Opinion | Anna Paulina Luna Wants Everything Disclosed - The New York Times

Skip to contentSkip to site indexSearch & Section Navigation Section Navigation

Search

Log in

new video loaded: Anna Paulina Luna Wants Everything Disclosed

transcript

Back

transcript

Anna Paulina Luna Wants Everything Disclosed

Anna Paulina Luna on Epstein, J.F.K. and U.F.O.s.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to roll a little green man in on a silver platter for anyone, but what I can do is I can present you with the evidence that we have seen, and I can also tell you what we’ve been up against. Representative Anna Paulina Luna, welcome to Interesting Times. Thanks for having me on. I’m excited to talk to you, first of all, because I think you’re a unique kind of political troublemaker. You are a conservative Republican who’s been in the House of Representatives for less than four years. And in that time, in a very polarized environment, you’ve managed to make plenty of trouble for your own leadership and your own party, as well as for the Democrats. “I think that this is just the bare minimum that we can deliver for the American people is not tolerate public corruption in the House of Representatives.“ And then second, I think that you embody a really important tendency in American conservatism right now, which is the sense that American institutions — institutions of government especially — are keeping important things secret. Sometimes those secrets have to do with the misbehavior of powerful people, and sometimes they have to do with the ancient American mythologies, like the J.F.K. assassination or government secrecy around U.F.O.s — where I should say, I personally am convinced that something is being kept secret. I’m just damned if I can figure out what it is. So you’re going to help me figure that out. But first, how would you describe your own politics right now as a Republican congresswoman in 2026? I’d have to say that I am, and I think a lot of people have mainly said, “You’re conservative, yes, but you have a strong populist streak.” I also think I’m someone who wants to reform the Republican Party. So a lot of what I’ve been focusing on is: How do you actually change the institution so that it better works for the American people? And I’ve been on a lot of sides of many issues that I think are wildly popular among not just the base but the American people — 80/20 issues, banning insider trading, voter ID. So I found myself strange bedfellows in Congress working with people to try to get this done. So you said “conservative with a streak of populism” — or maybe more than a streak. Yeah. I guess. Since we’re still in the Trump era, would you define yourself as MAGA? Yeah, so I’ll give you a little bit on my background. I got elected to Congress the second time I ran, and President Trump had endorsed me both times. And MAGA’s really where I got my start in politics. Prior to that, I was in the military. I actually never had even anticipated running for office. So, again, that kind of political outsider coming in. You wouldn’t be surprised to know that many people spend a lot of time gearing up to try to make it to Congress. Sometimes it’s a family business, sometimes people will run for local election, then state, and then they get to federal. And for me, I wanted to bring change quickly, so I realized the way to do that would be to come to Washington, D.C., to do it. So, yes, I’m MAGA, but I’m also trying to lead on certain issues that I feel that the Republican Party is missing, especially with younger people. One thing I think that’s different about me versus some of my colleagues is that I’m not going to be there, forever. This aspect of people looking at it like a full-time career is something that kind of horrifies me, because if you go up there, it doesn’t matter how good you are. It eventually will beat you down — the system, the institution, the power. D.C. basically operates on two levers: pressure and pain. When you’re pulling those two levers, eventually you get burned out. I don’t want to be that person, so I will eventually pass the torch. But there’s a lot of things that need to happen before I go, and I’m kind of helping to do that now. Give me a couple of examples from the run of normal political issues, let’s say, of things that you are most focused on, that you would say define you and make you distinctive among Republicans. I’d have to say I’m willing to keep my party going true north on issues that I know are — so when I think about things, if I see a problem, I’m not just thinking about an immediate fix to that. I’m thinking about what caused that problem and where the stem of the issue is. And so, for example, the one thing that I’ve been so frustrated about — and I had sponsored legislation even before MAHA, this Make America Healthy Again movement, was a thing, looking at food additives — what was happening with the special interest lobbying coming into Washington. But what you realize is the whole idea of what it means to be an elected representative has become corrupted and perverse in the sense that you do have a lot of people that are just basically answering to lobbyists’ special interests, and they won’t even tell their party no when they know something’s wrong. For example, that’s why I’ve been so big on the banning insider trading, to answer your question in full circle. When you have members of Congress that are given access to certain information, they’re making a lot of money. And this is not just a Republican or a Democrat thing. It’s happening on both sides. And you can see that. And then you’re seeing how the special interests that’s donating to their campaigns, of which they turn around and invest their personal money in, so they’re becoming rich. They’re essentially betting against the American people. Why that’s so wrong is you could take an issue like capping prescription prices for pharmaceuticals. You could take an issue like what happened recently with the glyphosate and liability protection that would essentially shield these corporations from being able to be sued. If you found out, for example, that it caused your kid cancer and you wanted to seek financial restitution for that shouldn’t be the case. And we can get into the specifics of what I’ve observed when I first got elected. You go up there and you think that they’re going to teach you how to do the parliamentary procedure or how to write the Bills. And they don’t. They tell you two things don’t vote against your party and don’t take down the rule. And within the first couple of weeks of being in office, I did both. And so I was automatically put on the naughty list. And once that happened, then you realize, O.K, so I still want to be an effective member of Congress. I still want to be able to advocate for my constituents. How do I do that. So I actually read the rule manual twice. That’s actually what caused me to get into the massive fight with