security issueinvolving the administration.
In the report in the Atlantic,the magazine's editor revealed
(14:29):
that he had been accidentallyadded to a group chat on a
secure messaging app, signal,where senior members of the
Trump administration werediscussing plans for airstrikes
on the rebels in Yemen.
In the hours before a recentwave of strikes in Yemen, an
account attributed to theDefense Secretary's headset
posted details operationalinformation about targets,
(14:50):
weapons attacks, sequences.
Inside the Pentagon, officialsexpressed shocked that the
officials used XSignal chats forsuch sensitive discussions.
No, no, they didn't, said onedefense official.
It's just absolutelyunbelievable.
The dod either doesn't have astrong cyber security posture
(15:12):
right now.
Our head sick is simply notengaging in it, said the second
defense official.
Now, according to the atlantic'sjeffrey goldberg, he received a
request to connect to theequipment messaging app signal
on a username, matt w Mike Watts, on March 11, presumably the
Trump administration's nationalsecurity advisor.
(15:33):
He was later added to a groupchat called Hootie PC Small
Group with several other memberswho appear to be the top
administration officials,including Hexit Vice President
JD Vance, director of NationalIntelligence Tulsi Gabbard and
the CIA Director, john Ratcliffe.
Brian Hughes, the spokesman forthe National Security Council,
(15:54):
told the publication that thechat appears to be authentic
messaging chain.
The NSC did not respond torequests or further comment.
Several highly sensitive,potentially classified pieces of
information were included inthe chat.
For example, ratcliffe listedthe name of the active
intelligence officer whoidentified or used and kept
(16:15):
closely under wraps His point ofcontact for discussion.
The government has classifiedcommunication systems in which
officials discuss sensitiveinformation information that's
the security experts questionswhy senior trump administration
officials were resourcing tosignal, a freely available app
developed by a non-profit entity, to discuss battle plans now.
(16:39):
So this article is is inpolitico and uh, you can read
the rest of it, basically inyour leisure.
As people like to say, do yourown research.
But what I will say is to whyyou asked.
If they ask a question of whythey're using this signal trap,
(17:04):
and that is because they aredoing everything they can to
avoid FOIA requests, and that'swhat it's about.
They know that the signal chatsare not kept and they don't
want people to be able to trackwhat they're saying, what
(17:35):
they're being, what they're said.
Now this comes in rep don bacon,who, who is the one who says
this is amateur hour and hex isan amateur person, and he goes
on to say I have had concernsfrom the get-go because of pete.
Hexes didn't have a lot ofexperience.
I actually like him on Fox, butdoes he have the experience to
(17:55):
lead one of the largestorganizations in the world.
That concerns me.
If it's a true lead, that hehad another signal chat with his
family about missions againstHouthis.
It is totally unacceptable.
I'm not in the White House.
I'm not going to tell the WhiteHouse how to manage this, but I
(18:19):
find this unacceptable and Iwouldn't tolerate it if I was in
charge.
Russia and China put upthousands of people to monitor
all these phone calls at thevery top, and the number one
target besides the President ofthe United States would be the
Secretary of Defense.
Russia and China are all overhis phone and for him to be
(18:44):
putting secret stuff on hisphone is not right.
He is acting like he is abovethe law and that shows that he
is an amateur person.
End quote.
And that comes from the GOP rep, don Bacon, who is a retired
Air Force general and he wasspeaking to Politico.
(19:06):
Bacon is the first seatedRepublican to call for Hexet to
resign.
Now, donald Trump is known for alot of things.
One of the biggest things he'sknown for is firing people
(19:28):
things.
One of the biggest things he'sknown for is firing people and
even though there is a bit ofdenial going on and the
president seems to be standingby the Secretary of Defense.
There was a lot of reportingcoming out, and reporting came
out of NPRS, national GlobalPublic Radio, that the White
(19:52):
House is actually looking toreplace Pete Hexett as Secretary
of Defense because of thisscandal.
So so.
Speaker 8 (20:10):
Support for NPR comes from the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, a privatecorporation funded by the
American people.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
The Senate's top Democrat, chuck Schumer, is
calling again for DefenseSecretary Pete Hegseth to be
fired over a report of a chat inthe Signal app.
Now, if you weren't followingnews over the weekend you may
think well, that's an old storyfrom weeks ago.
But actually it's happenedagain in the Signal app.
A report that there was a chatin the Signal app, started by
Hegseth, that discussed plansfor the US attack on Houthis in
(20:41):
Yemen.
Npr has not been able toindependently confirm this
report, which was first reportedby the New York Times and
appeared to be confirmed by theDefense Department.
A second chat on thecommercially available app.
Unlike an earlier chat thatbecame public when it
inadvertently included theeditor-in-chief of the Atlantic,
jeff Goldberg, thisconversation was started by the
(21:01):
Defense Secretary himself.
So let's discuss this with JimHimes.
He's a member of Congress, thetop Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, whichlooks into these matters.
Congressman, a member ofCongress, the top Democrat on
the House Intelligence Committee, which looks into these matters
.
Congressman, good morning,welcome to the program.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Good morning.
Speaker 6 (21:14):
Thanks for having me, do you have any independent
reason to believe or disbelievethis report in the New York
Times?
Speaker 2 (21:20):
No, I'm like everyone else, just reading it in the
media.
But no, not shocking, based onthe pattern of behavior we've
seen for a long time now out ofthe Pentagon.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
Now the statement from the Defense Department
about this.
This, quoted in the Times, sayslisten, nothing of all that
important was discussed here.
Nothing secret or classifiedwas discussed here.
Not that it was unimportant,but nothing classified was
discussed here.
If there in fact are againdetails of what was a
forthcoming attack in Yemen,does that strike you as nothing
classified, nothing secret,nothing that important.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
No, I mean it's simply not right.
I mean this is sort of notsubject to debate, right?
What is classified is not atthe discretion of the person who
is generating the information.
There's very clear standardsfor what needs to be classified
and in fact, when I had theopportunity to talk to Director
of National Intelligence TulsiGabbard at an open hearing a
number of weeks ago, I actuallyread her the standard.
(22:14):
And you know, preparations foran attack and it's almost
ridiculous to have to say thisbut especially specific
preparations for an attack,timing, weapon systems, et
cetera are to be classified topsecret.
And look, I think mostAmericans, even if they don't
know the Pentagon standards forclassification, understand that
talking in advance in anunsecured spot whether it's a
(22:36):
signal chat or a bar about anupcoming attack could result in
tragedy and we're very, veryfortunate that in this case it
didn't.
Speaker 6 (22:45):
What have you and I guess we should note.
According to the New York Times, his wife was on the chat.
She has traveled around withhim and attended meetings with
him.
Other people were on the chatwho are in the Pentagon but not
necessarily in a position toneed to know this information.
Was anybody on that chat whostrikes you as inappropriate?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Well, the whole thing is inappropriate, right?
I mean, again, we spendmillions and millions of dollars
a year creating classified andsealed environments in which
this stuff is talked about.
No, I can't imagine why hiswife, his brother and his
personal lawyer would need toknow particular aircraft that
(23:24):
are to be used in an upcomingattack.
So I mean, you know, this isjust sadly reflective of a much
larger problem at the Pentagon.
Here, I mean, it's important toremember the context right.
All cabinet secretaries havedifficult jobs, but this defense
secretary's job is uniquebecause 24-7, the hundreds of
(23:44):
thousands of people at theDepartment of Defense are doing
things like driving aircraftcarriers and launching planes
off of these carriers andcarrying weapons and doing
lethal things, and 24-7, theSecretary of Defense must be
almost perfect in their prudencein their care, in their ability
to make judgments when reallyawful things are happening.
(24:06):
And when you see basic errors,including your wife and your
brother, on what should beillegal communication about an
upcoming attack, you really needto worry about the national
security of the country as awhole.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
Isn't it true, though and you would know this as the
ranking Democrat on theIntelligence Committee that a
lot of people in the USgovernment find Signal to be
pretty good, and in fact, peoplein the CIA have it installed on
their computers?
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Well, so Signal is pretty good, that's exactly the
right word, but I'm here to tellyou that it's not perfect.
And so, yes, people in thegovernment use Signal for
unimportant, by the way, as do Ifor unimportant things, you
know, to communicate socialplans to my colleagues, for
example.
But there's two problems.
(24:53):
Number one it's not perfect andthere is this whole other
system that we spend tens ofmillions of dollars of taxpayer
money to handle precisely thesecommunications.
And number two, though it's alittle esoteric, the government
is required, and people insenior positions in government
are required, to keep a recordof their communications, which,
(25:14):
of course, in Signal is almostimpossible to do.
This was, of course, takes usback to the absolute outrage
that we dealt with for half adecade over Hillary Clinton's
emails.
One of the charges was that shewas breaking the law on records
preservation.
That's secondary to the veryserious danger that the
Secretary of Defense and MikeWalz put our pilots in, but it
(25:36):
is a thing.
Speaker 6 (25:37):
Just about 20 seconds left.
But what do you make of this?
Apparently, even as this storywas unfolding, the Defense
Department was dismissing senioradvisers to Hank Seth for
supposedly leaking information,something they've denied but
these very people were on thevery same signal chat that
Hexeth himself initiated.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, and look, it's totally.
We have no idea what's going onother than the fact that both
senior advisors to the Secretaryof Defense were fired.
