The Daily Show: Ears Edition - Replay | Donald Trump Runs the Military & The Role of Militias | Jordan Klepper Fingers the Conspiracy

Episode Date: August 18, 2025

Originally aired in 2022, when Donald Trump wasn't president, again, yet... But, if Donald Trump (who wasn't currently president) is still allegedly the president, does that also mean he’s in charge of the military? According to MAGA rally goers, yes. Jordan Klepper dives deeper into conspiracy theories surrounding the military with Paul Szoldra, the editor of The Ruck, a weekly newsletter focused on defense and national security. They discuss theories like Jade Helm, how servicemembers react to conspiracy theories, and how high-ranking officials like General Michael Flynn abuse their credibility to spread them. They are joined by Dr. Amy Cooter of Middlebury College who breaks down her research on militia groups like the Oath Keepers, the overlap between members and veterans, and how militias approach “defending” their country.    More of Dr. Amy Cooter’s work: https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/ctec    More from Paul Szoldra: https://www.theruck.news/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This winter, take a trip to Tampa on Porter Airlines. Enjoy the warm Tampa Bay temperatures and warm Porter hospitality on your way there. All Porter fairs include beer, wine, and snacks, and free fast-streaming Wi-Fi on planes with no middle seats. And your Tampa Bay vacation includes good times, relaxation, and great Gulf Coast weather. Visit FlyPorter.com and actually enjoy economy. You're listening to Comedy Central. It's been two years since Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. And although a stubbornly high number of Republicans still don't believe he lost,

they are at least coming around to the reality that he is no longer the president. Who is running the government right now? President Trump. Well, most of them are. For some, the truth is just too much to bear. I found this out firsthand when I was told that a Maga rally, that Trump is still in charge of the military. He's running the government.

And the military. And he's running the military. So we should blame him for what happened in Afghanistan. No. Thank you for talking to me, George. Enjoy seeing President, current President Trump. It makes me think of that famous courtroom quote from a few good men. You can't handle the truth.

Although, if you think about it, that's a quote from Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, who, as a member of the military, if logic follows, still reports to Donald Trump. Damn it. Checkmate it again. This is Jordan Klepper, Fingers the Conspiracy, and today we're talking about the military. The Trump is still in charge of the military conspiracy theory. It's just one of many military-related conspiracy theories. And we have two people here with us today who know a lot about them and the people who believe them,

both outside and inside military ranks. They are Paul Zoldra, a veteran who covers military issues, and is the editor of the weekly newsletter The Ruck that focuses on national security and defense. And we're also joined by Dr. Amy Cooter of Middlebury College who has studied and spent time with militia groups like the Oath Keepers. Guys, welcome aboard. Nice to be here. Thank you for having me. Good to have you guys.

All right, Paul, I want to start here. Help us understand the logic behind the theory that Donald Trump is still in charge of the military. I mean, even with Ivanka bailing on the campaign, I'm not even convinced he's in charge of his family anymore. walk us through this. How is he in charge of the military? Well, Jordan, he's the commander in chief still. He didn't lose the election. I mean, didn't you read that? That's how it works. If you believe it, you can achieve it and or convince a bunch of other people you have achieved it. It seems wild. So why do people actually think this? It really boils down to his, a lot of his supporters believe that he did not lose the election. And, you know, that's kind of coming into an interesting, interesting part where he's running for reelection now, even though he didn't lose the last election. But even still, yeah, he's the commander in chief. And so if he's, if he's still the president of the United States, then he's still the commander in chief. And he still has poll in the military. And,

And oh, by the way, a whole bunch of the military is, is supportive of Trump and we'll, you know, go with his every word. I hope the sarcasm is coming through, by the way. I under, I can hear some of the sarcasm in there. I guess what, help me walk through a little bit of, it sounds ridiculous, but it's not the only time I've heard this out and about. I know people are denying the idea that Donald Trump lost the election, but there are people who still believe, okay, he lost. Biden is in charge, but that there is something going on that we cannot see where Donald Trump is in charge of the military apparatus. Can you speak to that mindset? I know it's not true, but speak to the mindset. Where does something like that come from? Why are there people who

are grasping onto this? Is there like a military idea that there is some sort of shadow general shadow leader? Like what draws people to this other than the inability to let go? of the idea that Trump is still president? Well, I think it would come, I think primarily you look back to the Q&ON conspiracy of, you know, there's this big, you know, massive underground, you know, lizard galaxy of, you know, Democrats and celebrities, you know, stealing children and doing all kinds of stuff. And that all came from a person calling himself Q. You know, many people became convinced by this, this whole idea of getting really highly classified information inside the government.

And the idea was at that time was Q, Q was inside. You know, it was supportive of the Trump administration and fighting back against the, the social called deep state that is that is trying to thwart his agenda and so you know if you if you think that if you can believe that that there's some you know person inside the government who's not only sharing all this really highly classified information with the public on a message board I don't see much separation I don't see how you know how we go from the that to believing that Trump is still president. That's not that wacky when you think about it, you know?

