Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good Monday morning, everyone. Heading into this week, we have at least two major reversals from President Trump. One, going back on his Iran war speech timeline of two weeks to make a deal. Now it's tomorrow with his post that included the F word that you've probably been hearing about A sarcastic 'praise Allah' on Easter Sunday with a threat to hit many bridges and power plants, which are civilian infrastructure, not just military.

All while Iran, which was supposed to be pretty much defanged, shoots down two US Fighter planes Send more missiles, which they're supposed to be running out of, into Israel and gulf Arab states. Four people were killed in Haifa, for example, yesterday. Here's Trump from the Iran war speech last Wednesday.

President Trump: We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.

Brian Lehrer: A few lines later.

President Trump: Yet, if during this period of time no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.

Brian Lehrer: Two to three weeks. He had called the new leaders more reasonable and less radical than the old ones. Now tomorrow is what he calls power plant and bridge day. There's this other reversal. Remember this from Trump's campaigns for president. Here's an example from the first one in 2016.

President Trump: I'll save Social Security, I'll save Medicare. Ben Carson wants to get rid of Medicare. You can't get rid of Medicare. Medicare is a program that works. There's fraud, there's abuse, there's waste, but you don't get rid of Medicare. You can't do that. People love Medicare and it's unfair to them. I'm going to fix it, make it better, but I'm not going to cut it. I will get rid of the fraud, the waste, the abuse, all of the problems, but we will have Medicare.

Brian Lehrer: You've heard that kind of thing from Trump many times, no doubt, but listen to what he said last week.

President Trump: Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection.

Brian Lehrer: One thing, military protection. You can't do Medicare at the federal government. Well, Medicare is a federal program. Heading into the midterms, Trump is running on getting the government out of Medicare. His new budget proposal does include more defense and less for health care. Then there are those firings of hyperlocal Trump-- hyper loyal. Let me say that again. Then there are those firings of hyper loyal Trump cabinet members Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem. Another reversal. What exactly is happening here? Maybe more consistent, the firing of the army chief of staff and denial of promotions to some senior level military officers who happen to be Black or female.

Let's talk with Sarah Fitzpatrick, staff writer at The Atlantic covering national security and the Department of Justice. Before coming to The Atlantic, she led award winning investigations Special projects as senior investigative producer Story editor at NBC News An associate producer at 60 Minutes, according to her bio page. Her two latest articles, An Army Shake-Up in the Middle of a War and Trump's Purge May Be Just Beginning. Sarah, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC today.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Thank you so much for having me, Brian. It's so great to be here.

Brian Lehrer: We'll talk about the shakeups and the purges, but I have to ask you first, as a national security reporter, do people you report on tend to believe the threat about tomorrow being power plant and bridge day if Iran doesn't open the Strait of Hormuz, which by most standards is a threat to commit war crimes against civilian infrastructure?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Look, I think it is. The people I report on are extremely alarmed, extremely. I cannot overstate. As someone who covers national security, most of the people I talk to are very even keeled, not easily emotional. I think there is a level of panic that just cannot be overstated because what we are happening here is we see policy by Truth Social Post, which is totally, it appears, not taking into account any of the expertise, any of the intelligence assessments, any of the things that our country has spent so long putting in place to ensure the safety of Americans, not just in the military, but here.

I think we're in this really complex moment in which we have a president who is extremely erratic and is not following any of the normal things. It's a matter of the national security establishment in the United States being able to follow through, anticipate, plan for, and then it's also our allies and our enemies who don't fully trust what he says. That adds a level of complexity that I think we have not seen in a very long time, perhaps ever.

Brian Lehrer: As I mentioned in the intro in the president's Iran war speech last week, he said two to three weeks and that the new group is much more reasonable to deal with. How did two to three weeks become Tuesday and the leaders become effing, you know what?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Look, there's a level-- I think what you have to understand here is the planning, actual planning within our government. This is true not just at the Pentagon, but I think across multiple US Agencies. It really goes one way. It goes from the White House to the cabinet secretary and then those things are implemented. It is not a two way street in which information, assessments, cautions, basic facts are going both directions. It is a one way [unintelligible 00:06:28]. I think that is a tremendously dangerous position to be in for all Americans.

