Pete Hegseth dealt ULTIMATE HUMILIATION in surprise rebuke

I'm joined now by former senior State Department and CIA official Ned Price. Ned, thanks so much for joining me. Brian, thanks for having me back. Ned, there is a major story regarding Pete Hegseth that's in the news right now, and that is that he tried to put forward a brand new Pentagon policy expecting that everybody would fall in line. That is not happening in the slightest with news organizations, not just from the left, but even from the right or the far right opting to defy him here. So can you give a lay of the land of what's happening right now? Yeah, absolutely. Look, Brian, it's sometimes hard to keep track of all this because there are so many things emanating from this Pentagon that are alarming, that are dangerous, that are even corrosive to our democracy. And I actually think this one fits into all three. There was a directive that came out from the Pentagon around mid last month, and it basically told reporters you can continue to have access to the building, as reporters have had for decades in places like the Pentagon and the White House and the State Department. But, and here's the big but, you can only do so if you agree to report only that information that the Pentagon itself has approved for release. So if you were to report on classified information or even information that wasn't classified but that we tell you is sensitive, you're going to lose your access to the Pentagon. And some people might say, well, who cares if reporters have or don't have access to the Pentagon? If you're a reporter whose beat is Pete Hegseth and his team and the generals around him and what the Pentagon that's funded by $1 trillion annually in US taxpayers, if that's your beat and you don't have access to the building, you're going to be at a steep disadvantage. And chances are you are not going to hear or gain access to the stories that are really important for the American people to know. Now I shouldn't say Pentagon reporters have done an admirable job over the past month or so trying to soften this and they've achieved some gains. But this is still a really pernicious policy that the Pentagon is putting forward. They're basically now saying, okay, fine, you don't have to show us your reporting before you print it. But look, you at least have to acknowledge that if you print something we don't like, you can lose your access to this building. And so is the ultimate goal here basically just to to put themselves in a situation where they feel like their own access to be able to get to any of these people to continue doing their jobs is predicated on only publishing glowing stories about this administration in a way to kind of quash dissent? Yeah, it's absolutely an attempt to cow the press corps that covers the Pentagon and that has covered the Pentagon day in and day out for decades now. Essentially what Pete Hegseth and a team around him wants, they don't want independent reporters. They want stenographers. They want people who are going to write press releases rather than stories about them. And look, if you're Pete Hegseth, you might understand why you're a little nervous about independent reporters walking around your building. After all, you're the one who's sending classified information over signal. You're the one who has fired or forced out all of your top advisors, nearly all of your top advisors in the first month of your tenure. You're the one who has little access to the president and the broader administration. There are lots of unflattering things about this secretary of defense and the team around him. But the answer is not to essentially clamp down on their First Amendment rights. If you're Pete Hegseth, I think the better advice would be to do a better job and to be perhaps a bit more proud of the work you're doing and how you're doing it. So I want to put a list right here on the screen of all of the news outlets that refuse to sign versus the one that did sign. So among those who refuse to sign, I'm going to read this as quickly as I can. We have ABC News, The Alabama Monitor, Associated Press, Atlantic, Aviation Week, Axios, Bloomberg, Breaking Defense, CBS, CNN, Defense Daily, Defense News, Defense One, The Economist, Financial Times, Federal Times, Fox, The Guardian, The Hill, HuffPost, Military Times, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, Newsmax, NPR, PBS, Politico, RealClearPolitics, Reuters, Task and Purpose, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Washington Times, WTOP. Of those who decided to sign onto this was, and I hope you're all sitting down for this, One America News. That's it. And so what does it say that even some of these very conservative outlets, like these are not, this is not like the coalition to defend Black Lives Matter exactly when you have, you know, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, all signing on, all refusing to sign on to this effort put forward by Pete Hegseth. And so what's your reaction to the fact that the only organization they did get to sign onto this thing was One America News and that even plenty of these right wing networks thought this was a bridge too far? Yeah, look, I mean, it's interesting and a very good thing that The Washington Times, The Washington Examiner, among others signed onto this. But I think the really important one is Fox. And I say that not because Fox has the market share really defines the narrative and the conversation on the right. But I say that because this is Pete Hegseth's former employer. You know, Pete Hegseth would not be Secretary of Defense. Were he not the Fox News weekend host over recent years. And so when you say it like that, it makes it sound like it like it wasn't the Sterling qualification that set somebody up to be Secretary of Defense. Yeah, it's it's it was untraditional to to put it mildly. But but, you know, perhaps that will send a signal to Pete Hegseth and the team around him that even he he has gone too far for his former employer and his frequent host, the cable news show that he's frequently on. But look, I think there was also another notable element in all of this. Yes, these print reporters came together. Yes, the Correspondents Association from the White House and the State Department issued a joint statement. But I think what may be most notable is the fact that the TV correspondents came out with a joint statement and essentially rejecting this as that long litany of others did. And I say that's notable because this is an administration that craves the spotlight. They need attention. They need the press coverage that they know their boss, Donald Trump, is going to watch day in, day out on Fox News, on some of these other networks that have signed on to this. And so, look, if these TV networks continue to band together. And they are jointly kicked out and there's no glowing coverage from Fox or there's no coverage at all from anyone of this Pentagon, that ultimately is going to be a bad thing. Yes, for our democracy, which I care about. Yes, for the right of the public to know, which I care about, but also for Pete Hegseth, because when Donald Trump turns on Fox, he's not going to see Pete Hegseth there standing at the podium, really in a self-aggrandizing way, praising his boss. And that's going to be a problem. In your honest opinion, why do you think that some of these right wing networks, and in fact, I'm just remembering now that even The Daily Caller, certainly far to the right of Fox and Washington Examiner and Washington Times, even they refuse to sign on. Why do you presume that these news outlets decided