I think what always makes me laugh within it, though, is the belief in the fun parts, the wearing of the uniform and the stars and the power, but none of the accountability of what has happened. You know, we discuss the critical things that people are critical of the Afghanistan withdrawal and the person that I talked to very clearly was like, no, no, he had nothing to do with that. It's almost as if, you know, in military parlance, you have a dress uniform, correct? I'm not somebody who was in the military, but I've definitely watched films that are about the military,

and I'm to understand that you have a dress uniform. And you also, as an infantryman, you were in the Marines, correct? Correct, yes. You also have something you might wear functionally to go do dirtier, more applicable things, right? Camouflash, yes. Cammo, I knew it. Cammo. I've done all the research. And it's as if believing in this theory is a belief that you only get to wear your dress whites

and that there is no secondary part to at all, which is sort of emblematic of the whole American thought process. I think you actually, you bring up a really good point, which is a lot of these conspiracy theories, they hinge on people's ignorance of the military. You know, less than one percent of Americans serve in the, of Americans serve in the, the military. It's a very small number. During World War II, we had about 10% of Americans in the military. Of course, we're fighting a gigantic war, and that makes sense. But that number is so much smaller now. And so what I've found from just reporting on these issues for the past decade being in the Marine Corps before that, most people have no idea how the military works.

You know, I think a lot of people think that we just, you know, march around. We salute. And, and then, you know, they, like, press a button, break glass and you go to war. And, like, there's a black box in there. Nobody really understands what it's actually like. And, you know, the thing is that most of it's really boring. You know, we're just sitting around waiting to do things. We're doing maintenance or other kinds of stuff, but those are less sexy parts of the military that the military itself doesn't really share all that much with the public. And, you know, that ignorance really feeds these ideas, you know, that the military is, you know, doing nefarious things and, you know, they're up to no good. And also, also the

idea that the military can do these amazing things with ease. You know, like the Benghazi attack could have just been stopped just easily by, you know, the military just swooping in there with jets from Italy and stuff like that. It takes more planning and actually, you know, diving in and figuring out how to actually do things. It's like, it's almost like a comic book caricature of, of the military is what you get from a lot of Americans who just, you know, don't really know any better. So you're telling me, even if you've played Call of Duty, that's not enough information to fully understand how the military works. I mean, the Call of Duty is realistic for combat experience. See, I do. Enough said. Enough said. Enough said. I much like if you've watched Wagg the dog, you understand American politics as well. That and maybe half of American president.

You get it. You know how this thing works. Now you should talk about it and fear the institutions in and of themselves. If call of duty was more realistic, there would be soldiers sitting around really bored, you know, smoking cigarettes, you know, really, you know, bitching about their chain of command and complaining about, complaining about, you know, going out on patrol that day. Like, that's the more realistic version of combat operations. The joke is like, the joke is like, you know, combat is 90 or 1% sheer terror and 99% boredom. Right. And that usually is pretty accurate.

Yeah, so like bitching and moaning is a part of the military. So play your call of duty, but then make sure you watch a good season of curb your enthusiasm to get the full understanding. Right. I knew it. I knew it. I want to actually fill out this. We're talking about the military here, but sort of our conversation today is going to fold in also the worlds of militias and citizen militias. So I want to bring Amy in. Amy, a lot of these conspiracy theories, they become incoherent the further you look into them. But I want to talk about what you've studied, citizen militias. Can you define for our audience what is a militia compared to what being in the military is? And also as somebody who studied, who's talked about militias. I'm curious if you have a militia code name, because I do. And it's cold brew, and it got me a lot of cred

with the Georgia State Militia. Does everybody here get a cool nickname? Yes, sir. If you don't have one, we'll help get one for you. Could I be a cold brew? Or if that's taken French press? Cold brew works better, I think. You like that?

Yes, sir. Feels a very bold yet smooth finish. Well, to start with your first question, U.S. domestic militias are civilian militias. They are intended to exist outside the military, outside the National Guard, and their members are people who really see it as their personal civic duty to kind of act in concert in some ways with the military, to be almost a civilian line of defense against potentially invasion, potentially natural disasters, anything in between. A lot of the members actually have military training. Among the groups I studied about two-thirds of the leaders

and about one-third of the other members had some service experience. And many of the others who did not kind of felt like they had missed out. They had wanted to be in the service but didn't qualify medically or for some other reason didn't get that service. And this was almost like a surrogate for them. Their experiences were really about trying to in their view, stand up for their country, defend the Constitution, and the American way of life in terms of how they specifically defined it. And as to a code name, do you have a code name? Some of them actually did call me renegade because I would study them at a time when it was not really popular for liberal academics to be dealing with more conservative topics. Well, I will say

this. I was talking with Amy offline a little bit about this, but I read Amy's dissertation years ago because I'm fascinated about militias. I'm from Michigan, which if you're into militias, Michigan's a great place to be. We got some OG militia action happening there. And I think what is fascinating about it is there's a lot of talk about the effects of militias and extremist groups recently, but you've been doing this for quite some time right now. What a lot of people, I don't think, look into is what is appealing about militias, the process of militias, and the average militia goer.