Brian Lehrer: Is there a take on this that we can all tsk tsk about using the F word in his post and changing the deadline? We can say he's crazy. I saw General Barry McCaffrey, former military leader, on television this morning saying he's like an elderly man sundowning and then he starts posting consistent with that, but actually, he's not crazy. He's crazy like a fox, keeping the enemy off balance and feeling threatened, that the unpredictable changeability is a feature, not a bug.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Look, I think there's some truth to that argument, which it does leave everyone that the Trump administration deals with, from our allies to our enemies to individual people that are trying to implement this policy, it does leave everybody off balance. It creates a situation, I think, in which there is a level of acquiescence because it is so unpredictable. However, I think the crazy like a fox just doesn't-- the fact pattern just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Because if you were crazy like a fox, you would have plans in place. You would have other scenario planning, you would have a thought-out thing.

This is what diplomats and military advisors go to train their entire lives for, about, if we do this, they're going to do that, and you're trying to look 10 steps ahead. I think what you see from this tweet is no one's thinking more than a couple hours ahead. Even this rescue over the weekend, which of course we should all be overjoyed for, that an American was rescued. It is also a totally-- Those things are not without risk, and those things are not without consequences.

Every time we do something like that, it demonstrates the enemy, our adversaries, they learn more about our planning. They learn more about what we're doing. I hate to say it, but I think it's a very unforced error. I think that's how members of the military, the rank and file of the military and the intelligence community really see what happened over the weekend. It's not a victory. It is a really problematic and unfortunate situation.

Brian Lehrer: There is reportedly a peace plan on the table today being brokered by Pakistan. Does it have a chance before tomorrow or at all as far as anything you can tell or anybody you're talking to?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I think right now it's a very live ball based on everyone that I'm talking to. I think a peace plan is only as good as both parties' willingness to truly enforce it Stick to that. I think if you're sitting at the negotiating table and you're sitting opposite the United States, what confidence do you have that the United States is going to follow through on its promises, small or large? I think that is a unintended consequence here that is absolutely changing the dynamic.

You also have to remember, for the Iranians, I think there's a real, based on everything that I see and the people that I speak to, I think there is a real misunderstanding of how this regime and the public thinks and interprets these threats. Any idea that these threats are de-escalating the situation or moving the other actor into a better situation, I think is completely misguided and just, again, ignoring your own intelligence, ignoring your own expertise.

Every time this administration, Hegseth, Trump, or others leads with bravado, it's just ratcheting things up. For the Iranians, they very much view this as an existential crisis, an existential threat. They believe that they will fight to the death. I don't know that our security administration apparatus is truly taking that insight into account when they're making these plans.

Brian Lehrer: Your article about Defense Secretary or War Secretary Hegseth firing the army chief of staff in the middle of a war that he says is going really well, by the way, and that the secretary of the Army may be next. Are those executive positions actually relevant to the future success on the ground in this war right now, or are they more policy positions, and that's what happens in politics when the new guys come in after an election?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I think they are absolutely important and material actors on a couple different fronts. One, these are people who have tremendous expertise. They have reps. They have been through this before. They understand the minutia. Every time you get rid of someone, regardless of where they are in the chain, there is an impact on all the way down, and that you're losing credibility, and you're losing someone who is read in and hopefully understands the minutiae of the risks that you're calculating here.

I think the second thing that perhaps is even more important is the Trump administration has put themselves in a position in which they went in and started an armed conflict without truly consulting Congress. Normally, the way that you would try and manage that process and paper over that process if you believe, which I think has been pretty clearly disproven, that there was any true imminent threat.

Even if that were the case, you had to go in and there wasn't time to consult Congress, the way that you help manage those relationships and make sure that you have the budget to continue a large scale military operation is to have people who have credibility with Republican congressmen, with these committees on the Hill. When you get rid of all those people, you lose your best negotiators, you lose the best faces of your Pentagon. I think that we're going to see the ramifications of that in the next couple of weeks when they try and pass this budget, which I think is really in a tough spot right now.