my party on the vote by proxy for New moms. That’s basically where you still cast a vote, but you don’t have to physically be present. And if you were recovering in the hospital, let’s say there’s a war vote. You can’t vote. We have not a lot of women my age who are in office. And yet you are being told that you can’t do that. And I think that that’s a problem. And yet, when I went to advocate for this issue, I figured out in the rule manual how to actually physically go and collect signatures. It’s called a discharge petition. And I introduced something. And my party told me it’s a tool of the minority. You’re not supposed to be doing that. Well, I would argue that it’s not. We all voted for it to be in the rule manual. So that’s just the attempt to control someone from being able to actually do their job, which is representing their constituency. If I can’t vote for them, what does that say to all my people back home. The over 700,000 people that I’m supposed to represent. And then separately, the irony and all that is that a lot of people that were vocally against it had voted by proxy. So there’s that. I think that’s given a good sense of the range of things that you’re interested in. No, I think because I think it’s and it seems like there is this it’s a really interesting mixture of issues that people might think of as conventional conservative issues. You mentioned voter ID as one issues and issues that are connected to how Congress actually works and then issues connected, maybe that come out of your own distinctive background. So talk about your background Where did you grow up in four minutes or less. Take us from childhood to Congress. So I grew up in Southern California. Parents were never married. My father, who passed away the year that I got elected, that was absolutely brutal. He was an interesting character, but he unfortunately struggled with substance abuse in and out of jail. And so a lot of my childhood as a result of that was somewhat chaotic. My mom, when I was in ninth grade, I secretly studied to take the LSAT so that she could apply to law school. She was in a not so good relationship and applied to law school and got in. And I remember she was studying for that, and I had to watch my brother and sister because my stepdad at the time actually was not allowing her to apply. But ultimately, by the time I had graduated from high school, I had gone to over 6 high schools, and one of which was Venice high school in their early part of the 2000. I’m sure Venice Beach now is gentrified, but it was not always that way and got jumped at that high school. I had wanted to go to college. I just didn’t have a way of paying for it. I didn’t even really know about the application process and how to do it. And I had overheard a conversation about how the military would pay for your school. So this is to date myself. So if anyone remembers this MapQuest, I remember MapQuest, MapQuest, I mapquested it’s a hot New it’s a hot New technology Yeah before Waze there was MapQuest. So I MapQuest directions to recruiter’s office and I enlisted. I didn’t tell my family what I was doing and let them know once I’d already signed paperwork, paperwork that I’d be leaving, and I’m joined the Air Force, and it was the best decision I could have made. Met my husband in the Air force in 2014. He was shot in Afghanistan. That was also absolutely brutal. Literally, I tell my husband now, but looking back then, I had no idea that would bring me to where I’m at today because as a result of him getting shot, it was my first time going up to DC, actually stayed at Walter Reed with him. And then ultimately I got in contact with a group that was doing advocacy counter child trafficking at the border, and it was kind of paired with that. It was at that point in time that I really got political. And had you been a conservative or a Republican before, you were pulled into the child trafficking debate, I would have to say that, being where I grew up, my mom was not necessarily well, she was definitely not conservative. Let’s put it that way. But I don’t think that it was necessarily a huge, normal discussion for me to engage in politics is the environment that I was in was not really focused on that. When I joined the military, obviously it’s a different lens and perspective. But even then. So at the time that I joined really didn’t talk politics. It was kind of like everyone showed up in uniform. That was it. And you left your politics outside of it. Towards the later part of my military career, that’s when you started to see it evolve. I had actually rejoined the Portland, or the service. So as a National Guardsman, and that’s kind of when you start seeing the more political conversations happening a little bit and then even then. So I would have to say that I got really involved within the gun community kind of doing spokesperson stuff and so gun manufacturing. And so for me, yeah, I think at that point, maybe around 2016 onward is when I really started getting political. But up until then, it wasn’t really a thing for me. And you went to you worked for turning Point USA, right. I did, I did, so I was actually in the military. I was at the Portland guard unit and I was working with these nonprofits, and I was posting online on my social media account on Instagram. And I remember Charlie Kirk actually DM’d me and he was like should really come to the Young Women’s Leadership Summit. And so I actually went down to Dallas. This was in 2018. And what I didn’t realize at that time is that he had been looking at my social medias and scouting me. So this was not just accidental. It wasn’t like you wrote a few posts and Charlie Kirk called you up. You had some sense that you were, but you were creating yourself as an influencer. Like, did you think of it that way. What is the kind of conscious aspect of that transition. I guess I didn’t think about it like that because that’s not really what my goal was, right. I guess that’s kind of what I was doing. I was like one of the original people. Also, people forget that when I was in the military, part of how I amassed my social media following is early stages of Instagram, right. Was I had done maxim’s hometown hottie. I’d been featured in Sports Illustrated, so I was really kind of cultivating this online following. But it was also to largely follow, based on military firearms. There’s this aspect of being published Yeah how did. So just on the gun stuff, I’m just curious how does it fit together Yeah. So you’re modeling, appearing with guns anyway. So I have a picture of when I was five years old with my dad at the shooting range. And so my dad goes way back Yeah, it goes way back. And then obviously being in the military. And then there was AI had a break in story that happened when I was stationed in Missouri. That absolutely horrified me. And I told people that story because I think especially with women, if you’ve ever gone through