what I noticed when some of the time that I spent with a few militia members, I spent some time with some oathkeepers recently, just hanging out, having fun, watching mailboxes trying to save the election. And I hung out with some folks in Georgia way back when. And I think the military side of it is fascinating, because there are some of those people, oathkeepers in particular who are ex-military folks, ex-cops, who see it as an extension of their service. They made an oath to this country into the Constitution, and this is their extension of it. There are other folks, too, who feel like just day players who wanted to be in the military, and perhaps some had very interesting stories about an inability to get into

the military, like, you had an astigmatism, so now you want to be in the militia, it's good enough. Okay, fine, I get it. I've seen a lot of cosplay here. There's military here, and then there's a lot of these people who are. pretending to be military here. You know how you know? Because they don't have badges.

They just have notes from their wife that says, you can go for the weekend and hang out with your friends, but be back on time. But there's this funny balance of people wanting to serve, people pretending to serve, and I guess I'm curious too, of how you see that aligned with their relationships to the actual military forces.

Did you find, is, is, do you often see it as in concert with the American military system, or is oftentimes some of these militias looking to act in case the military in and of itself is something that turns on the American people? Yeah, the relationship that militias have with the military is frankly quite complicated.

It's something that they tend to like in the abstract, in theory, at least, because they believe that military and national defense are kind of the primary functions of what the federal government is supposed to do. it's one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government from their perspective. But they think that in practice, the military is prone to corruption or other problems that they see as being kind of endemic to the government as a whole. So it tends to be the case. And there can be

variation across units or even across sometimes individual militia members. But it tends to be the case that they really honor and revere veterans and service members themselves, but have a lot of distrust for the military as an institution, have a lot of distrust for military leadership. Paul, does that go both ways? You know the military world in those circles. What is the feeling for those in service when they look at the modern militia movement? There's military people in the militias, but also there are those people who are kind of, you know, we kind of call it stolen valor. If you're trying to kind of, you know, represent yourself as as part of the military, you know, and you, you know, like some people will do it a whole lot, you know, throwing metals on their chest and stuff like that. Others will just kind of pretend and wear the gear and, you know, there's like there's air softers and stuff that wear all the gear they look very military and represent themselves as if, you know, like, hey, I get get your, thank you for your service free meal at Denny's or something. But I think, I think, you know, military members probably looking at the militia, they think they're a bunch of geeks, you know, like, you know, get a job.

Like, get to do, you know, if you want to join the military, then join the military. It just looks like this kind of pretend defense thing. And it really ignores the reality of, of military operations and what the U.S. military is. capable of, you know, if you're looking at a militia, if you're in a militia and you're there, you know, you're training to defend the Constitution, whatever that, that idea they think they are doing. But, you know, bottom line is, is they're also thinking about potentially going up against the U.S. military. And that's not a winning battle, you know, like guys with guys, guys with small arms aren't going to really do much against an army with, you know, drones and

missiles and all kinds of stuff. And so it seems a little bit lopsided. But I think also they tap into the military legitimacy of wearing a uniform and looking like you're organized and, you know, following some sort of chain of command, these are military concepts and they make you look more professional. And that's the reason why they seek out military members and veterans because that lends them credibility and legitimacy among their followers and supporters. Even if you're, even if you're, you know, if you're a, you know, some nerd who could never could never get into the military well you can at least join the militia and be close to you know former military members and kind of it kind of brushes off on you um you are spilling that

tea spilling that tea on that militia well also i do think it also plays off of also the public perspective of the military there's as as a civilian i think there is a general misunderstanding of the ranks and the difficulties and the world of the military And so somebody purporting to be a militia member who wears the outfits, talks the talk in a public setting is almost treated as a person with law enforcement bona fides or has put in the time. It's like if you buy enough T-shirts with flags on them and you have good enough posture, then liberal elites like myself are going to let you get on a plane before them. And they're not going to say anything about it. So you can, you can steal enough valor to get you in certain positions. It's interesting.

I'm curious, Amy, we talk about some of the, perhaps the goofier sides of that and the desire to be more legitimate like the military. But you look at something like January 6th, and you have militia members, oathkeepers, proud boys, people who are storming the Capitol with a legitimate fear that the military in and of itself could be utilized against them. The one thing you couldn't help but notice was just how many people looked like they were preparing for battle. From the tactical vest to the pitchforks, this rally fell charged. You can tell these people really love America by the number of weapons they brought to hurt

other Americans. Where does a theory like that come from and how do they get to that point? Well, you know, I think they can come from a few different places. But among some of the specific groups that I have spent time with, it's come in part from an interesting dynamic where everything that Paul just described is true, that there are these folks who really want to attach on to the military sort of aura, if you will, and try to kind of claim some of that legitimacy. But also, there are veterans who actively seek out something like a militia to join. And that can be for one of two reasons. One reason is that they kind of miss the camaraderie of the military, they've been honorably discharged, and they want to find a space where people are trying to look up to them and learn from some of their experiences. On the other hand, I've encountered some folks who really did not enjoy their military experience, to say the least. They really felt like there was no legitimate purpose to some of the conflicts they were involved in.