Brian Lehrer: You report that Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Hegseth have been locked in a rivalry over the past year. A rivalry about what?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: When I started reporting-- I'm an investigative reporter that made their way into covering Washington, DC and covering some of this palace intrigue. For me, it is a fascinating education in how much of our policy is driven by individual personality conflicts, desires for credit, desires to be seen in a certain way. You really can't underestimate the pettiness. I think that is something that I am continuously shocked by every day. I think we as journalists need to explain that to our readers, because I think there is a rivalry that is based on not necessarily differences in really thoughts and intellectual stances. This is something a little bit more superficial.

Brian Lehrer: Looking at the beginning of our caller board and our text thread, and listeners, of course, anybody can participate. Even before I go into this, let me just make sure you know how. 212-433-WNYC. Call or text 212-433-9692. Your comments and questions welcomed for The Atlantic's National Security and Justice Department staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick on all the firings and denials of promotions in the military. We're going to get to the denials of promotions and the race and gender questions therein. Also, the Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem firings.

What the headline of the article by Sarah that Trump's Purge May Be Just the Beginning indicates or about the war and Trump's expletive containing threat to shrink the timeline for a deal with Iran to tomorrow night, he says Tuesday night, 8 o' clock Eastern Time, before bombing the country's power plants and bridges. 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692. I don't know if I should be surprised by this or not, but we're getting texts like, "When is it an obligation of head military brass to decline to follow an order that is a violation of the Geneva Convention?"

Sarah Fitzpatrick: This is an excellent, excellent question, and it's a testament to the intelligence of your listeners because this is the key question that we should all be asking. It's a really scary situation for many of the people in leadership positions, even among the rank and file at the Pentagon right now. My sourcing suggests that there is a real concern. People are asking for advice. People are going to their leadership, going to their chaplains, going to anyone consulting outside lawyers and hiring outside lawyers. This is a real, true concern.

What we've seen, I think I've reported this in some of my prior articles, is when you bring this to the attention of Hegseth and those close to him, "Hey, are you concerned that this is a concern among the people that you lead?" I've had people close to Hegseth say on the record, "Yes, if people are concerned, then they're part of the problem." That is incredibly telling Also chilling for the people that are going to be responsible for carrying out these orders.

Brian Lehrer: Several other listeners are suggesting impeachment. One writes, "Invoke the 25th Amendment now," which is the constitutional amendment by which you can remove a president for being incompetent. Related to this, there's an article on The Bulwark this morning which started life as a never Trump/Republican news site by of all people, William Kristol, who was very conservative, top adviser to Vice President Dan Quayle, was very instrumental in beating the war drums for the Iraq war, who offers two proposals on a Bulwark newsletter piece today.

Let me just get the exact language here that relates to what we were talking about. Here we go. "The first proposal is that we think seriously about the case for internal resistance within the executive branch. They can remind themselves that they are obliged to obey the law rather than the illegal wishes of their boss or their boss’s boss." That goes beyond this very specific military code of conduct thing, where people in the military should refuse an illegal order, to people in the executive branch, in the policy and politics branch.

Then he suggests starting impeachment talk again. Bill Kristol says he knows that Trump, who was impeached twice but convicted neither time, is not about to be impeached again right now, but that it's useful to start talking about that again. That's coming from Bill Kristol, and after the deflating to the Trump opposition failures to convict in the Senate. These are indications to me of how the temperature is rising in various circles over how Trump is escalating various things.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Absolutely. I think what it's telling, I think our listeners really need to understand is there is such a disconnect between what Republicans, specifically Republicans in Congress, which I think what we've all learned in this process is laws are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. We don't have a Justice Department that appears at all interested in pursuing crimes or pursuing these kinds of questions on a criminal level. Then we have a head of the armed forces who's saying these are silly things. They're not real, really being dismissive of these things.

What I think is really important is the only avenue that I can see is for congressional Republicans to have the political will to start those conversations or enforce those conversations. I think what Americans have a true-- there's a real disservice for American voters because I, as a investigative reporter, get to hear all the things that Republicans and Democrats say behind closed doors and how concerned they are, how worried they are, how worried they are about even just the quality of the information that is being told to Congress in classified briefings. They are concerned about whether or not this is truthful and how accurate this information is. They believe that they've been misled on several occasions.