something like that, it’s horrifying, but also the trauma that goes along with that and just not having that sense of security. And I remember when I first ran for office, I had this really, really nasty article come out from the Washington Post where they just try to discredit and undermine everything. And I actually had to find that police report. I had text messages from my colleagues at the time who were in service with me and just really debunking that. But yeah, that was and this is I mean, this has been, a recurring anti Luna critique is that you have curated your narrative. You’ve curated your biography and so on Yeah, that seems to be what people try to say. Except when you look at the facts here, it’s always been there. I don’t see people. And this is if people don’t like you, they’re going to try to pull anything. But it’s funny because as a result of these critiques happening you saw that big blowup with the Washington Post and Time Magazine actually did a deep dive into my background and realized I was telling the truth and named me as time’s 100 next in 2023 as a result of that. And I was like, well, that’s a silver lining kind of vindication. So thank you, Time Magazine. So by then you were in Congress. By then I was in Congress. So you worked for you worked for Turning Point. You were a spokesman and organizer. Like, what did you. I was hired by Charlie as the National Hispanic outreach director. And so I did grassroots activism nationally. But really, I think a majority of what my job was doing the college campus debates with him. Brandon Tatum, Candace Owens, and so traveling across the country. And I don’t care what side of the aisle that you’re on, I think everyone who’s over the age of 30 will realize when you’re in your 20s, when you’re in your late teens think you know everything. And when you debate college kids that really haven’t been outside of the institution into the real world, they can get pretty interesting. But it was some of the best times in the early starts of my political career, because I always say that it was kind of trial by fire. So you ran so you ran for Congress from Florida once you lost. That was 2020 Yeah 2020. And then you ran and won in 2022. So you’re now in. And then this is my second term. This is your second term. But in Congress, one of your big focuses, and something that has attracted a lot of attention in recent months has been issues around sexual harassment and ethics inside Congress. So can you just describe I guess the work you’ve been doing or the arguments that you’ve been making around those issues Yeah, this is something that kind of boiled up to the surface that I’d been really frustrated about. And it wasn’t just me, it was other members of Congress. But there seems to be this consensus within the chamber, and it’s on both sides. And this is why I called both sides out about it, is that you have to let the process play out, and I’m all for letting the process play out. But when you have someone meaning that if someone is accused of sexual misconduct, you don’t do anything until well, that’s what they try to say is that let the process play out and that if someone brings forward an accusation, obviously you want there to be like, because anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but you want there to be evidence. And then ultimately it’s up. Or it should be the responsibility of the Ethics Committee to make the recommendation on expulsion or resignation or referrals if there’s criminal action involved. But what’s happened is the Ethics Committee has become so partisan and about protecting the party that they’re not doing their jobs. And so ultimately, what happened was the first individual that this had really come up about was representative Tony Gonzalez, who’s a Republican from Texas, and I didn’t have any personal issues with him. However, I remember seeing the headline that his staffer had committed suicide by lighting herself on fire. And I saw that, and I said, that’s horrible. And also, what would cause a young mom to do that. She has a son. She had a son that is a little bit older than my son, and just the headspace that one has to be in. So I kind of saw that and made a mental note, and I remember sending it to one of my female staff. I said, have you heard anything about this. And then a couple of months later, we started hearing rumors that he had had this inappropriate relationship with her. And then those rumors with evidence started turning out to be true. Text messages started coming out to the point where you knew for a fact that he was violating our House Rules. You can’t have a relationship with your staff, period. But he was still wanting to seek reelection, and ultimately I had obtained text messages that were not publicly released that were so horrible. How had you obtained those text messages. I followed up on it directly with the husband of the deceased staffer and his legal team, and I went to leadership and said, what do you like. What’s going on with this. And they said, there’s a process. There’s a process. But ethics, I later learned, had these text messages for over a month and was making no recommendation. And so at that point in time, I was like this guy’s got to go. Then another woman came forward and said that she was on the campaign side of things and said that there was some inappropriate stuff. And so I at that point kind of made a mental note that I was going to do the motion for expulsion because there was enough evidence there. I didn’t need to wait for the Ethics Committee to make a recommendation. It was their cut dry. It had happened. He admitted it, and he was still seeking election at that time. And then on Friday, Representative Swalwell, who’s a Democrat from California, it’s Eric Eric Swalwell. Eric Swalwell, that’s when stuff started blowing up on him. And I said, this makes everyone in general just look bad. And so I was willing to file a motion to expel both of them. And then we found out that you could only do one at a time. And so I was contacted by a representative from New Mexico. She’s a Democrat. And she said, I’ll support your expel. Swalwell will you support mine to expel? Tony said, absolutely. And so we actually never even had to call up those votes because they ended up both resigning. And then it wasn’t just them. It was shiftless. McCormick and there’s been other members as well. But the point was is that why did it take me having to do that one. Did it only work because there was a Republican and a Democrat at the same time. Because some of this, as you just suggested. Is that under highly polarized, highly they protect parties. Well, no one Republicans have a very narrow majority. Neither side wants to have a sudden special election or have to deal with any kind of fallout. So I think it was I think it was so bad that people did not want to be associated. So I think in this instance, if push came to shove and I called it