One man in particular, for example, really believes that Desert Storm was truly all about experimentation on service members, that there was no other legitimate purpose for it. He came back incredibly angry and told me that he wanted to join something like a militia as a way to figure out how to fight back against the government, to take a proactive stand against the government. So I think some of that kind of mentality kind of seeps in there where even some people who have direct military experience kind of feed those narratives that the military might be the enemy. And usually that narrative is not about the rank and file, but again, about the leadership or about the government. And then they're misleading the rank and file and they're doing all this nefarious stuff that most militaries or service members may not even be aware as happening. So they feel like it's their job to raise awareness of that, to fight back against it. In some ways, that's the logic that kind of undergirds the oathkeepers as an organization as a whole. Because their whole purpose was supposedly to remind military and law enforcement about the oaths that they took to serve the people as opposed to serving the government.

I want to talk a little bit about that distrust there. Paul, you've written, and you've been very critical of some of the conspiracy theories that have been perpetrated by Donald. Trump, you've called him America's crazy uncle because of these conspiracies that he has spread, including one that claims Joe Biden killed SEAL Team 6 to cover up the reality that Osama bin Laden was never shot, and it was a body double, which is wild, but it was something that he pushed out there. What is the story behind that one? So this one is very, very strange and weird. And it's worth noting right away that Rob O'Neill, the SEAL Team 6 member who claimed to have shot Bin Laden.

He's credited with killing bin Laden on that raid. He was, and he's also a big fan of Donald Trump, but even he was like, whoa, bro, can you kind of back this off? a little bit and pushed back on this theory. It goes back to the SEAL Team 6 raid on Osama Bin Laden. And this happened in 2011. The SEALs went into Pakistan. They raided Bin Laden's house. They killed him. And they took his body back. They got a ton of intelligence for it. It was a very successful operation by all kinds of measures. Soon after that, I'd say, you know, maybe within months or so, there was a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. And a large number, unfortunately, of Navy SEALs were in that crash. And this helicopter call sign was extortion 17.

And the theory of extortion 17 going down was that these were seals that were seals that were involved in the bin Laden raid and in order to, you know, keep them silent to make sure that, you know, and nothing, nothing about the bin Laden raid that the government didn't want getting out, Obama killed them, made the, made the helicopter crash somehow and that it was a cover up of the of the bin Laden raid. And now we see that this is sort of refashioned into, oh, well, actually, no, it was the vice president. at the time, Joe Biden, and he was the one who set down this helicopter for some reason. And it just doesn't make any sense. And it also makes very little sense if the government is trying to suppress seals from, you know, revealing the truth. And why is why is Rob O'Neill still alive? Why is Matt Bissonette who wrote a book about the entire raid? Two seals have revealed details of this. And yet, the government wanted to, you know, take down, take down a helicopter and, you know, bring down the truth.

It's totally ludicrous. And really, really unfortunate, the thing about this, these conspiracy theories that people forget is that there are, these were seals that went down in a helicopter crash. There's a pilot. There are pilots in this in this crash, army pilots. They all have families. You know, they have, they have friends and they're they are now, I'm sure, affected by this conspiracy theory nonsense. And, you know, whenever there's some kind of new article coming out about the extortion 17 cover up, it's, you know, it's if that were, if that were my loved one that was lost, I'd be pretty pissed off by this stuff.

And it just continues and kind of snowballs. And, you know, one conspiracy theorist cites the other conspiracy theorist. And it kind of, you know, goes on and on. Trump was challenged on this one by Savannah Guthrie during the 2020 election at a town hall. Just this week, you retweeted to your 87 million followers, a conspiracy theory that Joe Biden orchestrated to have SEAL Team 6, the Navy SEAL to 6, killed. to cover up the fake death of bin Laden. Now, why would you send a lie like that to your followers? You retweet it.

That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody. And that was a retweet. I'll put it out there. People can decide for themselves. How do you think members of the military react when they see a conspiracy theory like this? Probably like what the what the hell? Like, why are people believing this crap?

like that's that that would be my initial reaction like can we can we teach some more critical thinking skills in school i look at these kinds of things and i think like we are uh we are a society with a whole lot of people that are fooled by uh misinformation disinformation and what I fear is, is nation states using that to their advantage. And I'm talking about China and Russia. That is not a conspiracy theory that these, these nations do this. They have substantial intelligence apparatuses. They have information warfare specialists just as we do. And they have budgets that support this stuff. And so if you have a society that's already, you know, not not even able to discern fact from fiction because you have a former American president, you know, throwing fuel on that fire.