We also know that a four-stargeneral who ran the National
Security Agency, a militaryofficer was fired because Laura
Loomer had a problem with them.
This is a pattern of realtrouble at the top of our most
(26:14):
dangerous government department.
Speaker 7 (26:16):
So, according to reporting, like I said, the
White House has begun theprocess of looking for a new
leader at the Pentagon toreplace the Secretary of Defense
, pete Hicks, according to a USofficial who was actually not
authorized to speak publicly.
So this comes as again, hexen ismired in a controversy over
(26:40):
sharing military operationdetails in a group chat.
The defense secretary is againunder fire for revelations that
he shared classified informationin a group chat with his wife,
brother and lawyer.
The source actually said thatHexis used Signal messaging app
on his personal smartphone andwas detailing minute-by-minute
(27:03):
classified information aboutairstrikes to Houthi targets in
Yemen.
About airstrikes to Houthitargets in Yemen.
It happened about the same timein March, when Hex had shared
similar details with White Houseofficials in a different Signal
group chat that accidentallyincluded the journalist from the
Atlantic.
Now that leak hours beforeairstrikes hit could have
(27:26):
endangered US pilots if thatinformation had, because it had
the timing, and the airstrikeshit could have endangered US
pilots if that information had,because it had the timing and
the airstrikes were, if it hadbeen intercepted by US
adversaries.
Now, already the Houthis havetwice shot down American
Predator drones and that's whythat is a worry in this case.
(27:50):
so white house press secretarycarolyn livet denied that
there's an effort to replace thesecretary of state, posting on
twitter that the president,trump stands strongly beside
hexing.
Speaking to reporters at thewhite house, trump also backed
the secretary of defense andsaid concerns over the signal
chat was a waste of time.
(28:11):
Trump said that Hanks is doinga great job and asked the
Houthis how he's doing.
Trump also said Hanks haddenied wrongdoing at that White
House Easter event that youheard earlier in the show and of
course, you heard the show.
This is what the media does,etc.
(28:33):
Etc.
And the three other Pentagonadvisors, dan Caldwell, colin
Carroll, darrell Sickling, wereescorted out of the Pentagon and
accused of leaking informationto the press.
The trio then put out a jointstatement on EFCOG their
dismissal unconscionable and saythat they have not been told
what they stand accused ofleaking.
(28:54):
All three of us served ourcountry honorably in uniform.
For two of us, this includeddeployments to the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and, based onour collective service, we
understand the importance ofinformation security and work
every day to protect it.
Caldwell and Sinig are longtimeassociates of the Secretary of
(29:18):
Defense, who worked with him andconcerns Veterans for America,
a right-leaning policy group,new Hampshire Senator Gene
Shaheen, a Democrat on the ArmedServices Committee, said in a
statement that Hague said sheshould accept accountability,
but we must not forget thatultimately the responsibility
(29:41):
lies with the president forselecting a former weekend TV
host without any experiencesuccessfully leading a large,
complex organization to run ourgovernment's biggest department
and make life and deathdecisions for our military and
country.
She said so.
(30:14):
The Oracle from Omaha, the man,the legend himself, berkshire
Hathaway's own, warren Buffett,has actually announced that he
will be stepping down from hisrole as the CEO of Berkshire
Hathaway come the end of theyear.
He made some statements abouttrade.
(30:39):
Obviously, he made a lot ofmoney over his lifetime and he
came out talking in thisshareholder meeting.
He talked for over about twohours and 37 minutes, I think.
But yeah, warren.
Buffett is going to be retiringfinally in his mid-90s.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
We want a prosperous world with eight countries with
nuclear weapons, including a fewthat are what I would call
quite unstable.
I do not think it's a greatidea to try and design a world
where a few countries say ha ha,ha, we've won, and other
(31:26):
countries are envious.
So the main thing to do is notuse trade, should not be a
weapon.
Do is not use trade, should notbe a weapon.
(31:47):
And the United States, theUnited States, we've won.
I mean, we have become anincredibly important country
starting from nothing 250 yearsago.
There's nothing that ain't likeit and it's a big mistake, in
my view, when you have seven anda half billion people that
(32:07):
don't like you very well, amillion that are crowing in some
way about how well they've done.
Speaker 7 (32:13):
So this is a day that investors knew that it was
going to come, and it hasfinally arrived.
A conscience of capitalismprepares to step off the stage.
It was closing in on 1 pm whenWarren Buffett, sat on stage
(32:37):
before a ramped audience ofabout 40,000 at the CHI Health
Center in Omaha, said that hewas getting a five-minute
warning.
To most of those that werethere for the annual meeting of
Berkshire Hathaway and hiscompany, it was simply a signal
(32:59):
that the gathering known as theWoodstock for capitalists was
drawing to a close.
No one knew that somethinghistoric was about to happen.
After 60 years of running thecompany he called his painting.
The 94 year old Warren Buffettsaid that he planned to step
(33:20):
down as chief executive officerat the year end, proving how
much freedom he has alwaysexercised at Berkshire Hathaway.
He surprises on board and GregAbel, his hand-picked successor.
I want to spring that on thedirectors.
He said that on the directors.
He said with a smile.
(33:40):
People in the crowd, many ofwhom were in tears, rose from
their seats in a standingovation for a singular figure in
the business world.
Buffett is often described as asymbol of American capitalism.
The truth is that he has alwaysbeen an outlier.
He is more of a conscious ofcapitalism, willing to speak
(34:07):
uncomfortable truths about thesystem's ills while others
remain silent.
His public comments on issueslike tariffs over the weekend
are a prime example.
The billionaire always comesacross as a gentleman and, in
his age of distrust, becamesomeone the people could trust.
Fellow business moguls andgovernment officials admired him
because of his success.
Yes, berkshire Hathawayreported $89 billion in net
profit last year and is one ofthe biggest buyers of US
(34:30):
Treasury bonds.
But it also is because hedidn't appear to have changed.
Despite his wealth, he lives ina modest house in Omaha and for
years drove his own car,including to the drive-thru at
the McDonald's.
Buffett isn't perfect,something he often acknowledges,
and he urges his followers tostay humble as he discusses his
(34:53):
own investment mistakes andmisses.
But that's also got to be oneof his biggest accomplishments
using his annual Berkshireletter and a marathon Q&A
sessions with shareholders toeducate generations about
business, investing and lifeitself.
That wouldn't have normallyconsidered to be a Berkshire
(35:29):
Hathaway watcher, who perfectlyencapsulated the importance of
Buffett and his longtimebusiness partner, the late
Charlie Munger.
There were good investorsdealers in reality.
Patton wrote Nick Denton, whowas the founder of Gawker.
When the history of the riseand the fall of America is
written, one of the chapterswill have to begin in Omaha with
(35:50):
their departure.
As Buffett prepares to depart,the big question is what will
happen to his masterpiece onceit passes to Abel, his
masterpiece once it passes toAbel?
It has been apparent for severalyears now that the day-to-day
basis Abel is already runninglarge swaths of Berkshire
Hathaway's operations, so theshift likely won't be dramatic,
(36:12):
but the scrutiny of Abel'sBerkshire Hathaway will
undoubtedly increase.
The company wasn't built justas a collection of desperate
businesses but as a vision ofone man.
Abel has said he will seek tomaintain the culture that his
boss meticulously built, butthings will inevitably become
(36:32):
different.
Berkshire's board gave Buffettan unparalleled degree of
autonomy to operate as he sawfit, often learning about
significant deals he had struckonly after the fact.
Abel will have to work hard toearn even some of that latitude,
and under him Berkshire islikely to operate with more
(36:53):
guardrails.
But there is speculation thatBuffett will remain the chairman
for some period, which couldafford Abel more freedom as he
grows into the top job.
Nevertheless, buffett's successand the company he built were
exceptional.
What investors gained in Omahathis weekend and the world over
(37:14):
want to know what comes next.
Speaker 9 (37:22):
A big news today out of Omaha Warren Buffett
announcing that he will bestepping down as CEO of
Berkshire Hathaway.
Buffett shocked the arena fullof shareholders with the
announcement that he will bestepping down and Greg Abel
would become the CEO by the endof the year.
Buffett has been in charge ofthe company since 1965, said
that he has zero intention ofselling a single share of
(37:44):
Berkshire Hathaway.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
Buffett announcing the news at the end of a
five-hour question period, Fivewhere Greg should become the
chief executive officer of thecompany at year end and I want
to spring that on the directorseffectively and then get that.
Speaker 9 (38:06):
That's my recommendation the news that was
not expected.
Buffett surprised abel, who wassitting right next to him, with
the announcement.
He said he had only told histwo children.
Buffett's berkshire hathawayalso owns our company, wplg
incorporated.
Speaker 7 (38:18):
Uh, the end of an era as, as they say, the end of an
era.
As they say the end of an era,all the things may come to an
end.
Warren Buffett was anincredible, towering figure in a
(38:48):
way that most people dosomewhat mimic.
Just looking at a thing theother day that he had over
Berkshire Hathaway's company washolding over $350 billion in
cash and he had a lot of bondsthat in some measures I forgot
what metric was, but he had morenow than the actual Federal
(39:14):
Reserve.
Now that is some solid,long-term investment.
So one of the biggest thingsthat are about to happen to all
Americans now even it's justbeen warning for about 20 years
and now it is coming to fruition, and that is now the
(39:36):
enforcement of the Real ID, andthat's where we're going to end
this show.