up, they would have voted for it. But I will say it’s been very frustrating because there have been other instances, for example, the Congressional slush fund for sexual harassment or misconduct. What are those funds. Those are funds that are paid for out of the House of Representatives. And so, for example, if I’m working for you and you do something you shouldn’t, I can then bring a lawsuit against your office and then your office will pay out. And then usually there’s an NDA that’s taxpayer funds. I see. And so first of all, that shouldn’t be the case. So you can just see that the institution will protect itself people. It’s very hard for people, I think, to be confrontational to people that they are serving with because then it’s well, are they your colleagues, friends. There’s this and you can be friends with people, but you don’t have to cover up for their misconduct. And the point is that when we go up there to serve, if you tolerate this behavior, it’s a poor reflection on everyone. And then also too, how could you then expect people to trust the institution, trust you have faith in federal government, which gets into the whole aspect of why I’m so big on disclosure, declassification, really this open source model of doing government is because really trust in the institution. Trust in government is at an all time low with the American people, and I think rightfully so because of stuff like this. So we’ll get to the larger disclosure push in a minute. Just to stay on this issue. How much of this is about government secret key keeping versus how much is it a kind of MeToo style story about male misbehavior, in particular, being protected. And do you see yourself, Congresswoman Mace others as doing a kind of me to push against entrenched male bad behavior. I don’t think so. So I think that’s two parts to this question. I think in general, yeah, in general, I think that the aspect of what I’m trying to do is follow through on the transparency aspect that I think the federal government desperately needs. That’s why I head up the task force that I do, which is the declassification of federal secrets, which, by the way, a lot of people thought it was some kooky task force. And now you’re seeing that the task force has actually done some wildly cool stuff. And we’ll get to that in a minute. Whether it’s Jeff, I never thought it was kooky, but that’s what they try to discredit. They see me kind of young. People will automatically sometimes assume or try to discredit me because of I think, my background, my age. But, it’s crazy what happens when you read books. You’re going to learn a lot in regards to how the whole entire institution functions. And I’m one of the few members that actually knows how that works. And so I can operate in a different way, and I’m effective in that way. But as far as what we’re doing, no, because there’s females that do this as well. It’s not as prevalent because there’s smaller races, I think, of female to men in this institution, but in general, I’d have to say that I just don’t think that this should be hidden from the American people, because there’s this aspect of transparency. If you are serving in Congress, you want to or if you’re asking for someone to vote for you, there’s a different threshold and standard of which you’re supposed to conduct and maintain yourself. This goes into I think and I’ve been pretty good on this issue even as far as disclosing, for example, the Congressional stock trading. I stood up with Governor DeSantis in the state of Florida, and he actually changed the other qualifying candidate forms to actually disclose if you’re going to trade stocks while you’re in Congress, which is great, because at the federal level, we’re supposed to actually have a vote on banning insider trading, which, by the way, happened because myself and representative Burchett and many a few actually came together and said, this is so wrong on both sides, and we are working against our own parties to actually get this to the floor. This is, I think, in line with my push for transparency on these things. O.K I’m curious about listening to your critique of how Congress works and stock trading and people covering up sexual harassment and all of these things seems versions of that critique could apply to the president himself and the White House and his administration in ways that range from the history of allegations of sexual harassment and assault against the president, to the various ways in which the Trump family seems to be enriching itself in this administration. Isn’t there some kind of tension between saying, I’m here to clean up Congress. But meanwhile, I am in an alliance with a president who seems to be manifesting the same kind of vices. So going back to when you have evidence, it’s one thing. But when you have accusations, it’s totally separate. And what’s been interesting is when no one else wanted to touch it, was leading the charge on the Jeffrey Epstein declassification of files. And when we brought all the victims in with their attorney, it was both Democrats and Republicans and Mike Johnson. And the first question that a Democrat asked was President Trump. I it was along the lines of was President Trump involved. Do you have any information that implicates the president in any of this. And the victim said, no. We then later on when I took the deposition for Bill and Hillary Clinton, which is so wild. And I was in the room and I was sitting across from President Clinton, and he actually exonerated President Trump. And we’re regardless of where you’re at. So I wasn’t suggesting that there was strong evidence that President Trump was involved there. I think there is ample evidence that people close to the president have enriched themselves substantially in this presidency. The president himself has made a number of stock trades that have increased his net worth. I’m just saying there’s a range of things outside of the Epstein case where he and people close to him seem to fall into the same category of people you’re criticizing in Congress. So I’ve looked extensively into this. And if Congress had the same laws in place that the administration has specifically with stock trading, you would not see the insider trading that you see now. And I actually even suggested, well, why don’t we just instead of doing a standalone, why don’t we try to essentially reflect it with the executive branch, and they still didn’t want to do it. In fact, I had a bipartisan, very tough bill on insider trading, and Hakeem Jeffries told Democrats to not support it. So I’m like, I’m a Hawk on this. I’ve looked extensively into this, but I do think the aspect you think the president’s stock trades are about are fine above the board. I haven’t seen what his stock trades are, but I don’t have reason to believe that what he is doing is on the level of what Congress is doing, because I know that the disclosures for the executive branch are way more