That's going to be used to the advantage of China and Russia. And it's not it's not propaganda that's like, you know, like so obvious that it's, you know, it's like suddenly you're, you're going to see some message that says like, you know, Vladimir Putin is the greatest leader of all time. It's more about egging these things on and and sort of adding more fuel to the fire and more BS to actually expand the amount of people who are confused about what the truth is or just questioning, questioning complete reality of what's going on. And, you know, there's examples. of this stuff in like jade helm uh there was an operation in texas uh this training exercise in which uh a huge number of conspiracy theorists you know started talking about jade helm um as

you know some kind of government takeover the military was going to take over the entire united states and this training exercise was some kind of cover of course it was bogus and ludicrous But, you know, that's like our internal conspiracy stuff. And just imagine if, you know, that expands, that goes out and you have China sharing this stuff. That actually happened with Jade Helm, right? Is it Jade Helm specifically didn't Governor Abbott in Texas put troops, activated troops because of that conspiracy? And China activated bots to gin up more chaos around it because they saw that as a weakness, right? It was, what you're describing is our, our susceptibility to conspiracies is a legitimate

vulnerability to our own national security. I want to pause right there. I want to talk a little bit more about Jade Helm after the break. We'll be right back. Paul, we were talking a little bit about Jade Helm. Technically, what is it? Jade Helm 15? I don't know.

I don't know what number we're on of the times. that Jade Helm has led to the collapse of the government. I don't know sometimes they throw a number on there. It sounds so much of these conspiracies. They have to sound somewhere between a born identity movie and an exotic dancer. If you can get that right there in the middle, then it's going to catch fire. And Jade Helm was one of those, correct? The thing is that that's crazy about the Jade Helm conspiracy is that you had a whole lot of people

who are thinking that this was some kind of government takeover. The military was, you know, planning some kind of coup. And, you know, the governor of Texas actually had troops from the National Guard, you know, activated and kind of keeping an eye on jade helm activities, which is, it's just wild to think about that you have straight up BS actually affecting policymaking. and moving them to action. This is, this is, I mean, you know, part of it is probably, you know, I'd imagine there's some kind of politics at play where the governor is, you know, trying to kind of pretend like he's, you know, he's doing something about this problem.

But I would really hope instead that you'd say, hey, this is, this is nutty, this makes no sense and this isn't happening, and I don't actually waste national guardsmen's time sending them out to take care of this. But it's not like outside the realm of possibility to think about these types of conspiracies or just simple misinformation, disinformation. The people that are making national security decisions, policy decisions, movements in the military, they're susceptible to this information just like anybody else. And, you know, some of them have training on these types of things. Some are, you know, understand counterintelligence and information warfare. But a lot of them, a lot of them don't. You know, they, they're just like,

they're just like every other American, you know, and they, you know, so if, you know, where, where you come from in America, that's, that's, your, your neighbors are. Some of them are in the military and they're still getting the same information that you're doing on Facebook. You know, they're still looking at it too. Oh, no. Don't say it. Don't say that. I mean, yeah, you're saying our susceptibility to conspiracies is a vulnerability at a national security level, especially when people in positions of power buy into this shit, right? Do we, are we handing out stars too easily in the military? I look at, I mean, General Flynn, I don't know. General seems like a pretty big position, and General Flynn now, he believes in all the Q&N nonsense, he believes the Democratic Party is all demonic Satan worshippers. This man was a general.

And from all the movies I've watched, that's like tip top, if I recall. So what's going on there? Are we not vetting our generals enough? Or is this just what an America general looks like right now? Bad shit crazy. Well, to be fair, he is not the first bat-shit crazy general that the U.S. military has ever had. If you look back... Well, is that a problem? I guess, you know what, is that a problem, too? Because I think that brings up a larger question, right?

The military in and of itself, we put the military on a pedestal, and rightfully so. They protect our country and keep us safe. And yet, there's this American ideal of the wild general who, goes on in there, Custer with all of his crazy dogs and what have you. From the beginning, there's stories of generals who let reality be damned, and that makes them heroes. But is that a myth that is starting to erode and hurt us in modern day warfare? Well, I think it's always a, it's just generally a mistake to put people, you know, high up military leaders, military members in general on a pedestal, you know, they, the, we should, we should, we should, we should respect and

honor the U.S. military and, and service members who, you know, swear an oath to the Constitution and raise their, raise their right hand to do so. That is something that most people don't do, and they, they, they, in the vast majority of, of them do, do so honorably. Then there's people like Michael Flynn who rise up in the ranks and and and and and and and go go places up there. And the thing about Flynn is that he was he was a very widely respected, uh, Intel guy. Um, he, he, he's credited with with really sort of transforming the intelligence world. And, you know, on that sort of reputation, he moved up the ranks and he was, he was eventually part of, or the leader of the defense intelligence agency. It's like the military's version of the CIA and they

deal with, you know, gathering intelligence on foreign militaries. And, you know, at that point, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a really famous Washington Post article about Flynn's time at DIA and after. And one of the quotes that I found really fascinating is, is some, some of the, some of the, some of the subordinates started talking about his sharing of what we're called Flynn facts, which were basically ideas, crazy sounding ideas that he would put out there and try to get the intelligence to sort of molding to his idea. So, for example, he would say something like, like, you know, there's definitely like an Iraq connection to this thing or, you know, the Iranian.