Thank you for tuning in.
I'll see you on the nextepisode.
Speaker 10 (39:49):
A march towards a technocratic state, towards
using technology to expand thetotalitarian state in a way that
we've never seen before.
But it's also the first timethat the US is going beyond an
ID that is issued by your state,by Texas, by New York, by
California.
What have you?
Speaker 8 (40:08):
The federal government says it's finally
going to start enforcing theREAL ID Act, nearly two decades
after it was passed.
They tell us it's all aboutkeeping us safe, but could REAL
ID open the door to digitalsurveillance, biometric
databases and a future whereyou'll need a government-issued
ID to participate in everydaylife?
My name is James Lee and you'rewatching Beyond the Headlines
(40:31):
on Breaking Points.
You might have heard that,starting May 7th, Americans will
need a Real ID compliantlicense to board a plane or
enter a federal building.
The Real ID Act was passed backin 2005 in the wake of the 9-11
(40:52):
attacks, sold to the public as apost-9-11 safety measure, a
quote-unquote, long-delayedupgrade to protect our elections
and national security.
What you might not know is howthis push fits into a much
larger agenda, one that some sayincludes mobile driver's
licenses, biometric facialrecognition and partnerships
(41:12):
between government agencies,global institutions and big tech
to roll out digital IDs acrossthe country.
Now, to help us break all thisdown, I recently sat down with
independent journalist DerrickRose, a prominent voice warning
us about the dangers of digitalidentity systems.
Here is that conversation.
Speaker 10 (41:31):
Thanks for having me on, james, I appreciate it
Absolutely.
Speaker 8 (41:34):
So we're going to hopefully dive deep into this,
but I first want to start with,maybe, the basics, for people
who haven't looked into it much.
What exactly is a Real ID, andhow is it that different from an
old driver's license systemthat we've had for decades?
Speaker 10 (41:50):
Sure.
So you sort of outlined thebeginning of it, which was 9-11.
And, of course, after 9-11,calls for making the country
safer.
How can we prevent terroristsfrom entering the nation and how
do we keep track of everybodyin a way that is supposedly
going to reduce crime, reduceterrorism?
Now it's been 20 years sincethen and there's less talk of
terrorism and the ways therewere post 9-11, but there's
(42:13):
still this discussion, I'd saynow, more especially with the
right wing, of how are we goingto, you know, keep track of all
the voters, how are we going tokeep track of illegal immigrants
, et cetera.
So the same ideas are stillbeing pushed.
As you mentioned, it's beendelayed numerous times through
every administration up untilthis point, and now the deadline
is finally here.
The thing that makes itdifferent, just on a practical
(42:33):
level, is people will notice youmight have like a little star
in your driver's license.
So many people already probablyhave these and just didn't
realize that they got thembecause over the last 20 years,
as state by state has started tobecome compliant, more and more
people are getting these, likeI said, whether they realize
them or not.
So now we're at the point where, all across the nation.
Everybody's going to have tohave one of these to enter
(42:55):
federal buildings to do variousthings in the country, and the
main thing, though, is just thatyou'll notice a little star.
They promise that there's somemore counterfeit measures, so,
on the practical level, that'spretty much it.
You won't really see anythingdifferent.
We're not at the point whereit's just your face to get in
somewhere, but, as I havewritten about recently, I do
think that's where it's headed,particularly at the airports and
federal buildings and placeslike that, but for the moment,
(43:18):
it's simply just a change in thelook of your ID, just a change
in the look of your ID.
Speaker 8 (43:22):
Yeah, you mentioned you wrote an article about this,
so I wanted to dive into that alittle bit, and you wrote,
quote Real ID is the latest moveinching Americans closer to
mandatory digital identificationprograms, not only for voting
but for daily life.
Can you walk us through alittle bit of how this I don't
know seemingly innocuous real IDrequirement connects to this
(43:47):
argument that you're making amuch larger and broader
infrastructure, things likemobile driver licenses, facial
recognition, digital ID system?
Basically lay out your theoryfor us?
Speaker 10 (43:57):
Sure, and I don't think it's very far-fetched.
First of all, because, in orderto be Real ID compliant,
there's a few things you can do.
One is what we just describedJust get an update of your
driver's license, your state ID,and it's going to have the
little star in it, and thenyou'll be Real ID compliant.
The other is to continue to usea passport.
So if you're someone like mewho only has a passport, then
(44:18):
you just keep doing what you'vebeen doing.
But there are also other formsof being Real ID compliant.
One of them is known as mobiledriver's license, or just MDLs,
and again, people might be usingthese already because there's
certain states that have adoptedthem in the last few years
without realizing that it's, youknow, real ID compliant.
But essentially what a mobiledriver's license is?
There's several versions.
(44:39):
Some in certain states aregovernment-run, government-owned
, so you have a you know my IDinsert state name.
Then there's others that acceptApple and Google Wallet, google
ID sort of apps to become RealID compliant, and what these are
basically doing in my mind isjust getting people as you
(45:00):
quoted me there a bit closer tothis real ID, this digital ID,
facial recognition everywhere.
Because to be real ID compliant.
The easiest way is to get theidea, but you could also just
start using your phone.
Many people are doing thiseverywhere and they're also
scanning their face to opentheir phone.
So maybe hearing this is notlike some big concern to many
people.
But if you've been payingattention in the last decade to
(45:20):
digital rights, digital privacypeople much more informed than
me lawyers, ngos, nonprofits whofocus on these issues
particularly have been warningabout the growth of facial
recognition, have been warningabout the growth of digital IDs
and how, as those systems becomemore interconnected starting
with, okay, you have youridentification to get into
federal buildings on an app, butthen, over time, as these
(45:43):
systems expand which they willboth in the private sector and
through government, to includeyour health information, to
include your banking, financialinformation, et cetera you end
up being very close to whatChina has in the version, in
their form of WeChat and the oneapp that sort of has everything
in it.
And again, this is going to besold in a way that's convenient,
it's fast.
We again, this is going to besold in a way that's convenient,
(46:04):
it's fast.
We're seeing this at the airportPeople are being encouraged to
go paperless and to just usetheir face to check in, and
we've heard from the airportsthat maybe as soon as this fall,
but definitely the next coupleof years, they plan to make
facial recognition a mandatorypart of the check-in process.
(46:28):
So in all different sectorsstarting with the RealID, with
mobile driver's license, andespecially at the airports,
we're seeing this push towardsdigital identifications, and
mobile driver's license is justone form of that.
I'll also just note brieflythat the TSA has already made it
clear on their own website thatthey will accept mobile
driver's licenses as a RealIDcompliant ID and again, they've
also got pages on their websiteshowing you how you can skip the
whole ID part at all and justdo facial recognition, which
(46:49):
they're starting to roll out atdifferent terminals.
So overall, I don't think it'sa big leap, to kind of point out
what we expect to see in thenext couple of years.
I don't think it's going tohappen by the end of this year
that digital IDs will beeverywhere, but I do think
becoming real ID compliant withthings like mobile driver's
license is definitely taking usin that direction.
Speaker 8 (47:08):
Right.
And then you brought up Chinathere.
I was recently there and theycertainly have a very robust
identification protocol in a lotof places that you go public
areas, including travel, as wellas the mall things like that.
But to kind of give the otherside of the story a little bit,
some say, you know, there's kindof these trade-offs with
(47:29):
privacy concerns and maybethey're a bit exaggerated in
what you're talking about.
You know, the real ID is itjust you know?
Is it just a natural evolutionof going from paper to a digital
world?
And I'm wondering how you wouldrespond to people who say, if
you're not really doing anythingwrong, what's the danger here?
What's the problem?
Speaker 10 (47:49):
Well, I just got to say I love that phrase because
we've been hearing it for 20years now, since 9-11.
And in the wake of 9-11, whenwe saw people being kidnapped
off the streets, what the USgovernment likes to call
rendition, or people being takenaway to be tortured, what they
like to call enhancedinterrogation, there was a lot
of that discussion.
If you're not doing anythingwrong, if you have nothing to
hide, who cares?
If the NSA is spying on yourphones, who cares if these
(48:13):
things are going on?
I mean, I think people couldmake that excuse all day to
justify a march towards atechnocratic state, towards
using technology to expand thetotalitarian state in a way that
we've never seen before.
But even if people areskeptical or say that there's no
big deal, okay, I'm alreadyusing my phone to do everything
(48:33):
I do.
What's one more thing?
Or often I'll hear people say,well, you already gave them your
face, you already gave themyour information when you signed
up for your regular ID or forthe passport, and that is true.
But, as you pointed out, withChina's robust digital ID system
, once these systems become moreconnected, then it's a whole
new level.
The other concern I have,besides just the general
(48:54):
surveillance and tracking youeverywhere you go, being able to
trace every purchase you make,is that this is also a step
towards a national ID card and,thankfully, when it first passed
, there was former congressmanand presidential candidate, ron
Paul, who was speaking againstthis.
Currently, I think, thomasMassey is the only person who's
really speaking against this andmaking these points.
But it's also the first timethat the US is going beyond an
(49:17):
ID that is issued by your state,by Texas, by New York, by
California, what have you andsomething that is now mandated
by the federal government.
So if you go back to thosepost-9-11 years and you can read
some editorials, you can seesome congressional speeches.