There's a real disconnect between what Republicans are willing to say in private and what they say in public. I think until that changes, it is hard to see those conversations having any kind of heft or seriousness. Again, it's all about one or two people willing to have political courage. We've seen Republicans have political courage on other issues. On the Epstein files. We've seen it a little bit around the boat strikes. There's absolutely indications. It's a matter of follow through, which is what they're elected to do.

Brian Lehrer: Some texts coming in. Listener writes, "Has anyone noted that the amazing rescue job that was done by the military were trained by the officers who were being fired?" Another one says, "If Trump is impeached, we end up with Vance. Is that better?" Another one just asks you, "What is the likelihood that military leaders will finally reject illegal orders?" What would you say to that listener?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I would say the likelihood-- It's hard to tell. We individuals, you never really know someone's character until they're placed in one of these situations. I think what I can say, having covered the Pentagon and the Justice Department and other parts of this apparatus, is there are two factors I think at play now that make it even more unlikely for that individual action or collective action to take place versus other moments in history in which individuals have stepped forward and tried to do that.

This is a couple things. One, you just have a lack because there is such a, honestly, harassing. It is such a difficult environment. Morale is so low among those people who are still in the government either who have managed to somehow not get DOGE'd, are sticking it on, are just trying to hold on. They don't necessarily know that they're other colleagues because it is such an environment of if you are perceived as not being loyal not to the Constitution, but to the president, explicitly to the president, you are at risk. You are at risk. People really keep their heads down. I don't know that there is a understanding even among your own office about where your other colleagues stand how concerned they are.

Two, we're now in a moment of, I think, a new moment-- The United States has always had a history of political violence. There's something new, I would say, in the last couple years that we have seen things from the online world, online threats actually transpire into real life and death situations, including people that have died. We have a president who is so determined to make people's lives, to really retaliate and threaten, either implicitly or explicitly, violence. You have people who will say "I would love to do the right thing--" This extends all the way up to people in Congress. "I would love to do the right thing, but I am afraid for my staff, I'm afraid for my kids."

I think there's a third aspect here which is we are in a moment of economic insecurity. I don't think there's anyone, including you and me, our paychecks do not go as far as they once did. If you are one of these people, you have to worry about your mortgage, you have to worry about providing for your family. I think people are really stuck between a rock a hard place of their responsibility and their safety.

We hope that people act in a certain way, but you never really know someone's character until they're pressed with it. I would say to your listener, I think it is less likely than ever before. However, I think also some of the things that are going on behind the scenes and in this war are really spurring people to have these conversations, at least behind closed doors.

Brian Lehrer: Another text says, "GOP Congress members are just as complicit. They won't challenge Trump on anything." Another one says, "Impeachment Hegseth." That segues back to your articles about changing the leadership. You cite main reasons for this amount of turnover and denied promotions in the military as insufficient loyalty to Trump's agenda, too much concern with the legalities of war, association with certain Biden policies and his campaign against DEI, what Hegseth calls woke up sh. Exploitive deleted.

Can I ask about the legalities of war part? That relates to what has-- You wrote that article last week, but that relates to what's been breaking since Trump's post. Do you have any indication that the threat to bomb the power plant, civilian infrastructure might have been getting pushback, specifically from the now fired Army Chief of Staff Randy George?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I think it's a little bit too early to tell. There's a lot of-- You have to really discern when any of these things happen, who's being spun and how you're being spun. I'd say I'm still trying to get to the ground truth of exactly what that means. I think as a general principle, there has been a tremendous-- I have seen it in so many situations in and around the Pentagon of people who do feel that they are retaliated against for speaking up.

You can see some of that even in the efforts to eliminate, or I think Hegseth would argue, refine or reform the JAGs, which are the military lawyers that sign off before any action is taken. This is really important because that protects individual service members. It creates the legal basis such that when action is taken that we don't have to worry about problems on an individual basis or on a collective basis on the other end.