to take this stand knowing that, you know, in reality, they are probably going to give the exact type of glowing coverage that Pete Hegseth wants anyway? And so whereas it would have been easy for them to just kind of sign on to some to say that they would do something that they likely were going to do anyway, why take this stand? Yeah, so I think two primary reasons. Number one, and perhaps most importantly, this is so farfetched and this is just so outlandish that the Pentagon would ask independent news outlets, even though that have partisan affiliations on the right or that lean right politically, even they realize just how in contravention this is to their work that is protected by the First Amendment, the idea that they would have to preclear or that they couldn't ask certain questions or any questions they might like of officials in the Pentagon, even for Fox, even for The Daily Caller, The Free Beacon or The Washington Times or others. That was just a bridge too far. But second, look, you know, these news organizations and in some cases that is a charitable term, they need to have some degree of credibility. Look, OAN has clearly decided that it is just a MAGA outlet, all MAGA, all the time, all glowing and nothing else. But, you know, for The Washington Times, for The Free Beacon, for The Daily Caller, I think they do need to ensure their audiences and try to reassure them that they're not stenographers and that while their coverage may often be positive, if not fawning towards this administration, that they're going to call balls and strikes as they see them. And if they were to sign on to this, I think any sort of perception that there was any bit of independence there would be totally eviscerated. So it's also in their interest to work with these other outlets and trying to shut this down. And so we've seen the effectiveness of these organizations coming together to get what they want. And it's very likely that there's going to be some change that has to take place, because otherwise, to your exact point, there won't be any coverage. And I think the last thing that a president who is solely focused on central casting and and media attention wants is just a media blackout when it comes to the Pentagon. But then in that case, if the if the news outlets recognize the effectiveness of this strategy, why not employ it at other moments? Like, for example, when the AP was banned from the press briefing room for daring say that the Gulf of Mexico is still called the Gulf of Mexico and not kind of adhering to the White House's edict that it just be called the Gulf of America. Yeah, look, you put your finger on something that's really interesting, I think. And my own view is that this stems from where these reporters are. This is the Pentagon Press Association. You know, these are serious reporters who day in, day out aren't there chasing the political stories, who's up, who's down. They are there really covering the matters of national security, what this institution that it can is the recipient of a trillion or so dollars annually in U.S. taxpayer funding is doing is not doing how it's running, how it's how it's not working in some cases. And so these are serious people and they've they've come together in a serious way, despite some of the ideological divides in the case of some of these more partisan or politically leaning outlets. I think the White House press corps is quite different in that sense. It's a much more fractious bunch. It is a crew that is much more interested in the horse race and the politics of it all. I don't want to say they're they're more focused on trivial matters, but in some cases they're focused more on on personality over substance. And it's much harder for them to come together because everything they do is under a much larger political magnifying glass. Look, my hope is that the White House Correspondents Association and reporters who cover this administration across D.C. and around the world will really get a spine after seeing what these Pentagon reporters are doing. They've already eked out some at least small changes. And I think you're right. Given the stakes and given the possibility that Pete Exeth is facing his own media blackout, I think they will extract more concessions. And in turn, I hope that provides a good lesson for their colleagues across the river at the White House. I don't know, Ned, I take issue with the suggestion that Marjorie Teller Greene's boyfriend, Brian Glenn, is not a serious reporter. And I'm sorry to sorry to offend you and his sensitive sensibilities there. Yeah. OK, let's finish off with this. You had alluded to the fact that there would be changes here. What what kind of changes do you anticipate we'll see here? And frankly, recognizing the power that all of these media outlets have by virtue of banding together, can't they really create big changes if they want to see them? I mean, recognizing that the power they have by organizing here, really, they don't have to necessarily just settle for changes around the edges. Can't they just get exactly what they want and stand their ground and not feel like they have to settle for for some half measure or, OK, we're not completely surrendering all of our autonomy. And so that's good enough for us. Like they they see that they have effect. Like they did the hard part already. They banded together. They said no. They got the Fox News and Daily Callers to agree with The Atlantic and ABC News and Washington Post and New York Times. That's the hard part. So at this point, why not go all the way and try to get as much protection and and as as firm, you know, guarantees as they possibly could? Yeah. So I'd say a couple of things. Number one, this is a group of reporters that really can't surrender. And I say they can't surrender because surrendering, surrendering here would be tantamount to confessing they're not going to do their job or not being in a position to do their job. But at the same time, I think this is an administration that in many ways is unwilling to surrender entirely. And so I think there has to be some sort of middle ground here that allows both sides to at least claim the victory. And look, the the the nub that continues to prevent these reporters from going along with this is the idea that they have to sign to at least acknowledge that they understand the Pentagon, the Pentagon guidance that they are not to publish this and that it could be if they do publish classified or even unclassified, but otherwise sensitive information grounds for expulsion from the Pentagon. Look, I think one potential off-ramp here is that the Pentagon sticks with these rules and says, look, if you publish classified information or information that's unclassified that that we don't like for whatever reason, we reserve the right to kick you off. But we're not going to make you sign this. We're not going to make you acknowledge that you understand that that could be one off-ramp. Look, I don't want to say that's the ideal scenario. We don't want an administration that even purports to dictate what independent journalists can or can't report. But at least that will get us off the impasse. And if reporters aren't forced to acknowledge or to sign and they print something that the administration doesn't want, then we can save this for the next battle when the administration actually tries to make good on the guidance that it put out. And even if they didn't force reporters to sign this in the first place. We'll leave it there, Ned, as always, I appreciate your time and thank you for the expertise. Thanks so much, Brian. Good to see you.