There weren't many becausepeople were in the hype of
post-9-11 and just give thegovernment whatever they need to
do.
We all need to feel safe, butthere were people warning about
(49:40):
this from the beginning, and so,20 years later, the American
public has been kind of worndown.
Also, people who were born post9-11 have no awareness that
this was even a controversy.
But it's another step towardshaving a national ID card and,
as I said, when you're bringingon the systems that we know are
rolling out both privately andpublicly facial recognition,
digital IDs you could end up ina very dangerous situation where
(50:01):
the government knows everywhereyou go even more than they
currently do and knows everypurchase you're making.
And, as we've seen in the lastfew years, when you combine that
with they sort of whether youwant to call it cancel culture
or just people who are talkingabout controversial topics,
who've been debanked or takenoff social media, what happens
whenever all that's run throughone central app and I've already
(50:22):
seen this in places like den,for example, is a country I
recently visited speaking aboutthese concerns, and they
informed me, derek, we alreadyhave this.
We have a MyID program whereyou can't do public
transportation, you can't getinsurance, can't open up a bank
account, can't get a home, etc.
So essentially it's notmandatory, but you can't
(50:42):
function without it, and so Ithink that's the other big
concern is that, as these thingsroll out, there becomes no way
to operate outside of thosesystems and within those systems
, becomes tightly controlled.
Speaker 8 (50:53):
Yeah, I know you mentioned, or you just mentioned
there, you know, potentiallypeople getting grabbed off the
streets for crimes they may ormay not have committed or
they're being suspected ofsomething.
Certainly, that seems like it'shappening as we go, and I'm not
sure if this might be a kind ofa speculative question, but
when we talked about the lawbeing passed in 2005, post 9-11,
(51:13):
and the enforcement keptgetting delayed up until now, do
you think there is, or why doyou think there is, or why do
you think there is, some kind ofpush to finally enforce it in
2025?
Is there anything, has anythingchanged about the circumstances
that would warrant them finallyenforcing this law?
Speaker 10 (51:34):
Well, like you said, this is a bit speculative, so
keep that in mind.
I would say that I find itinteresting that every
administration, includingTrump's first administration,
has delayed this and both rightand left have kind of given the
states more time, at the least.
I won't say everyadministration was like the real
idea is a danger per se, butthey kept kicking it down the
road because states were justresisting.
(51:56):
There was lots of lawsuitsAgain.
People who aren't familiar withthis history look up the
lawsuits about real ID relatedto dozens of states who have
tried to resist it.
But nevertheless, here we arein 2025.
And, as you said, with peoplebeing taken off the streets
right now under the Trumpcampaign, trump administration
and relation to immigration,relation to speaking out against
Israel, and part of thatconversation, of course, is the
(52:19):
discussion around illegalimmigrants voting and how do we
secure the border and thesesorts of things.
I think that the real ideacoming into compliance, full
compliance, during the Trumpadministration, whether planned
or just happenstance, it worksout in the favor of the
government, because many of thepeople on the right
conservatives who may haveresisted this under, say, a
Biden or Obama administration orClinton administration, are
(52:43):
making, in my view, excuses andsaying it's no big deal.
You know, it's Trump's program,it's rolling out under Trump,
so it can't possibly be bad andof course it's going to stop all
those bad illegal immigrantsfrom coming in the country, and
yeah.
So I think that overall, thefact that it's happening now, it
might make the rollout a biteasier and less resistance from
the crowd who may have resistedif it, you know, was under any
(53:05):
other circumstances so, look,there's five more minutes left
of this interview.
Speaker 7 (53:11):
Um, I'm going to link to it in the show notes, just
so.
Uh, breaking points gets thecredit uh for at least watching
it.
Um, I do try to supportindependent media, so I am a
subscriber of.
There's a yearly contributor,or actually I'm a lifetime
member, uh, um, so, um, yeah,you, I want you guys to try to
(53:37):
watch the whole thing in itsentirety and try to stick to
that.
Um, while you're watching it,think about some things entirety
and try to stick to that.
Um, while you're watching it,think about some things that
we'll be talking about on thenext episode.
Uh, sometimes, when you have apolicy that one president uses,
you give that president theauthority.
You have to remember thatyou're going to be giving that
(53:59):
authority to the next president.
Uh, see you for tuning in and Iwill see you on the next
episode.
You know what a big surprise that a bunch of a few
leakers get fired and suddenly abunch of hit pieces come out
from the same media that peddledthe Russia hoax.
That won't get back theirPulitzers.
They got Pulitzers for a bunchof lies.
Pulitzers for a bunch of liesand on hoaxes, time and time and
time again.
And as they peddle those lies,no one ever calls them on it.
(00:25):
See, this is what the mediadoes.
They take anonymous sourcesfrom disgruntled former
employees and then they try toslash and burn people and ruin
their reputations.
Not going to work with mebecause we're changing the
Defense Department, putting thePentagon back in the hands of
warfighters, and anonymoussmears from disgruntled former
employees on old news doesn'tmatter.
(00:47):
So I'm happy to be here at theEaster Egg Roll with my dad and
my kids.
This is what we're doing.
It for these kids right here.
This is why we're fighting thefake news media.
This is why we're fightingslash-and-burn Democrats.
This is why we're fightinghoaxsters, hoaxsters this group
right here full of hoaxstersthat peddle anonymous sources
(01:09):
from leakers with axes to grind,and then you put it all
together as if it's some newsstory, and when we know it, we
know exactly what it is.
So I'm really proud of whatwe're doing for the president,
fighting hard across the board,and I'm going to go roll some
Easter eggs with my kids Overthe last few days your senior,
(01:30):
advisor, Dan Caldwell, DarrenSelnick, Colin Carroll, who is
chief of staff, deputy secretaryof defense.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
The other one, Darren , is now former deputy chief of
staff.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
We'll let go.
Did you let them go?
Will let go.
Did you let them go?
Right, it was a result of aninvestigation ongoing at the
Pentagon where we identifiedthere was sufficient evidence.
Potentially again, there's aninvestigation ongoing that will
have to complete itselfsufficient evidence to believe
that they or others near themwere party to leaking.
And then I have a statutoryresponsibility, brian, if I
(02:01):
believe that's the case, toultimately ensure they no longer
have access to that and thatthe investigation commences.
There are a lot of ways tocommunicate in this building.
I do it every day, I was justdoing it this morning Official
channels by which we communicateclassified information.
If you want to do it and do itthe right way, you should.
If we think you are leaking tothe press, that's a very real
(02:22):
problem.
We take that very seriously atthe Pentagon.
I'm here to do one job, one jobfor the president and the
American people Secure thecountry.
America first.
Peace through strength.
I don't have time for leakers.
I don't have time for the hoaxpress that peddles old stories
from disgruntled employees.
We should be talking about thedecimation of the Houthis, how
we're pushing back the Chinese,how we have a new defense area
(02:44):
at the southern border.
Instead, disgruntled formeremployees are peddling things to
try to save their ass, andultimately that's not going to
work.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
It seems like the fastest way to derail the whole
project the Trump administrationand the United States of
America is a war with Iran, andthat's why I've just been
watching it as carefully as Ican, because I feel like, again,
if you hated Donald Trump andyou hated what the
administration is doing onimmigration, trade, anti-wuked,
(03:17):
whatever, and you wanted to stopit, the first thing you would
do is apply pressure to have theUS military engage in a war
with Iran.
I mean, that's my perspectiveon it anyway.
Speaker 5 (03:30):
I think that and also continuing to do what we've
been doing previously, in Russia, for sure.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
For sure, though I don't know why.
I'm going to ask you all aboutthis, but it feels like Wyckoff
is helping a lot there.
I mean, I've already said he'sa godsend, god bless, steve
Wyckoff.
Speaker 5 (03:48):
I couldn't agree more .
People knew that you weren'tfully on board with the regime
change program.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, I was very open about it.
I was very on the record aboutit, and most of the time when I
was saying that we shouldn't dothis, it was actually in support
of you know the president'sstated preferences, like the
president clearly doesn't dothis.
It was actually in support ofyou know the president's stated
preferences, like the presidentclearly doesn't want this.
In the first term, there werepeople in his administration
(04:11):
that wanted it.
He didn't clearly.
He clearly didn't want it, andso it was supporting people who
didn't want the war, and so Iwas essentially but Donald Trump
had said, has said and now hisactions make perfectly clear he
would strongly prefer adiplomatic solution.
Correct.
I don't want to speak for thepresident, but it's fairly
obvious that that's what hewants.
(04:31):
Well, he said it.
Speaker 6 (04:32):
I mean, he said it again and he ran on it.
Speaker 7 (04:35):
Welcome to the Derrell McLean Show.
I'm your host, derrell McLean.
Let's get into this episodeepisode.
So you just heard, uh, thesecretary of defense peak exit,
uh, because there's been somenew, new signal gate thing again
.
And the last voice you heardwas that of dan caldwell.
Uh, one of the people who were,who was let go, who has been
(05:01):
actually very, very loyal to theSecretary of Defense, who's
saying like no, I did not leak.
And there's also a big problemtoo, which is Secretary of
Defense, said that these werefrom anonymous sources.
Well, one of his people whowere, well, one of his people
(05:26):
who were ceremoniously marchedout of the building, marched out
of the Pentagon, said look,there was no investigation,
there was no polygraph test.
We were told that there wouldbe an investigation next day.