We have seen a tremendous effort to drive out and essentially purge so many of those people to the point that there are very few of them left. As a result of that, I think perhaps these guardrails, as one source was explaining to me last week, these guardrails that would normally be in place are not there. We're having people who are not necessarily lawyers having to make these calculations and raise these things and people are afraid. Yes, it absolutely is a factor here. I think we have to wait and see, unfortunately. They have been also cranking down on press access to the Pentagon, freedom of information, et cetera. We aren't able to get as much real time information as we once did.

Brian Lehrer: On the legalities of war, you cite something in your Atlantic article that hasn't gotten as much press as the firing of the Army chief of staff. Hegseth overruled the army suspension of two apache helicopter crews who are being investigated for a flyover conducted near Nashville at the home of the musician Kid Rock, an avid Trump supporter. Now, considering the magnitude and the gravity of what we've been talking about so far, this might seem like a trifle. For those helicopter crew members, Hegseth posted the words "Carry on, Patriots." What was this Kid Rock flyover?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: It's as silly as it sounds, which is using taxpayer-- Every time we put a plane in the sky-- I think this is really important. Every time we put a plane in the sky, it costs a lot of money. A lot of money. There are so much that goes into launching a military flight and the fact that these planes were used to fly over someone who is considered a political ally for no true national security purpose. This is just Hegseth trying to lead on style in the culture wars as opposed to substance. I do think it is both silly and incredibly important, because when you are the secretary of Defense, you only have so many hours in your day. You only have so many things that you can choose to devote your time and attention to.

I think it is incredibly telling that in a moment of-- Again, we don't even know all of the conflicts where the US may be involved right now. We don't know where service members may be-- There may be very special operations going on that we have no idea about. Yet this is where he's choosing to spend his time, his attention, and taxpayer dollars. It's a reflection of where his priorities are. It's the sort of thing like, show me how you spend your time and I'll show you who you are. I think that's a very telling example.

Brian Lehrer: I want to acknowledge some texts that are coming in that are basically saying, "Don't forget about Iran's role in this." One says, "The character of the theocratic regime of Iran. It seems like the crazy is Trump, but the leadership of Iran is not saying kill 40,000," or whatever the real number is, "of their citizens when these people marched in the streets shooting at Arab countries. Irresponsible and crazy regime." Another listener writes, "The fact that both sides are pathological liars is so disorienting. We have no idea what is going." I don't know what you say to that as a national security reporter for The Atlantic, but it certainly is context that can be disorienting, as that one listener wrote.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Look, and I also think it's important to remember, when I talk to national security officials and I say, "What keeps you up at night? What are you really worried about?" They always say, "I'm worried about the fact that we are weakened and that this is a moment that any of our adversaries, be it Iran, be it China, be it Russia, be it North Korea could take a moment of weakness and strike in the United States from terrorism to who knows what."

I think it is important whenever decisions are being made that they have larger ramifications, that you are putting not only the service members who of course sign up for this, are taking this risk knowingly, but I don't think the American public is. It is important. Iran is an absolute an actor that does not always-- one could argue like, does not always act in a way that we in the United States would perceive as easy to predict.

That is a factor here. We also spend millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars protecting current and former Trump officials, because the Iranians feel very strongly about going after them. You're feeding this cycle as opposed to looking for off ramps here. I think we need to be thinking about our national security, not just overseas, but at home.

Brian Lehrer: Another person writes, "After 49 years," I think they mean 47 years, "of Iran, what are we supposed to do?" We'll let that sit there as a rhetorical question mostly. Maybe you know as a reporter, what other people in the military or intelligence establishment might have said as an alternative to the way Trump is proceeding with Iran.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: This is my colleague Shane Harris, who is just a fantastic, fantastic national security reporter, specifically on the intelligence front. He has a great piece out. I think it published over the weekend, but it's on the front page of The Atlantic website right now about how Iran is the largest intelligence failure and we should be looking at it as that. It really speaks to what was known before we went in and the choices that were made. I would encourage everyone to read that article because it's really well done.