strict and harsh than the disclosures for this branch. And of course, to then we get the same aspect of I was also on the Hunter Biden and Joe Biden basically task force that Congress had set up. I want to call it Task Force, but we investigated that extensively. And so then the critique could then one could say, well, why aren’t we then talking about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden that were getting all this money from Ukraine and China because he’s not President, right. But at the time, but at the time, though, the thing is that the media is not with the arguments. If we’re going to talk about Trump and this well, we have known reports from Treasury, but do you see what I’m saying is, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that it was inadequate coverage of something associated with Joe Biden. I just also think that Donald Trump is president right now and you’re on an anti-corruption crusade. I don’t think so. How about this. Why do you think that the president was so reluctant to release the Epstein files. Well, I talked with him extensively on this, and I was actually so I was on this to put it in timeline for people that aren’t tracking in November of the year prior, I wanted the flight logs, and I remember Marsha Blackburn had made a motion to release those flight logs in the Senate, and it was a Democrat Senator that blocked them. And then come time to President Trump taking the administration over the New attorney general in January, I got the task force for declassification of federal secrets. And so the purview of the task force was U.A.P., J.F.K., M.L.K., R.F.K., Epstein, and 9/11. That was the initial start of it. And I remember writing the DOJ and just not hearing a response from them. And so I was vocally calling for the release of the files from Bondi. And then the rest of it kind of transpired, but I actually remember calling over and saying, hey, I think you guys should just release these, give the files to oversight. And they said, O.K. The problem is that the timeline and the second order of documents, that order came out of a judge from New York. So you had the DOJ that allocated, I think it was like 500 attorneys at once to try and go through and redact victim information. That in itself wasn’t ideal. However, why did it take so long. Well, but also why during this time, the president was out giving public comments saying, this is now a Democrat hoax and so on. It wasn’t simply a matter of there was a slow process to release the files. It was also clear that he himself had some objections to the kind of release that you were pushing for. I think when he said Democrat hoax, and I think that Karoline Leavitt clarified this and that when you have someone that’s accusing you of trafficking people and saying that you’re a rapist, that you are going to get upset and you’re going to call it if I was being accused of that, I would probably say the same thing. However, I want to be clear that my conversations with him were not personal nasty, and I was the biggest proponent on releasing these things. At a certain point. So in February, I had a whistleblower that came forward. I actually wrote a bill. I talked to media on it and I said, hey, I think that we’re only dealing with a partial deck here, and that we had someone that said that there was destruction of files and evidence specifically pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. And then you have this other aspect of was Jeffrey Epstein a member of the intelligence community. I think so. We had the attorney that represented the victims. So you think so you think basically that the harder core Epstein conspiracy theories are still true or likely to be true where he was working. There’s a lot of there. So it’s not the hardest, not the hardest. Well, tell me what they are. Well, so I mean, I look so I looked at the material that was released. And I’m not going to tell you that I read every single document. That’s almost impossible. I was but I was very interested in the Epstein story for a long time. And I thought that there was clearly things there that were hidden or mysterious, and I wanted to know what was going on. And to me, the upshot of the huge data dump was that there was maybe less than I thought it seemed like maybe he had connections to Israeli intelligence or some foreign intelligence, but was not actually working for them in the sense that I didn’t see evidence that he had, carried out any kind of blackmail. Maybe that was a possibility, but there wasn’t evidence there. The exposure reduced my sense that there was, a truly profound and dark secret here and made me more likely to think the guy was a sexual predator who had a lot of rich and powerful friends, and they helped cover up for him. And it’s still an interesting story, but it’s not the most interesting story. So I discovered a document in going through some of the records, unredacted over at the DOJ, and he did have an alias. It was a passport, and his address was located, I think, in Saudi Arabia. I believe it was Austrian passport and that was in his safe that he had with a bunch of other cash. Diamonds, et cetera. Most people don’t have a completely fake name in a safe with that type of information. That was my first kind of all right. He definitely had Intel connections. I think the guy dealt in intelligence and exchange of information. The thing that will always be a question for me, and I don’t think that we’re ever going to get the answer on this, is that what happened with the alleged evidence that was destroyed, and also to this type of operation, could not have existed without the intelligence agencies knowing about it. So what exactly was what kind of. Well, just the moving the amount of money that he was interacting with the people that he was aware of. I mean, the alias passports, the travel, all of that doesn’t just happen unless you have friends that are helping you. So the verdict out on that is that yes, obviously he was known to be a sexual predator. But the other thing that I don’t think that the media fully focused on, and this was something that I read in unredacted FBI report on coconspirators, is that the only co-conspirator sitting in jail right now is Ghislaine Maxwell. There were other women that were listed as co-conspirators, and they were able to walk. Those women could have easily given names of were they helping to assist in the purchase and transaction for minors. And this goes to show that this just doesn’t go back to this administration. This goes all the way back to I think, Bush 2.0. And why is it that it stayed kind of hidden for so long. And then why was it like the really responsible reporting would be Yeah, both sides messed up. They should have handled this early on. This entire thing was a complete botch of the entire judicial process. And then in addition to that, what you have is people, victims that have their entire lives destroyed