You know we're getting frogmarched out.
And he wrote in his own wordswhat has been going on.
(05:48):
So I'm going to get into a fewof these articles now.
So I just want to be totallydirect with you.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Did you leak classified information against
the wishes of your superiors tomedia outlets?
Absolutely not.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
Did you photograph classified material and then
text pictures of that materialto an NBC news reporter?
Absolutely not.
Did you photograph classifiedmaterial and then text pictures
of that material to an NBC newsreporter?
Absolutely not, and I have notspoken to an NBC reporter while
at the Pentagon.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Are you?
Do you know what you've beenaccused of?
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Sitting here right now, myself and Darren Selnick
and Colin Carroll.
The other two individuals thatwere escorted out of the
Pentagon, initially placed onleave and then fired on Friday.
We have not been told as ofthis recording.
One is there what we were beinginvestigated for?
Two is there still aninvestigation?
And three, was there even areal investigation?
Because there's a lot ofevidence that there is not a
real investigation.
Speaker 7 (06:49):
So let me go ahead and say this right off the bat
that last part that he said wassomewhat chilling, but also it
seems to be telling because it'sthe nature of what's been going
on in the currentadministration, this lack of due
process.
(07:09):
So if you've been payingattention to the news and I do
apologize that I haven't beenable to deliver it to you
because my laptop is actually inthe shop and so the way I
process the show would have beenvery different but anyway, you
have this migrant massdeportation thing that was
(07:35):
promised during the campaign andall these people that are being
, for the lack of a better term,disappeared with no due process
.
You have people saying well,this person here is MS-13.
They've been confirmed thatthey're MS-13.
(07:56):
And you'll look at the evidenceand it's an informant that says
the person was MS-13 in NewYork.
You do the background theperson never been to New York,
somebody who, in the immigrationthing, kind of confirms what
(08:17):
the other thing said, eventhough it's verifiably untrue.
You look at the criminalhistory.
There are no criminal record.
There is a record of being aasylum seeker.
There's a record of a judgesaying this person cannot go to
(08:40):
this area because they'reactually targeted by a group
that you say they're a part of,and then they get deported to a
country they are not from.
You look at the record.
There is no criminal record inthe country and they're not
(09:01):
deported to the country they arefrom.
They're deported to a prisonthat the United States has a
contract with, with no dueprocess.
And what is good for the gooseis good for the gander, because
now you have somebody who is,for all intent and purposes, has
been loyal to the Secretary ofDefense for years and is
(09:27):
unceremoniously frog-marched outwhen there was no investigation
and they're saying I did notleak.
And then you have to thinkabout well, there's no mechanism
in place, when you're accusedof something, to to fight, fight
(09:47):
your your, to face and fight,defend yourself against your
accusers.
If it's not going to happen onthe uh, I guess law enforcement
side, then I suppose we shouldnot be shocked that it's not
going to happen on theadministrative side as well.
(10:09):
And then I postulate and ask aquestion here Is this the type
of thing that we want?
Is this the type of governmentthat we want to live in?
How can you run a anydepartment like this?
And then what makes it moretroubling is one of the people
(10:31):
that was frogmarshed out was oneof the lone voices who was
fighting against the militaryindustrial complex when there
was conversation about bombingIran recently.
So how do you know that it wasnot the deep state actually
(10:55):
trying to frame this person toget them out of the Pentagon so
that the voices that aresurrounded by the president are
all the pro-war voices?
You don't know, because youdidn't do the due process and
the due diligence of having areal investigation.
And that's what makes thisthing so dangerous.
And when it comes to this wholeleaking thing, we have to be
(11:18):
very concrete, serious aboutthis.
The secretary of defense used towork for Fox News.
His wife is some sort of aproducer.
Do you think that, with astraight face, that a former
journalist like the Secretary ofDefense was, or a political
analyst or whatever you want tocall him?
(11:38):
You think he didn't leak before?
You think he has not receivedanonymous sources while he was
working at Fox News?
This is kind of the way the DCgame is played, but at any rate,
now there have been some callsfrom people inside of the camp.
(12:01):
Who is actually saying theSecretary of Defense has to go.
It is not going well.
So this is coming out of theWashington establishment
(12:24):
representatives from a districtthat is heavily influenced by
the military industrial complex.
There's a lot of weaponsmanufacturing in the area and
this representative, who is RepBacon, says that now the
(12:47):
Secretary of Defense, pete Hex,has to go.
So Washington is actuallyaghast at the Trump
(13:16):
administration's officials,including the Vice President and
the Defense Secretary, discusswar plans in a signal group chat
.
Many raised concerns about thepotential mishandling of
classified information as wellas sensitive details regarding
US war plans.
Only one word for this FUBARrep Pat Ryan, a Democrat from
(13:43):
New York and an Army veteran whosits on the Armed Service
National Committee, wrote on X.
If House Republicans won't holda hearing on how this happened
immediately, I'll do it my damnself.
Get the fuck out, said oneDemocrat congressional aide,
capturing the general feeling onCapitol Hill that the important
(14:07):
security protocols have beenbroken.
It's an operational securitynightmare, the person said.
The aide and others weregranted anonymity, to be candid
about a sensitive security issueinvolving the administration.
In the report in the Atlantic,the magazine's editor revealed
(14:29):
that he had been accidentallyadded to a group chat on a
secure messaging app, signal,where senior members of the
Trump administration werediscussing plans for airstrikes
on the rebels in Yemen.
In the hours before a recentwave of strikes in Yemen, an
account attributed to theDefense Secretary's headset
posted details operationalinformation about targets,
(14:50):
weapons attacks, sequences.
Inside the Pentagon, officialsexpressed shocked that the
officials used XSignal chats forsuch sensitive discussions.
No, no, they didn't, said onedefense official.
It's just absolutelyunbelievable.
The dod either doesn't have astrong cyber security posture
(15:12):
right now.
Our head sick is simply notengaging in it, said the second
defense official.
Now, according to the atlantic'sjeffrey goldberg, he received a
request to connect to theequipment messaging app signal
on a username, matt w Mike Watts, on March 11, presumably the
Trump administration's nationalsecurity advisor.
(15:33):
He was later added to a groupchat called Hootie PC Small
Group with several other memberswho appear to be the top
administration officials,including Hexit Vice President
JD Vance, director of NationalIntelligence Tulsi Gabbard and
the CIA Director, john Ratcliffe.
Brian Hughes, the spokesman forthe National Security Council,
(15:54):
told the publication that thechat appears to be authentic
messaging chain.
The NSC did not respond torequests or further comment.
Several highly sensitive,potentially classified pieces of
information were included inthe chat.
For example, ratcliffe listedthe name of the active
intelligence officer whoidentified or used and kept
(16:15):
closely under wraps His point ofcontact for discussion.
The government has classifiedcommunication systems in which
officials discuss sensitiveinformation information that's
the security experts questionswhy senior trump administration
officials were resourcing tosignal, a freely available app
developed by a non-profit entity, to discuss battle plans now.
(16:39):
So this article is is inpolitico and uh, you can read
the rest of it, basically inyour leisure.
As people like to say, do yourown research.
But what I will say is to whyyou asked.
If they ask a question of whythey're using this signal trap,
(17:04):
and that is because they aredoing everything they can to
avoid FOIA requests, and that'swhat it's about.
They know that the signal chatsare not kept and they don't
want people to be able to trackwhat they're saying, what
(17:35):
they're being, what they're said.
Now this comes in rep don bacon,who, who is the one who says
this is amateur hour and hex isan amateur person, and he goes
on to say I have had concernsfrom the get-go because of pete.
Hexes didn't have a lot ofexperience.
I actually like him on Fox, butdoes he have the experience to
(17:55):
lead one of the largestorganizations in the world.
That concerns me.
If it's a true lead, that hehad another signal chat with his
family about missions againstHouthis.
It is totally unacceptable.
I'm not in the White House.
I'm not going to tell the WhiteHouse how to manage this, but I
(18:19):
find this unacceptable and Iwouldn't tolerate it if I was in
charge.
Russia and China put upthousands of people to monitor
all these phone calls at thevery top, and the number one
target besides the President ofthe United States would be the
Secretary of Defense.
Russia and China are all overhis phone and for him to be
(18:44):
putting secret stuff on hisphone is not right.
He is acting like he is abovethe law and that shows that he
is an amateur person.
End quote.
And that comes from the GOP rep, don Bacon, who is a retired
Air Force general and he wasspeaking to Politico.
(19:06):
Bacon is the first seatedRepublican to call for Hexet to
resign.
Now, donald Trump is known for alot of things.
One of the biggest things he'sknown for is firing people
(19:28):
things.
One of the biggest things he'sknown for is firing people and
even though there is a bit ofdenial going on and the
president seems to be standingby the Secretary of Defense.
There was a lot of reportingcoming out, and reporting came
out of NPRS, national GlobalPublic Radio, that the White
(19:52):
House is actually looking toreplace Pete Hexett as Secretary
of Defense because of thisscandal.
So so.
Speaker 8 (20:10):
Support for NPR comes from the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, a privatecorporation funded by the
American people.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
The Senate's top Democrat, chuck Schumer, is
calling again for DefenseSecretary Pete Hegseth to be
fired over a report of a chat inthe Signal app.
Now, if you weren't followingnews over the weekend you may
think well, that's an old storyfrom weeks ago.