Brian Lehrer: We knew they were supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and other things. What was the intelligence failure?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I think the intelligence failures have to do with knowing-- The Trump administration has tried to present like, "Oh, we couldn't have predicted that certain things would happen," the Strait of Hormuz, et cetera. That was absolutely known, predicted, communicated. There are some other things that I think historically we know from how information gets transmitted across the intelligence community and across the Pentagon about to what extent downside risk, downside potential problems, how clearly are those things being articulated and how who is receiving that information, I think remains a little bit of a mystery. That's a problem.

Brian Lehrer: When we continue in a minute with Sarah Fitzpatrick from The Atlantic, I want to turn to the denied promotions of Black and women officers, which have made a little bit of news. NBC is reporting that there were more of those than the four that The New York Times first reported, and what that's about. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We continue with Sarah Fitzpatrick from The Atlantic, who covers national security and the Justice Department. On the denied promotions of Black and women officers, what made the headlines last week was two women and two Black officers as reported by The New York Times. NBC News now reports Hegseth has taken steps to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers, some of whom are seen by critics as having been targeted because of their race or gender. A Pentagon spokesman is quoted in the NBC story saying on Friday that under Secretary Hegseth they have meritocracy, which is apolitical and unbiased.

The NBC story does also note that some women and officers of color have been promoted under Hegseth. Sarah, my question for you is, and understanding that you have not reported this story directly, how can we measure merit versus bias in the Pentagon? I haven't seen reporting yet that describes how merit is officially determined for senior military officers to get promotions. If Hegseth is consciously trying to keep the top ranks very white, or if he is subconsciously biased and sees women and people of color as less qualified than they actually are while thinking he's not, if those are the the allegations, how is merit for those kinds of promotions determined, if you know?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I think it's a very complex process, and I think the merit is-- How it is measured is different for different types of roles. Remember, there are so many different types of roles within the military. It is a huge, huge operation. My understanding from covering this previously is generally there is a board, there's a series of reviews. There is a process here, but that process is overseen and determined by the individuals that you put in those leadership positions. They have a tremendous amount of discretion, a tremendous amount of sway.

I think that it is, like any organization, like any bureaucracy, it all comes from the messaging and the leadership at the top. I do know for a fact that there are so many women, people of color. Even right now over the weekend, there was this bizarre kerfuffle over whether or not-- There was a Presbyterian service, but some indications that Catholics were-- There was some Catholic--

Brian Lehrer: For Easter and Good Friday?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Exactly, yes. I haven't quite gotten to the bottom of that, but my understanding is it was quite valid. You have a service that is receiving all sorts of different messages, all sorts of different timing, and you have a place where, especially in the military, you report to the person above you, and you need to keep that person happy in order for your job to continue. I think it will have to bear out. Again, this is another reason why we need press in the building, why we need freedom of information, why we need-- If the public had access to that information, we would very easily be able to say, "Oh, okay, this is all above board, or it's not."

Because we don't have insight into that, and all we have are the public statements that this administration has chosen to make, and those public statements are very telling about women, about those who question or raise their hands or have authority. I think we will have to wait and see. When the history books are told, we'll have a much better example. It is a really precarious situation for anyone that I talk to who works inside of that building or who works outside of it.

This is something that people are highly, highly aware of and highly concerned about. Of course, it's not just whether or not you get a promotion. A promotion means a lot of different things. It means salary for the rest of your life, it means pension, it means security and safety. There's all sorts of things that go into this that are not just a title.

Brian Lehrer: The NBC article has these stats. 18% of active duty military personnel are Black, but only 9% of the officer corps is Black. That would indicate that they get less proportional consideration for promotions rather than more, as the anti DEI campaign would have it. By gender, it's more proportional. 20% of active duty personnel are female, and so are 20% of the officer corps. Again, if we assume that women are not biologically less qualified than men to be officers, that only indicates a lack of bias, not that they're being promoted while unqualified. Can the press or can Congress, or maybe there'll be lawsuits, can anyone hold Hegseth accountable for alleged bias in any kind of review process for these officer promotion candidates by any institution?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Sure. The the Pentagon has an inspector general, and there's a whole process. That office has been significantly cut, but people could make internal requests, internal referrals. Any member, members of Congress, especially on these committees that oversee military affairs or similar things, could request information either voluntarily or by subpoena. My understanding is that members of Congress are having real trouble getting accurate information out of the Pentagon.