because there was no due process for them. So that just the last question on Epstein, then, one of the striking things is that we have had all of this information, all of these things released, all of this public debate and controversy. And the only person who has seemingly been taken down is Prince Andrew. Potentially, allegedly, I want to he was not tried and convicted, but that you have the BBC calling you here in a minute. But do you think that before this story is done, we will actually get the names of other powerful guys who were part of his essentially trafficking work. I think to answer your question, I’ll just have to I guess, follow up with we asked specifically the victims for names of people. And I remember the attorney saying, since we’ve been up here, I’ve been getting phone calls from people that are basically from what we gathered involved in a lawsuit. And I think part of unfortunately, the things surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is that the victims, if they do Sue civilly, then they sign NDAs and then it goes away. And then they’re not going to talk. And there is a settlement. And then maybe the people that were guilty of this get off. Let’s go from Epstein to other areas. So just first tell me about the committee that you’re running and how you ended up in this role. So the last Congress that I served in the 118th, both Representative Burchett, myself and Matt Gaetz responded to a whistleblower report from pilots at Eglin Air Force base saying that the Air Force was covering up U.A.P. activity or U.F.O. activity, if you will. We went up to investigate. We get people that say things all the time. And when we were there, we were stonewalled. We were shut down. They tried try to cancel the briefing. Initially, we got it back on. We get there. They’re showing us stuff about Chinese spy balloons, which is equally important. However, that’s not what we were there to see. And they ended up eventually after we got into a fight with them pulling in pilots, and we got the most insane briefing from the pilots that we’ve pretty much ever heard saying, hey, these things are real. Where is Eglin Air Force base. Just so people Eglin Air Force base is in the panhandle of Florida. And so it was yourself and Matt Gaetz, who was then a Florida Congressman, and it was Tim Burchett, a Congressman from Tennessee, who received this whistleblower report, correct briefing briefing. And then we go up to Eglin to follow up on it. And that’s when. But why did you receive the briefing in the first place. Well, these whistleblowers came forward to Representative Gaetz’s office and said the Air Force was covering up U.A.P. activity. So clearly when you get something like that, you’re like, all right, you hear a cover up, it kind of piques interest. Had you had any contact with or interest in the world of U.F.O. stuff before this I had had a pilot when I was stationed at Portland Air National Guard. Tell me about an airspace incursion that had happened. And he was kind of spooked and talking about it, but I wasn’t necessarily focused on it. This piqued my interest because you have Eglin Air Force base. I was stationed at Hurlburt Field. I know the area. The pilots were very well equipped, so they’re not making it up. And after we got up there, remember, we’re just kind of following up on to do due diligence. You have a member of House Armed Services that oversees the military and funding, and two members of congressional oversight, which do the investigations. And when we got up there, that’s when stuff hit the fan. And that’s when we basically realized that the Air Force was indeed not being so transparent about what was actually happening. So that happened in the 118th Congress. And then at the start of the 119th Congress, we realized President Trump had talked about releasing the MLK, RFK, and JFK files. We had this stuff outstanding with U.A.P. activity. And so we ended up actually wanting to be the follow through mechanism arm for the president. And so Chairman Comer decided to set up the task force. And initially people were a little spooked about taking the position because of everything that had involved. And there was a stigma, even when we had our first U.A.P. hearing of people saying, if you do this, people are going to think you’re crazy. And they try to it’s a taboo topic. Well, I haven’t really asked about your relationship to the Congressional leadership, but do you think that this was something that you were given in part because it was like, keep her busy. And also it might make her look a little crazy. I think maybe they anticipated that, but I also. But you had already held a hearing. So Well, there’s already a hearing on Oversight and there’s a lot of interest for it. So I said, look, these are some really interesting topics I think everyone kind of wants to know. This is in part curiosity. We’re not trying to be the cat. So we’re trying to stay safe while we’re doing it. But this aspect of just wanting to find out more and answer questions. And if we don’t we’ll tell you. But no one thought that we would get the U.A.P. files declassified. Not one person, except for when President Trump started saying, O.K, we’re going to declassify it. And I think that’s when things really started changing. I actually had a member of Congress find me on the floor, and Chairman Comer, I was talking to him the other day. He goes, well, Luna, you did some great things with that task force because it’s not just that. It’s also this aspect of the JFK files and the declassification there. We have a good team in general with the actual task force. We also have an unofficial body of the task force that are members on other committees that do drive bys for the hearings, if you will, and come in and are curious and inquisitive. But, I mean, I’ve worked with some great people, and at least for as Congress is concerned, we’re putting out an official congressional report on all the New findings with the declassified files pertaining to JFK and the stuff on JFK has been interesting too, and I think that this kind of is happening at a very serendipitous time. On the JFK stuff, just to pause before we go further with the U.F.O.s. So I’ve seen there’s been stuff that’s been released about the Cia’s connections to Lee Harvey Oswald. And George joannides is the big one. None of that, as with the Epstein stuff. I found that very interesting. It did not change my view that Lee Harvey Oswald probably killed JFK and probably acted alone. Do you think that there is actual material out there that would change that view. I don’t think that you’re ever going to find a list of people that were implicated in the plot to assassinate the president, but what I will tell you is that we had a doctor come in that was in the operating room that Kennedy was brought to in Dallas after he was shot and testified under oath to Mr. Kennedy being shot. President Kennedy being shot from both