But actually it's happenedagain in the Signal app.
A report that there was a chatin the Signal app, started by
Hegseth, that discussed plansfor the US attack on Houthis in
(20:41):
Yemen.
Npr has not been able toindependently confirm this
report, which was first reportedby the New York Times and
appeared to be confirmed by theDefense Department.
A second chat on thecommercially available app.
Unlike an earlier chat thatbecame public when it
inadvertently included theeditor-in-chief of the Atlantic,
jeff Goldberg, thisconversation was started by the
(21:01):
Defense Secretary himself.
So let's discuss this with JimHimes.
He's a member of Congress, thetop Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, whichlooks into these matters.
Congressman, a member ofCongress, the top Democrat on
the House Intelligence Committee, which looks into these matters
.
Congressman, good morning,welcome to the program.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Good morning.
Speaker 6 (21:14):
Thanks for having me, do you have any independent
reason to believe or disbelievethis report in the New York
Times?
Speaker 2 (21:20):
No, I'm like everyone else, just reading it in the
media.
But no, not shocking, based onthe pattern of behavior we've
seen for a long time now out ofthe Pentagon.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
Now the statement from the Defense Department
about this.
This, quoted in the Times, sayslisten, nothing of all that
important was discussed here.
Nothing secret or classifiedwas discussed here.
Not that it was unimportant,but nothing classified was
discussed here.
If there in fact are againdetails of what was a
forthcoming attack in Yemen,does that strike you as nothing
classified, nothing secret,nothing that important.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
No, I mean it's simply not right.
I mean this is sort of notsubject to debate, right?
What is classified is not atthe discretion of the person who
is generating the information.
There's very clear standardsfor what needs to be classified
and in fact, when I had theopportunity to talk to Director
of National Intelligence TulsiGabbard at an open hearing a
number of weeks ago, I actuallyread her the standard.
(22:14):
And you know, preparations foran attack and it's almost
ridiculous to have to say thisbut especially specific
preparations for an attack,timing, weapon systems, et
cetera are to be classified topsecret.
And look, I think mostAmericans, even if they don't
know the Pentagon standards forclassification, understand that
talking in advance in anunsecured spot whether it's a
(22:36):
signal chat or a bar about anupcoming attack could result in
tragedy and we're very, veryfortunate that in this case it
didn't.
Speaker 6 (22:45):
What have you and I guess we should note.
According to the New York Times, his wife was on the chat.
She has traveled around withhim and attended meetings with
him.
Other people were on the chatwho are in the Pentagon but not
necessarily in a position toneed to know this information.
Was anybody on that chat whostrikes you as inappropriate?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Well, the whole thing is inappropriate, right?
I mean, again, we spendmillions and millions of dollars
a year creating classified andsealed environments in which
this stuff is talked about.
No, I can't imagine why hiswife, his brother and his
personal lawyer would need toknow particular aircraft that
(23:24):
are to be used in an upcomingattack.
So I mean, you know, this isjust sadly reflective of a much
larger problem at the Pentagon.
Here, I mean, it's important toremember the context right.
All cabinet secretaries havedifficult jobs, but this defense
secretary's job is uniquebecause 24-7, the hundreds of
(23:44):
thousands of people at theDepartment of Defense are doing
things like driving aircraftcarriers and launching planes
off of these carriers andcarrying weapons and doing
lethal things, and 24-7, theSecretary of Defense must be
almost perfect in their prudencein their care, in their ability
to make judgments when reallyawful things are happening.
(24:06):
And when you see basic errors,including your wife and your
brother, on what should beillegal communication about an
upcoming attack, you really needto worry about the national
security of the country as awhole.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
Isn't it true, though and you would know this as the
ranking Democrat on theIntelligence Committee that a
lot of people in the USgovernment find Signal to be
pretty good, and in fact, peoplein the CIA have it installed on
their computers?
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Well, so Signal is pretty good, that's exactly the
right word, but I'm here to tellyou that it's not perfect.
And so, yes, people in thegovernment use Signal for
unimportant, by the way, as do Ifor unimportant things, you
know, to communicate socialplans to my colleagues, for
example.
But there's two problems.
(24:53):
Number one it's not perfect andthere is this whole other
system that we spend tens ofmillions of dollars of taxpayer
money to handle precisely thesecommunications.
And number two, though it's alittle esoteric, the government
is required, and people insenior positions in government
are required, to keep a recordof their communications, which,
(25:14):
of course, in Signal is almostimpossible to do.
This was, of course, takes usback to the absolute outrage
that we dealt with for half adecade over Hillary Clinton's
emails.
One of the charges was that shewas breaking the law on records
preservation.
That's secondary to the veryserious danger that the
Secretary of Defense and MikeWalz put our pilots in, but it
(25:36):
is a thing.
Speaker 6 (25:37):
Just about 20 seconds left.
But what do you make of this?
Apparently, even as this storywas unfolding, the Defense
Department was dismissing senioradvisers to Hank Seth for
supposedly leaking information,something they've denied but
these very people were on thevery same signal chat that
Hexeth himself initiated.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, and look, it's totally.
We have no idea what's going onother than the fact that both
senior advisors to the Secretaryof Defense were fired.
We also know that a four-stargeneral who ran the National
Security Agency, a militaryofficer was fired because Laura
Loomer had a problem with them.
This is a pattern of realtrouble at the top of our most
(26:14):
dangerous government department.
Speaker 7 (26:16):
So, according to reporting, like I said, the
White House has begun theprocess of looking for a new
leader at the Pentagon toreplace the Secretary of Defense
, pete Hicks, according to a USofficial who was actually not
authorized to speak publicly.
So this comes as again, hexen ismired in a controversy over
(26:40):
sharing military operationdetails in a group chat.
The defense secretary is againunder fire for revelations that
he shared classified informationin a group chat with his wife,
brother and lawyer.
The source actually said thatHexis used Signal messaging app
on his personal smartphone andwas detailing minute-by-minute
(27:03):
classified information aboutairstrikes to Houthi targets in
Yemen.
About airstrikes to Houthitargets in Yemen.
It happened about the same timein March, when Hex had shared
similar details with White Houseofficials in a different Signal
group chat that accidentallyincluded the journalist from the
Atlantic.
Now that leak hours beforeairstrikes hit could have
(27:26):
endangered US pilots if thatinformation had, because it had
the timing, and the airstrikeshit could have endangered US
pilots if that information had,because it had the timing and
the airstrikes were, if it hadbeen intercepted by US
adversaries.
Now, already the Houthis havetwice shot down American
Predator drones and that's whythat is a worry in this case.
(27:50):
so white house press secretarycarolyn livet denied that
there's an effort to replace thesecretary of state, posting on
twitter that the president,trump stands strongly beside
hexing.
Speaking to reporters at thewhite house, trump also backed
the secretary of defense andsaid concerns over the signal
chat was a waste of time.
(28:11):
Trump said that Hanks is doinga great job and asked the
Houthis how he's doing.
Trump also said Hanks haddenied wrongdoing at that White
House Easter event that youheard earlier in the show and of
course, you heard the show.
This is what the media does,etc.
(28:33):
Etc.
And the three other Pentagonadvisors, dan Caldwell, colin
Carroll, darrell Sickling, wereescorted out of the Pentagon and
accused of leaking informationto the press.
The trio then put out a jointstatement on EFCOG their
dismissal unconscionable and saythat they have not been told
what they stand accused ofleaking.
(28:54):
All three of us served ourcountry honorably in uniform.
For two of us, this includeddeployments to the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and, based onour collective service, we
understand the importance ofinformation security and work
every day to protect it.
Caldwell and Sinig are longtimeassociates of the Secretary of
(29:18):
Defense, who worked with him andconcerns Veterans for America,
a right-leaning policy group,new Hampshire Senator Gene
Shaheen, a Democrat on the ArmedServices Committee, said in a
statement that Hague said sheshould accept accountability,
but we must not forget thatultimately the responsibility
(29:41):
lies with the president forselecting a former weekend TV
host without any experiencesuccessfully leading a large,
complex organization to run ourgovernment's biggest department
and make life and deathdecisions for our military and
country.
She said so.
(30:14):
The Oracle from Omaha, the man,the legend himself, berkshire
Hathaway's own, warren Buffett,has actually announced that he
will be stepping down from hisrole as the CEO of Berkshire
Hathaway come the end of theyear.
He made some statements abouttrade.
(30:39):
Obviously, he made a lot ofmoney over his lifetime and he
came out talking in thisshareholder meeting.
He talked for over about twohours and 37 minutes, I think.
But yeah, warren.
Buffett is going to be retiringfinally in his mid-90s.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
We want a prosperous world with eight countries with
nuclear weapons, including a fewthat are what I would call
quite unstable.
I do not think it's a greatidea to try and design a world
where a few countries say ha ha,ha, we've won, and other
(31:26):
countries are envious.
So the main thing to do is notuse trade, should not be a
weapon.
Do is not use trade, should notbe a weapon.
(31:47):
And the United States, theUnited States, we've won.
I mean, we have become anincredibly important country
starting from nothing 250 yearsago.
There's nothing that ain't likeit and it's a big mistake, in
my view, when you have seven anda half billion people that
(32:07):
don't like you very well, amillion that are crowing in some
way about how well they've done.
Speaker 7 (32:13):
So this is a day that investors knew that it was
going to come, and it hasfinally arrived.