Again, it all goes back to political will. Are you going to enforce that? If someone gives you not enough information or insufficient information, do you actually hold them in contempt of Congress? Do you make a criminal referral? We haven't seen that yet, but that option is always on the table. It remains to be seen military law versus civilian law, is sometimes a little bit tricky here, but we have seen examples of individuals pursuing legal action and those cases making it all the way up to the Supreme Court. That is one option if people chose to pursue that.

You have to remember, pursuing a lawsuit is incredibly, for an average person, especially someone making a low or mid level Pentagon salary, it's cost prohibitive. There are unfortunately only so many lawyers that will take pro bono cases, and that can take decades. The legal system is not necessarily at this moment set up to make that easy for individuals and for them to be able to keep paying their mortgage in the meantime.

Brian Lehrer: Supporter of the war writes, "Trump administration officials have been saying in interviews, of course, they were worried about the strait being blocked, but why should that stop the war on Iran's lethality, destroying their leaders missiles and nuclear capabilities? Iran actually had of and still has some weapons of mass destruction. Jim in Brick. You're not Brick in Jim, New Jersey. You're Jim in Brick, New Jersey. You're on WNYC. Hello.

Jim: Yes, hi. It's twofold how much money is driving events. One, the prediction markets. If there isn't money, as there was in Venezuela, somebody placed a $30,000 position on Maduro's exit within 48 hours, and for a very short window of time. They got almost 500,000. Otherwise, the other day, it's more than an allegation that Hegseth's broker at Morgan Stanley was trying to establish an ETF package which is a financial device with BlackRock. It set up red flags within BlackRock. It never came to pass, but it was still technically a conspiracy, which is--

Brian Lehrer: Or insider trading on knowledge of aspects of the war or the war to come. Have you seen that story? That story is out there about Hegseth's broker and questions about how much that should reflect back on the secretary.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I have, and I would say this is a-- If you go to any cocktail party in Washington, this is a topic of discussion across the government because it is very clear that there's all sorts of information-- people profiting off of non-public information. However, again, we have a Justice Department that has severely, severely cut its staff and its resources, particularly in the office that would normally cover something like this. Again, I think we as Americans are seeing that laws are only as good as your ability to enforce them. We are not seeing this Trump administration choose to enforce these laws or even send messages to people working in government that this isn't okay.

Brian Lehrer: One more call. Kate in Middlesex county in Jersey who says she's a military spouse. Kate, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Kate: Hi. Hello. Sarah, I just wanted to say I'm enjoying your perspective and knowledge, and I see how your investigative background is so valuable with these situations, especially with the complexity of these situations. I was a military spouse, active duty. My ex was an officer and a pilot and was deployed twice to Iraq when we were married. I just wanted to comment on something you mentioned previously, that the military signs up for going to war without understanding, but the public does not.

What I would just want to add is that while the military service members do sign up and with the understanding or should that they may be sent to war and the family members understand that as well, they do so with the understanding or the hope and belief that the laws will be followed and that they can trust the commander in chief to follow those laws, and that Congress will protect those laws, and for the law of war and conflict and getting into wars. Also that there are safeguards in place, such as a working Jaguar.

I would say while there are military service members, of course now who support what's going on, I would say from my perspective, there are former military family members at least and current ones who have to send their service members off to war but don't feel that they did sign up for this. That the rules have changed and I think that's just something to remember.

Brian Lehrer: Absolutely. Thank you for the kind words and for calling in. I think this is such an important point. I think something that often gets missed in this discussion is the fact that these guardrails, the laws of war, the rules of armed conflict, those are a two-way street because we participate-- The United States has been adhering to those laws in part because we have to trust that if one of our service members were captured by an enemy or in harm's way, that our adversaries are operating under the same principles.

I think anytime, to your point, which is such an excellent one and such an important one, that these families signed up for a place that historically has taken rules and laws extraordinarily seriously because they protect not just the country's interests, but it protects individual interests and it gets those people in harm's way home. It gives you the confidence to do that work.