the front and the back. Which means you had to have more than one shooter. We then also found in some of the follow up documents that Mr. Morley had been trying to look for 20 something years. Jefferson Morley, who runs a Substack, JFK facts. I would consider him a subject matter expert on all this stuff that the CIA then delivered on. Kudos to Director Ratcliffe on the task force working with us, but that had implicated the CIA in knowingly obstructing Congress’s initial investigation and follow up investigations. George joannides was an operative for the CIA, had dual identities, was installed as the CIA liaison. And we have a CIA historian that is now a professor that has come forward and said that he or that he knows the document that specifically talks about how the CIA intended to undermine and prevent Congress from finding out the truth on Kennedy. But that could mean that the CIA was trying to undermine Congress’s attempt to figure out things that might be embarrassing for the CIA like that they had had these connections with Oswald that they didn’t want anyone to know about, but that doesn’t mean that someone else killed Kennedy. I mean, this seems to me part of what you might find when you dig in is things that are embarrassing for institutions that they don’t want to reveal, that do not, then in the end prove that the most conspiratorial perspective was true. Well, I think that might be a theory, but when you look at all the pieces to this puzzle and you see the mosaic that’s kind of formed when you have. So you have to think about it too, from a historical context. And that Kennedy, after he was assassinated, we go right into Vietnam. I mean, the war machine really does pick up. And the CIA, based on their internal communications about Kennedy, really did look at him like a radical. And they had this think, all right, all right. So you think, wait, so you think the CIA killed Kennedy. I don’t think that the CIA gave the authorization. I think that there was radical factions within the agency that were working with other networks that assassinated Kennedy. And I think it stood to benefit many people, to include the military industrial complex and to include people that thought that Kennedy was too much of a radical thought leader, in the sense that he wanted peace. Because remember, at this point in time. But this is the I mean, but I don’t think this is the Oliver Stone and JFK narrative. That narrative about Kennedy was for a long time a left wing narrative. It was a narrative I grew up with that was present among people I knew who were political radicals on the left, who took it for granted that nefarious factions had killed Kennedy. So as to that, we wouldn’t get into Vietnam, I think Kennedy would have done much the same thing, Vietnam as is LBJ. But setting that aside. Well, now we don’t have to argue that conversation on LBJ. But now this is it’s just really striking that now this is a Republican conservative making this argument. It’s just really it’s just really interesting that would switch. I think the more important question would be, why is it that the federal government tried so hard to discredit, prevent, and stop information from coming out and wouldn’t even answer questions for people that had that theory. Because the thing is that theory, from everything that we have seen, the CIA did lie to Congress. But what we’ve seen is that they lied to Congress about things that might have been embarrassing for the CIA that were different from. But then a radical faction in the CIA killed Kennedy, right. Well, not necessarily because you have this aspect of people that were surrounding Oswald observing Oswald knew about him. You could say that wasn’t that’s intentional negligence. Isn’t that insane. But I mean, are you saying that the embarrassment. Well, it’s embarrassment. Or is it intentional. Nefariousness right. And I think that’s the question. And so what’s been so interesting is that the investigator that I’m working with on this, Mr. Morley, when we had the CIA in my office, he goes, I’ve been waiting so long for this, but he’s a Democrat. Yes he’s a Bernie Sanders Democrat. And no, I’ve been reading him for many years Yeah O.K. So he’s great. And so he’s actually the one that we brought in to the Oversight Task force. And he’s actually going to be writing the report on it. And what is also very interesting about this is for so long, if you said what you said right there, people would say that that’s a conspiracy theory. But what we’re finding out is that maybe it wasn’t so far off. And these are with the facts. And so I will encourage everyone and we’ll try to do a one pager on it. But when you hear Mr. Morley talk about all the facts and really get into the key details on who and where was. I mean, it’s actually really sad what happened to Kennedy, and it’s really sad what happened. Well, that’s yeah. And when you see the distrust in federal government, you can pinpoint it to what happened with the assassination and the fallout from that. And I will also end by saying this. In the 90s, Congress tried to obtain the actual investigations from the KGB into the assassination of Kennedy. And what we found with the declassification of files from the Russian government, they were actually verified, and now they are on the archives as not being propaganda, but legitimate documentation is that they had separately concluded similar findings. And what we found in the documents that were released from the archives, and they had provided those before a lot of these came out. That was in the fall of last year. I guess I have some skepticism about how much clarity the KGB had into the actual assassination. But let’s follow then two threads on U.A.P.s. There basically are two areas of interest around U.F.O.s and U.A.P.s. And I’m going to try and divide them up and maybe you’ll put them back together. Area 1 is basically a combination of reports from US military pilots about things that they have seen, combined with video evidence of things that the US military can’t identify. The New York Times’ reported on some of this back in 2017. They did a great job on it in 2017. Good job times. It’s a wonderful it’s a wonderful newspaper. The second area is the claim by people who have held posts inside the US government with some access to classified material, and they have claimed that the US government has concrete evidence of what gets called non-human intelligence, including possibly non-human craft or technology. So those are two separate categories. The second category is obviously much Wilder. It’s much Wilder to say the US government knows about non-human intelligence than to say there’s a bunch of things that we have on video or see in the sky that we don’t understand. Understand right. So just sticking with the first one, what you have done on your committee is push for what the Trump administration is now doing, which is the release of what we