are behind this or something. And it's like, that's not actually how you're supposed to start with intelligence. You're supposed to like, like, you don't want to find the bad guy. You're telling me this, one of the architects of the Iraq war, like the idea of, oh, there's weapons of mass destruction over here. Let's go invade this country. That's not a good starting point for good, clean intel. You actually want to have a starting point of being open to being wrong.

but the military doesn't create that right does the military create those types of people it seems like that is a vulnerability in a modern modern military right you were a soldier were there any classes on were there any improv classes about being wrong and saying yes and to any other idea

yes and no I I you know the thing about that well the thing about that article that, you know, it really sticks out to me is that you don't rise to this position without other people seeing warning signs along the way. And the thing about the military, you know, it's, it's sometimes it is easier to pass the problem off to someone else than deal with it right now. You know, it's the federal government. And so it's hard to fire somebody,

especially hard to get rid of somebody out of the military. And how do you get rid of somebody from the military who's, you know, a little like saying some weird stuff? Like what is, how do you put that in the performance review and justify it, you know? And so he, he, he and others have sort of moved up into higher up ranks and, and now we're kind of seeing the consequences of that where, uh, you know, it's not Michael Flynn anymore. You know, it's general Flynn. It's all over his

Twitter. It's, you know, he introduced himself so much as general Flynn. And, and yeah, I get it. You know, if you're retired general, sure, you want to, you want to maintain the, you know, the respect and, you know, kind of the dignity of that rank. But I'm not walking around, you know, telling everybody, I'm Sergeant Zoldra, you know, like it's, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, way to, you know, get more legitimacy to your ideas. And it's, it's people hear a lieutenant general, a former lieutenant general or a former colonel. There are, you know, there's, there's lieutenant colonels out there that are sharing conspiracies that I've found. And, and people hear these because and they believe it because he's a general. Why would a general lie to me? You know,

generals are very honorable and they, they tell us the truth and they've been there. He's been in for a really long time. And so, of course, he's telling us the truth about the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the colonel telling us that the green berets have found mail-in ballots at some secret facility in Europe that should have gone to Trump. You know, of course that's true because they're a colonel. I think there's a secondary level of stolen valor that exists with folks like Trump who takes somebody like a General Flynn and they use his title as a way to bolster their own BS in a way that gives them credibility just because they're hiding behind the shield of somebody

with a title like that. But that's a whole different. That's an editorial I'm working on. I want to talk about some of these real-life examples of theories and ideas that get put into action. I want to talk about the Wolverine Watchmen. They're a splinter group of the Michigan Liberty militia, and they're the guys who wanted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. I want to know a little bit about the story behind them and how they plotted to do exactly that. Yeah, I mean, I think the main thing to know.

with them is that they have been stirred up by this broader milieu that we've been talking about, where conspiracism about a variety of things, but especially about COVID-19, was kind of at the forefront of their motivation. For them, it seems that they really believed that the lockdown efforts in Michigan and perhaps some that were being discussed nationally were really interpreted as government tyranny. They felt like it was going to slip into further tyranny, that that was just kind of the beginning of telling citizens what they could and could not do and seemed to believe that it was their personal responsibility to do something about that. And I think to Paul's earlier point, part of the reason this kind of conspiratorial thinking is damaging to our national security

is not just what it can potentially open up internationally, but how it creates divisive content even among Americans. It's been really interesting to observe the most. militia movement over a long period of time because folks that I was watching in 2008, 2009, 2010, who were very skeptical of some conspiracy theories, who openly laughed at some of them that people kind of assumed were part and parcel of the militia movement, got turned on to more and more of them, especially during Trump's administration, especially as QAnon theories sort of spread across the internet and especially on places like Facebook. And so I think that the idea that some people have special knowledge or special insights into the way the world really works is a major variable creating some of this divisiveness and potentially creating the ability for some people to get so wrapped up in it that they feel like they have to commit violence to do something to course correct our culture here.

I think that's that's a great point. There's something special about feeling like you have that secret information. And that's something you can sort of build an identity around and makes you feel like you have a sense of purpose. I guess the time that you've spent with militias talking to militia members, what is something that people don't understand about the modern militia movement that you noticed? I think probably the major thing is that most militia members are average people. Like they're really not social outliers. They have families. They have jobs.