All of these people who are working the military, they need to have the confidence to make difficult decisions. They have to have the confidence to go into work every day and do the hard things, and for those family members, to your point, which I think is so critical, to say goodbye and know that they're in good hands. I think there are so many people around the world who-- When you sign up for the military, it truly is a family commitment, and we should never lose sight of that.

Brian Lehrer: Kate, for you, as a military spouse with a perspective that you were articulating, I have read, and maybe Sarah can confirm this or refute it, but I have read that recruitment is up under Trump and Hegseth. Does that surprise you or would you have a theory as to why if that's true?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: You can go ahead first.

Kate: It does surprise me-- Oh, go ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Kate, go ahead. No, Kate, go ahead. I'm asking you first.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: No, no, you go ahead first. You know it better than me.

Kate: I can't really speak on the recruitment side. I can just speak as a military spouse. It does surprise me, though, especially hearing what happened just recently. I think I read a story about a newlywed being apprehended by ICE and then sent to a detention center when they moved on post. I haven't verified that story, but that does surprise me that the recruiting is up. I know it's taken a hit in recent years.

In the past, a lot of the programs that have been set in place for military spouses with, for example, regard to improving work opportunities, those were set in place specifically because they found out that military spouse happiness and employment opportunities were directly related to military servicemen staying in or getting out. I think when the spouses are unhappy, they make decisions as a couple whether or not they're going to stay in. For married, they make a decision whether or not they're going to sign up.

Brian Lehrer: That might be retention more than recruitment. I hear what you're saying. Is that a true fact, Sarah, recruitment is up?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: I think the broad strokes are, but I think when you dig into the data, something is very telling, which is the process from making first contacts to getting to basic training is incredibly long for a variety of reasons, including-- I've been speaking to some service members recently that one of the unintended consequences, to your point tomorrow about AI, Brian, is that the process to get your security clearance, the process to go through all the hoops, the process to do the health screening in particular, has been a huge holdup in getting people into the military.

I think sometimes when we're looking at those [unintelligible 00:51:24] members, we have to remember that there's a huge lag that many of those, that process started well, well, well beyond, until they finally get in. I think this is another question which is, how many people start the process and ultimately never finish it? I think we have to look at those numbers carefully, but also skeptically.

I think also, too, you have to remember anytime that we are in a moment of economic instability, generally people will seek out what they perceive as more stable employment, and often the military is one of those things. There's a couple different factors at play here. The true test, and I think this is a really important point that she brings up, is retention. Do people stay or are people looking for exits? That is something that I'm going to be following really closely.

Brian Lehrer: My guest has been Sarah Fitzpatrick, who is a staff writer for The Atlantic who covers national security and the Justice Department. We didn't even get to one of the two articles we invited you on for. The one that we did talk about, An Army Shake-Up in the Middle of a War. The other one was Trump's Purge May Be Just Beginning. That's about Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem and maybe next, Kash Patel, another real Trump loyalist. That's a whole other conversation.

To put a pin in this discussion that we have been having with you and listeners, and I want to acknowledge one more caller who we didn't get to, Barry and Mamaroneck, who was pointing out the horribleness of the Iran regime as a number of other callers and texters who we did acknowledge had done. The context of this conversation is, yes, that's the given, the variable is given what the United States is and is supposed to be, how do we respond to that? Is that a good way to end this? Does that make sense?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Absolutely. One of the most important things here is that we always have to-- I think sometimes these questions, they seem so big and so far away, and they seem in Washington. I think every American, needs to remember--

Brian Lehrer: In fairness, they're not having these kinds of conversation in Tehran about their behavior.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Exactly. That's part of what makes this country so special and also makes it a target. At the same time, I think we have to remember that Americans have much more-- This is a democracy. We expect from our public officials, we expect transparency. We expect adherence to the law. I think every American should-- That is the foundation on which so many of these things stand. Americans absolutely are in the position to make sure that those things are being followed. It's better for everyone.

Brian Lehrer: Sarah, thank you so much. We really appreciate this.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Thank you for having me. As a longtime New Yorker up until a couple years ago, this is one of my favorite shows, so I'm so thrilled to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, thank you very much. Nice to have you on here. Brian Lehrer on WNYC. More in a minute.

 

Copyright © 2026 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.