A conscience of capitalismprepares to step off the stage.
It was closing in on 1 pm whenWarren Buffett, sat on stage
(32:37):
before a ramped audience ofabout 40,000 at the CHI Health
Center in Omaha, said that hewas getting a five-minute
warning.
To most of those that werethere for the annual meeting of
Berkshire Hathaway and hiscompany, it was simply a signal
(32:59):
that the gathering known as theWoodstock for capitalists was
drawing to a close.
No one knew that somethinghistoric was about to happen.
After 60 years of running thecompany he called his painting.
The 94 year old Warren Buffettsaid that he planned to step
(33:20):
down as chief executive officerat the year end, proving how
much freedom he has alwaysexercised at Berkshire Hathaway.
He surprises on board and GregAbel, his hand-picked successor.
I want to spring that on thedirectors.
He said that on the directors.
He said with a smile.
(33:40):
People in the crowd, many ofwhom were in tears, rose from
their seats in a standingovation for a singular figure in
the business world.
Buffett is often described as asymbol of American capitalism.
The truth is that he has alwaysbeen an outlier.
He is more of a conscious ofcapitalism, willing to speak
(34:07):
uncomfortable truths about thesystem's ills while others
remain silent.
His public comments on issueslike tariffs over the weekend
are a prime example.
The billionaire always comesacross as a gentleman and, in
his age of distrust, becamesomeone the people could trust.
Fellow business moguls andgovernment officials admired him
because of his success.
Yes, berkshire Hathawayreported $89 billion in net
profit last year and is one ofthe biggest buyers of US
(34:30):
Treasury bonds.
But it also is because hedidn't appear to have changed.
Despite his wealth, he lives ina modest house in Omaha and for
years drove his own car,including to the drive-thru at
the McDonald's.
Buffett isn't perfect,something he often acknowledges,
and he urges his followers tostay humble as he discusses his
(34:53):
own investment mistakes andmisses.
But that's also got to be oneof his biggest accomplishments
using his annual Berkshireletter and a marathon Q&A
sessions with shareholders toeducate generations about
business, investing and lifeitself.
That wouldn't have normallyconsidered to be a Berkshire
(35:29):
Hathaway watcher, who perfectlyencapsulated the importance of
Buffett and his longtimebusiness partner, the late
Charlie Munger.
There were good investorsdealers in reality.
Patton wrote Nick Denton, whowas the founder of Gawker.
When the history of the riseand the fall of America is
written, one of the chapterswill have to begin in Omaha with
(35:50):
their departure.
As Buffett prepares to depart,the big question is what will
happen to his masterpiece onceit passes to Abel, his
masterpiece once it passes toAbel?
It has been apparent for severalyears now that the day-to-day
basis Abel is already runninglarge swaths of Berkshire
Hathaway's operations, so theshift likely won't be dramatic,
(36:12):
but the scrutiny of Abel'sBerkshire Hathaway will
undoubtedly increase.
The company wasn't built justas a collection of desperate
businesses but as a vision ofone man.
Abel has said he will seek tomaintain the culture that his
boss meticulously built, butthings will inevitably become
(36:32):
different.
Berkshire's board gave Buffettan unparalleled degree of
autonomy to operate as he sawfit, often learning about
significant deals he had struckonly after the fact.
Abel will have to work hard toearn even some of that latitude,
and under him Berkshire islikely to operate with more
(36:53):
guardrails.
But there is speculation thatBuffett will remain the chairman
for some period, which couldafford Abel more freedom as he
grows into the top job.
Nevertheless, buffett's successand the company he built were
exceptional.
What investors gained in Omahathis weekend and the world over
(37:14):
want to know what comes next.
Speaker 9 (37:22):
A big news today out of Omaha Warren Buffett
announcing that he will bestepping down as CEO of
Berkshire Hathaway.
Buffett shocked the arena fullof shareholders with the
announcement that he will bestepping down and Greg Abel
would become the CEO by the endof the year.
Buffett has been in charge ofthe company since 1965, said
that he has zero intention ofselling a single share of
(37:44):
Berkshire Hathaway.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
Buffett announcing the news at the end of a
five-hour question period, Fivewhere Greg should become the
chief executive officer of thecompany at year end and I want
to spring that on the directorseffectively and then get that.
Speaker 9 (38:06):
That's my recommendation the news that was
not expected.
Buffett surprised abel, who wassitting right next to him, with
the announcement.
He said he had only told histwo children.
Buffett's berkshire hathawayalso owns our company, wplg
incorporated.
Speaker 7 (38:18):
Uh, the end of an era as, as they say, the end of an
era.
As they say the end of an era,all the things may come to an
end.
Warren Buffett was anincredible, towering figure in a
(38:48):
way that most people dosomewhat mimic.
Just looking at a thing theother day that he had over
Berkshire Hathaway's company washolding over $350 billion in
cash and he had a lot of bondsthat in some measures I forgot
what metric was, but he had morenow than the actual Federal
(39:14):
Reserve.
Now that is some solid,long-term investment.
So one of the biggest thingsthat are about to happen to all
Americans now even it's justbeen warning for about 20 years
and now it is coming to fruition, and that is now the
(39:36):
enforcement of the Real ID, andthat's where we're going to end
this show.
Thank you for tuning in.
I'll see you on the nextepisode.
Speaker 10 (39:49):
A march towards a technocratic state, towards
using technology to expand thetotalitarian state in a way that
we've never seen before.
But it's also the first timethat the US is going beyond an
ID that is issued by your state,by Texas, by New York, by
California.
What have you?
Speaker 8 (40:08):
The federal government says it's finally
going to start enforcing theREAL ID Act, nearly two decades
after it was passed.
They tell us it's all aboutkeeping us safe, but could REAL
ID open the door to digitalsurveillance, biometric
databases and a future whereyou'll need a government-issued
ID to participate in everydaylife?
My name is James Lee and you'rewatching Beyond the Headlines
(40:31):
on Breaking Points.
You might have heard that,starting May 7th, Americans will
need a Real ID compliantlicense to board a plane or
enter a federal building.
The Real ID Act was passed backin 2005 in the wake of the 9-11
(40:52):
attacks, sold to the public as apost-9-11 safety measure, a
quote-unquote, long-delayedupgrade to protect our elections
and national security.
What you might not know is howthis push fits into a much
larger agenda, one that some sayincludes mobile driver's
licenses, biometric facialrecognition and partnerships
(41:12):
between government agencies,global institutions and big tech
to roll out digital IDs acrossthe country.
Now, to help us break all thisdown, I recently sat down with
independent journalist DerrickRose, a prominent voice warning
us about the dangers of digitalidentity systems.
Here is that conversation.
Speaker 10 (41:31):
Thanks for having me on, james, I appreciate it
Absolutely.
Speaker 8 (41:34):
So we're going to hopefully dive deep into this,
but I first want to start with,maybe, the basics, for people
who haven't looked into it much.
What exactly is a Real ID, andhow is it that different from an
old driver's license systemthat we've had for decades?
Speaker 10 (41:50):
Sure.
So you sort of outlined thebeginning of it, which was 9-11.
And, of course, after 9-11,calls for making the country
safer.
How can we prevent terroristsfrom entering the nation and how
do we keep track of everybodyin a way that is supposedly
going to reduce crime, reduceterrorism?
Now it's been 20 years sincethen and there's less talk of
terrorism and the ways therewere post 9-11, but there's
(42:13):
still this discussion, I'd saynow, more especially with the
right wing, of how are we goingto, you know, keep track of all
the voters, how are we going tokeep track of illegal immigrants
, et cetera.
So the same ideas are stillbeing pushed.
As you mentioned, it's beendelayed numerous times through
every administration up untilthis point, and now the deadline
is finally here.
The thing that makes itdifferent, just on a practical
(42:33):
level, is people will notice youmight have like a little star
in your driver's license.
So many people already probablyhave these and just didn't
realize that they got thembecause over the last 20 years,
as state by state has started tobecome compliant, more and more
people are getting these, likeI said, whether they realize
them or not.
So now we're at the point where, all across the nation.
Everybody's going to have tohave one of these to enter
(42:55):
federal buildings to do variousthings in the country, and the
main thing, though, is just thatyou'll notice a little star.
They promise that there's somemore counterfeit measures, so,
on the practical level, that'spretty much it.
You won't really see anythingdifferent.
We're not at the point whereit's just your face to get in
somewhere, but, as I havewritten about recently, I do
think that's where it's headed,particularly at the airports and
federal buildings and placeslike that, but for the moment,
(43:18):
it's simply just a change in thelook of your ID, just a change
in the look of your ID.
Speaker 8 (43:22):
Yeah, you mentioned you wrote an article about this,
so I wanted to dive into that alittle bit, and you wrote,
quote Real ID is the latest moveinching Americans closer to
mandatory digital identificationprograms, not only for voting
but for daily life.
Can you walk us through alittle bit of how this I don't
know seemingly innocuous real IDrequirement connects to this
(43:47):
argument that you're making amuch larger and broader
infrastructure, things likemobile driver licenses, facial
recognition, digital ID system?
Basically lay out your theoryfor us?
Speaker 10 (43:57):
Sure, and I don't think it's very far-fetched.
First of all, because, in orderto be Real ID compliant,
there's a few things you can do.
One is what we just describedJust get an update of your
driver's license, your state ID,and it's going to have the
little star in it, and thenyou'll be Real ID compliant.