Militia activity is something that they care very much about. they're not necessarily just centering their entire life around it in the way that we sort of stereotypically portray. And I think we have ignored that at our peril because something that I've been trying to get people to understand for a long time is that much of what they believe politically, ideologically, and other ways, too, is very similar to what a lot of Middle America believes, at least a lot of white Middle America. And I think that I kind of anticipated where we would go with the Trump election campaign and beyond in ways that took a lot of people by surprise because we sort of dismiss militia ideology as fringe when actually they've just

been a little bit louder and more comfortable with it in terms of sort of owning it really when it's been something that's been shared among a broader swath of the population really forever. But what do you say to somebody who hears militia and they're like, oh, those are white nationalists, far-right extremists. How do you respond to that? How far off are they with that assessment? You know, those elements do overlap, but I think that that's overly simplistic in a way that makes us downplay what real white nationalism is, makes us kind of miss opportunities for intervention potentially with people who aren't that extreme, people who could potentially be talked out of in some ways, at least. Their conspiratorial thinking and some of that

divisiveness as well. If we sort of paint them all with... with one brush, it is more of a bleak picture than I think what we really have. Yeah, we're gonna take a short break. And when we come back, we'll talk about what's next for military extremism here in the United States. Amy, groups like the Oathkeepers have been emboldened by extremists in the Republican Party supporting them,

but also hit with the realities of court sentences because of their role in January 6th. What's next for groups like the Oathkeepers? Yeah, I think probably with the Oathkewarm specifically that they are done as we know them. It's kind of interesting because the oathkeepers have always had a bit of a mixed reputation within the broader militia world. Some people sort of appreciated what Stuart Rhodes and some of the other members were trying to do in terms of prioritizing oaths to civilians, basically. Whereas others thought that Rhodes was too big for his britches and speaking beyond what he was really able to do so based off of his own

experiences and based off of how he kind of excluded some other longstanding militia organizations when he was first starting. So personally, I think that the trials and everything that's going to follow from that is going to be pretty devastating to the oathkeepers as we have known them, but that doesn't mean that the underlying ideology has gone away. Many groups that have previously affiliated as oathkeepers have just changed their name or taken down their Facebook pages or their other websites, and they still very much believe that the election was stolen, that it is their personal responsibility to do something to prevent the next presidential election from being stolen. So I think headed into 2024, we're going to have to be

incredibly cautious and keep an eye on the narratives that develop that as Trump continues his next campaign, as other people sort of try to out-trump him, we may see other figures. even rise to the forefront in terms of their ability to appeal to these groups, to make them feel like their fears are legitimate. Paul, I'm curious how we talk to people in the military, people in citizen militias. You served in the military. You served with white supremacists who had Nazi tattoos. How do you talk to someone like that about their beliefs? I wish I had a good answer for this, but it's, it's, it's to, it's terribly difficult. I can, you know, you know, you brought up a point about the, you know,

Nazi tattoo. I was, I joined the Marine Corps and, you know, after 9-11 and, you know, got to my first unit. And, you know, one of my, one of my senior Marines, you know, was a little bit higher in rank than me. And he, you know, they were in charge. And I was the junior guy. And I didn't know what it was at the time, but he had some kind of like Kyle Hitler kind of coded tattoo on his arm. And it's, you know, having a person like that in your unit is incredibly dangerous. First and foremost, you know, can so discord among a close unit, you know, the thing in the Marine Corps that we talk about is is a spree decor, this sense of, you know, working together. And you're very, very close. And so, and we're also, we're also serving with, you know, black, black, you know, I got black grunts in my platoon.

I've got, you know, people from Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic and, you know, Mexico. like it's all every it's it's it's just everybody it's a mixed bag it's all of america and you have one one person who you know basically hates a portion of your platoon um it kind of like makes you wonder like what are they gonna are they going to do the right thing in combat will they will they will they do you know will they will they will they protect the the people that are you know they don't like, you know, it's, there's, there's that fear. But, but also it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, of, of stealing weapons, uh, stealing ammunition and militias have, uh, done this many times in, in the past. Uh, there's, there's, there's plenty of examples of, of, of using military members, uh, who are parts of, of, of militias or parts of, uh, you know,

these kind of extremist groups, and they basically use their military access to supply them with guns and ammunition. It's also really concerning from an intelligence standpoint to have someone like that whose loyalty is maybe not with 100% with the unit and with the military. When you have this dual loyalty to a militia group or some extremist group outside of the military, it's right for the Defense Department to wonder, you know, what are these people doing? And it's a real problem because once you're inside, you're largely trusted. You know, you've made it through the basic training.

you maybe have gone through some kind of security clearance or, you know, but you're, you're trusted. People aren't, you know, skeptical of you or pushing back on you as much as they would a civilian, you know, that's outside of this military sphere. And it's, you know, it's the, it's the supposed, it's called an insider threat. And the military takes that, takes that very seriously when it comes to like cybersecurity, there's insider threat, you know, software and things like that. But there's not a lot to do for the insider threat for, you know, the, the guy like me who's joining the platoon and like, this is my senior Marine. I couldn't, you know, if I knew what that tattoo was at the time, like, how do I report that? What am I supposed to tell people? Like, it shouldn't be

a hard or difficult decision to get rid of, you know, what I think is a sky. humbag, you know, like, but that's, it's not always that easy. Is the military ripe for conspiratorial thinking, an institution that relies on loyalty, but also blind faith, can be hijacked by charisma and power to have people follow? I think the stat was something like 15% of the folks charged on January 6th were a part of military at some point. Does that number surprise you? Not not really. I think it goes back to it goes back to what I said before, which is the military is a reflection of society. The people in the military, they're they're not, you know, better or worse than the rest of America. They just have

all the guns. They just have all the guns and tanks. They should be better. Shouldn't that Shouldn't that be the goal? The people with the tanks and the guns should be better than all of us. They should be smarter. They should have the research, more discipline, more loyal. Dear God, I hope the people with the tanks are better than me. They must be. They have to be.