The other is to continue to usea passport.
So if you're someone like mewho only has a passport, then
(44:18):
you just keep doing what you'vebeen doing.
But there are also other formsof being Real ID compliant.
One of them is known as mobiledriver's license, or just MDLs,
and again, people might be usingthese already because there's
certain states that have adoptedthem in the last few years
without realizing that it's, youknow, real ID compliant.
But essentially what a mobiledriver's license is?
There's several versions.
(44:39):
Some in certain states aregovernment-run, government-owned
, so you have a you know my IDinsert state name.
Then there's others that acceptApple and Google Wallet, google
ID sort of apps to become RealID compliant, and what these are
basically doing in my mind isjust getting people as you
(45:00):
quoted me there a bit closer tothis real ID, this digital ID,
facial recognition everywhere.
Because to be real ID compliant.
The easiest way is to get theidea, but you could also just
start using your phone.
Many people are doing thiseverywhere and they're also
scanning their face to opentheir phone.
So maybe hearing this is notlike some big concern to many
people.
But if you've been payingattention in the last decade to
(45:20):
digital rights, digital privacypeople much more informed than
me lawyers, ngos, nonprofits whofocus on these issues
particularly have been warningabout the growth of facial
recognition, have been warningabout the growth of digital IDs
and how, as those systems becomemore interconnected starting
with, okay, you have youridentification to get into
federal buildings on an app, butthen, over time, as these
(45:43):
systems expand which they willboth in the private sector and
through government, to includeyour health information, to
include your banking, financialinformation, et cetera you end
up being very close to whatChina has in the version, in
their form of WeChat and the oneapp that sort of has everything
in it.
And again, this is going to besold in a way that's convenient,
it's fast.
We again, this is going to besold in a way that's convenient,
(46:04):
it's fast.
We're seeing this at the airportPeople are being encouraged to
go paperless and to just usetheir face to check in, and
we've heard from the airportsthat maybe as soon as this fall,
but definitely the next coupleof years, they plan to make
facial recognition a mandatorypart of the check-in process.
(46:28):
So in all different sectorsstarting with the RealID, with
mobile driver's license, andespecially at the airports,
we're seeing this push towardsdigital identifications, and
mobile driver's license is justone form of that.
I'll also just note brieflythat the TSA has already made it
clear on their own website thatthey will accept mobile
driver's licenses as a RealIDcompliant ID and again, they've
also got pages on their websiteshowing you how you can skip the
whole ID part at all and justdo facial recognition, which
(46:49):
they're starting to roll out atdifferent terminals.
So overall, I don't think it'sa big leap, to kind of point out
what we expect to see in thenext couple of years.
I don't think it's going tohappen by the end of this year
that digital IDs will beeverywhere, but I do think
becoming real ID compliant withthings like mobile driver's
license is definitely taking usin that direction.
Speaker 8 (47:08):
Right.
And then you brought up Chinathere.
I was recently there and theycertainly have a very robust
identification protocol in a lotof places that you go public
areas, including travel, as wellas the mall things like that.
But to kind of give the otherside of the story a little bit,
some say, you know, there's kindof these trade-offs with
(47:29):
privacy concerns and maybethey're a bit exaggerated in
what you're talking about.
You know, the real ID is itjust you know?
Is it just a natural evolutionof going from paper to a digital
world?
And I'm wondering how you wouldrespond to people who say, if
you're not really doing anythingwrong, what's the danger here?
What's the problem?
Speaker 10 (47:49):
Well, I just got to say I love that phrase because
we've been hearing it for 20years now, since 9-11.
And in the wake of 9-11, whenwe saw people being kidnapped
off the streets, what the USgovernment likes to call
rendition, or people being takenaway to be tortured, what they
like to call enhancedinterrogation, there was a lot
of that discussion.
If you're not doing anythingwrong, if you have nothing to
hide, who cares?
If the NSA is spying on yourphones, who cares if these
(48:13):
things are going on?
I mean, I think people couldmake that excuse all day to
justify a march towards atechnocratic state, towards
using technology to expand thetotalitarian state in a way that
we've never seen before.
But even if people areskeptical or say that there's no
big deal, okay, I'm alreadyusing my phone to do everything
(48:33):
I do.
What's one more thing?
Or often I'll hear people say,well, you already gave them your
face, you already gave themyour information when you signed
up for your regular ID or forthe passport, and that is true.
But, as you pointed out, withChina's robust digital ID system
, once these systems become moreconnected, then it's a whole
new level.
The other concern I have,besides just the general
(48:54):
surveillance and tracking youeverywhere you go, being able to
trace every purchase you make,is that this is also a step
towards a national ID card and,thankfully, when it first passed
, there was former congressmanand presidential candidate, ron
Paul, who was speaking againstthis.
Currently, I think, thomasMassey is the only person who's
really speaking against this andmaking these points.
But it's also the first timethat the US is going beyond an
(49:17):
ID that is issued by your state,by Texas, by New York, by
California, what have you andsomething that is now mandated
by the federal government.
So if you go back to thosepost-9-11 years and you can read
some editorials, you can seesome congressional speeches.
There weren't many becausepeople were in the hype of
post-9-11 and just give thegovernment whatever they need to
do.
We all need to feel safe, butthere were people warning about
(49:40):
this from the beginning, and so,20 years later, the American
public has been kind of worndown.
Also, people who were born post9-11 have no awareness that
this was even a controversy.
But it's another step towardshaving a national ID card and,
as I said, when you're bringingon the systems that we know are
rolling out both privately andpublicly facial recognition,
digital IDs you could end up ina very dangerous situation where
(50:01):
the government knows everywhereyou go even more than they
currently do and knows everypurchase you're making.
And, as we've seen in the lastfew years, when you combine that
with they sort of whether youwant to call it cancel culture
or just people who are talkingabout controversial topics,
who've been debanked or takenoff social media, what happens
whenever all that's run throughone central app and I've already
(50:22):
seen this in places like den,for example, is a country I
recently visited speaking aboutthese concerns, and they
informed me, derek, we alreadyhave this.
We have a MyID program whereyou can't do public
transportation, you can't getinsurance, can't open up a bank
account, can't get a home, etc.
So essentially it's notmandatory, but you can't
(50:42):
function without it, and so Ithink that's the other big
concern is that, as these thingsroll out, there becomes no way
to operate outside of thosesystems and within those systems
, becomes tightly controlled.
Speaker 8 (50:53):
Yeah, I know you mentioned, or you just mentioned
there, you know, potentiallypeople getting grabbed off the
streets for crimes they may ormay not have committed or
they're being suspected ofsomething.
Certainly, that seems like it'shappening as we go, and I'm not
sure if this might be a kind ofa speculative question, but
when we talked about the lawbeing passed in 2005, post 9-11,
(51:13):
and the enforcement keptgetting delayed up until now, do
you think there is, or why doyou think there is, or why do
you think there is, some kind ofpush to finally enforce it in
2025?
Is there anything, has anythingchanged about the circumstances
that would warrant them finallyenforcing this law?
Speaker 10 (51:34):
Well, like you said, this is a bit speculative, so
keep that in mind.
I would say that I find itinteresting that every
administration, includingTrump's first administration,
has delayed this and both rightand left have kind of given the
states more time, at the least.
I won't say everyadministration was like the real
idea is a danger per se, butthey kept kicking it down the
road because states were justresisting.
(51:56):
There was lots of lawsuitsAgain.
People who aren't familiar withthis history look up the
lawsuits about real ID relatedto dozens of states who have
tried to resist it.
But nevertheless, here we arein 2025.
And, as you said, with peoplebeing taken off the streets
right now under the Trumpcampaign, trump administration
and relation to immigration,relation to speaking out against
Israel, and part of thatconversation, of course, is the
(52:19):
discussion around illegalimmigrants voting and how do we
secure the border and thesesorts of things.
I think that the real ideacoming into compliance, full
compliance, during the Trumpadministration, whether planned
or just happenstance, it worksout in the favor of the
government, because many of thepeople on the right
conservatives who may haveresisted this under, say, a
Biden or Obama administration orClinton administration, are
(52:43):
making, in my view, excuses andsaying it's no big deal.
You know, it's Trump's program,it's rolling out under Trump,
so it can't possibly be bad andof course it's going to stop all
those bad illegal immigrantsfrom coming in the country, and
yeah.
So I think that overall, thefact that it's happening now, it
might make the rollout a biteasier and less resistance from
the crowd who may have resistedif it, you know, was under any
(53:05):
other circumstances so, look,there's five more minutes left
of this interview.
Speaker 7 (53:11):
Um, I'm going to link to it in the show notes, just
so.
Uh, breaking points gets thecredit uh for at least watching
it.
Um, I do try to supportindependent media, so I am a
subscriber of.
There's a yearly contributor,or actually I'm a lifetime
member, uh, um, so, um, yeah,you, I want you guys to try to
(53:37):
watch the whole thing in itsentirety and try to stick to
that.
Um, while you're watching it,think about some things entirety
and try to stick to that.
Um, while you're watching it,think about some things that
we'll be talking about on thenext episode.
Uh, sometimes, when you have apolicy that one president uses,
you give that president theauthority.
You have to remember thatyou're going to be giving that
(53:59):
authority to the next president.
Uh, see you for tuning in and Iwill see you on the next
episode.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com