Look, Jordan, you're a dirtbag. So I'm sure they're better than you. Thank you. That makes me feel better. Thank you. But seriously, I think they're just like you and I. and they're just as susceptible to this stuff. And I still, I mean, just the other day, I had a friend of mine, you know, sharing something on Instagram, like something about funding for the Ukraine war and how it's way too much, you know, the Biden administration is wasting all our money and sending $90 billion to this war and he could be spending it elsewhere.

and he was sharing it in like a positive manner like oh my god this is crazy and i it totally makes sense if you see that like oh that's that's screwed up and i looked at it it's it's one of those things and this happens a lot it's like it's too good to check and a lot of these things are just too good to check and i looked and i check because i care about this this person as i served with. And I looked it up. It took me like basically five seconds to find the Congressional Research Service report, which is a nonpartisan outlet and looking up Ukraine funding. And it's right around 19 billion. It's like a rounding error on the Department of Defense budget. It's it's like the bang for our buck that we're getting in in security and in in in U.S. security and protecting

Americans from our our competitor of ours Russia who's that has been a competitor of ours for a very long time and will be a competitor our competitor of ours for a very long time that that that spending is so small and but but looking it up you know I'm like I'm like hey here's here's the actual thing and he's like oh thank you you know like some people some people I've done that too and they get pissed at me you know they get they're really mad that I'm not buying in to the conspiracy theory and it's like it's it's hard to it's really hard to to push back on on on something like this when it's you've bought in so much to the idea that there's some kind of nefarious thing you're closing off your mind to

alternatives and and it's um it's just people it's it almost becomes sort of kind of religious i think you should host some sort of facebook class because that may be the only positive experience of people pushing back with an alternative point of view that was greeted with a thank you in any kind of social media media this was it was very impressive it was in the dms so i think You know, we're nicer in the DMs. If it's on the comments, you know, I get unfriended. This is slide into the DMs and give facts. That's what people need to do.

It's about time. I actually do think that that is something we need to do. And more people should do that. You know, it's really, it really is like, it is a bit, it's a bit of a bummer. to see, you know, like just these conspiracies flourish, and then there's nobody that's, like, saying, like, here's the actual reality, you know, and I will try my best if I think I might have a shot at, you know, correcting the record for at least one other person. And really, that's the, that's the point for me. You know, it's like, it's like, yeah, you're not going to impact the entire world. You're not going to push

back on on this this conspiracy mindset and you know just this the crazy amount of misinformation no one person is going to be able to to stop that all but one person can have impact on one other person you know like and that's that's that's worthwhile I was going to say that I agree with that too I mean there's this academic research that talks about this backlash effect where if we factually correct conspiracy theories people just kind of dig further into them. And I think that can be true in some circumstances, although I think it's just a little bit too pessimistic for me to believe that must be true always across the board. But if nothing else, especially in sort of those more public forums, when we say, no, here's factual information,

here's why the logic of this is wrong, I think at the very least it can prevent other people from slipping into that kind of thinking as well. That it might be a backstop, too. You might not save that person. Leave that man behind. That's a military concept, right? That's a lost cost. That person, too bad.

But maybe you can throw something down and they won't come rushing back in. Amy, I want to ask finally what you expect to happen over the next few years with the citizen militia movement. Yeah, you know, I always say I wish I had a crystal ball because there are so many variables right now that is difficult to know for sure. going to happen. But I expect it's likely that we will have a resurgence once more, not just of militias, but of those groups that we tend to label right wing across the board headed into the 2024 cycle because I think that there are multiple political actors who now have learned how to play into the fears of these groups in an instrumental kind of way and who see them as something that they can weaponize for their own benefit. So I expect that we will see

see pockets of resistance. I don't think we'll see another January 6th. I think this is going to continue to be more about school boards and supposedly like culture war, right, type issues, but it's really about sort of who has a voice in culture, who has a voice in politics in a way that will absolutely show up in many of our campaign speeches and what that election cycle is at least framed to be about, which I believe they're going to frame it to be more about sort of like the soul of America in a way that's going to be very appealing to a lot of these groups and galvanizing them into action. You hear that America, the weapon of the future. It's us. We are being weaponized. Our susceptibilities are free thinking, we are being, we are being

weaponized. Well, thank you guys. Thank you to Paul. Thank you to Amy for joining us here today. You're listening to Jordan Klepper, Fingers the Conspiracy. We'll see you next week. Listen to Jordan Klepper Fingers the Conspiracy from The Daily Show on Apple Podcasts, the IHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching The Daily Show, wherever you get your podcasts. Watch the Daily Show weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus. Thank you.