take to be video evidence that is of U.A.P.s, of U.A.P.s. There have been two sets of videos and not just videos material, some pilot testimony, investigations and so on. Astronauts some of which though, had been in the public domain already. But what do you make of what’s been released and how does it compare to what you’ve seen in classified settings. I can talk about the stuff that’s been publicly released that, for example, there’s an illustration that came from an investigation that the FBI was conducting. And a lot of people don’t realize that the FBI had an office that was dedicated to this and that these things, the anomalies, do exist in their real. That was mean that was the conclusion of the FBI Yeah, yeah. And so what’s interesting is and I’m very careful because I don’t think that you should I don’t think anyone should just blindly take what the federal government is telling you to be true is like, don’t verify for yourself. So I don’t tell people what to believe. I say, go look at the evidence for yourself and formulate your own opinion. But what I am really concerned about from a national security perspective, but then also from a transparency perspective, and that if you have aspects of the federal government or bureaucrats that are stonewalling oversight from elected members of Congress that are supposed to be stewards of the financial resources that are funding programs, et cetera. Then you have this aspect of retribution being faced by whistleblowers, whether it is in a number of times we’ve heard that people are in fear of their lives, or they don’t even want to testify because they’re afraid of getting killed. From what we’ve heard from some people which is also wild to say out loud. But that’s the truth. And, well, that’s what they’ve told you. That’s what they’ve told us to stay with the videos with me Yeah, right. You have had access before these videos were released. In what context have you seen these videos before they were released. So I went into the skiff and saw what is a skiff? A skiff is basically a box with lead paint around it. Not lead paint, but no signals can come in and out. So you can have conversations on things that are considered top secret, classified, all of that. I went and actually observed and saw all the videos before they were released to go through numerically to make sure that those were the ones that correlated to the ones that we had actually put out in the request. So those have all now been declassified. All of the ones. How did you get but how did you get the list of videos in the request. We had a group that came forward. It was bipartisan Former whistleblowers from the intelligence community that had access to. I would compare it to something like YouTube that exists within the intelligence community. And they came up with the files and they said, you need to get access to these files and have them released. And so before the order came out from the president, we had come up with this list. We had been getting pushback. And then after he gave the green light for it, it was declassified. And those are now up and enabled to view at the Department of War. And what do you think they show. Well, there’s some interesting stuff. I think that they show U.A.P.s. There has been one of the videos that has since been debunked to be actually the infrared that was picking up aircraft that was farther in distance. But the optics are kind of an illusion in that sense. So there’s been one that’s been debunked, but there are ones that they cannot explain. They’ve tried to cross-reference it with other data, and the way that these things are maneuvering are pretty wild. And so again, I think that they show U.A.P.s in some instances. And you think that one reason to take this stuff seriously is that they correlate with direct pilot testimony of the kind that you’ve heard. So it’s not like I’m just imagine the completely skeptical listener or viewer of which there are reasonably many who says, O.K, you have some number of videos. We don’t know what they are, but if one of them turns out to be some prosaic explanation, we can assume a lot of them will be. Yes so what else makes you Yeah and the specific incident of Eglin Air Force base, which is where we had the pilot testimony and we were able to see some images. These things were frying the equipment on the aircraft. Some of our most state of the art technology was getting completely fried. So there’s this aspect. This is something that pilots told you had happened to them. Yep now the other issue is sometimes pilots won’t report because they don’t want to be taken off flight status. So there’s removing the stigma of if you’re supposed to have safe flying, you want to also track national security issues. You have to be able to document this stuff. But when you have this type of stuff impacting military training, impacting flight operations impacting our tech and technology, it’s a problem. The other aspect is we should follow up and say, O.K, well, is this technology that potentially could be advanced tech from adversary nations. I don’t necessarily think that’s the case, because if that was true, we wouldn’t be number one. Currently, some of this stuff that we’re seeing is pretty wild. You saw the New York Times’ report and just how it’s defying physics, if you will. But then the other aspect of what can we as Congress do next, we can declassify. I don’t think this aspect of people say it’s not enough. It’s not. Well, well, is there. But are there things that you’ve seen in a skiff or not in a skiff that are Wilder than this, that would make the front page of the New York Times’ As no one can be skeptical anymore. No I think the aspect do I have a location where there’s a little green man on a slab. Wait we’re going to get to that. To that. No, just stick with the videos. Is there anything else out there that is a “holy [expletive]” moment? Well, I think that there’s probably going to be some more release of other videos as well. Other testimony they’re still combing. But as far as a lot the meat and potatoes that we’ve been able to see and gotten briefings on, it’s for the most part, been out, been put out. However, there needs to be a call to action. And the problem that we’re having in Congress is that the U.A.P. Disclosure Act and whistleblower protections. Whenever we bring this up to try to make it easier for people to report or to actually give immunity for people to come forward and not risk violating the Espionage Act if they do have information on this. And right now, within the chambers, whenever this happens, I call them legislation goblins, because they just pop up. They’ll never put it on the NDA. They’ll never put it on the FAA. Something as simple as whistleblower protections. Why would you not want to pass that. So actually called the White House and suggested that we actually do that through an executive order because they don’t want to do it in the chamber. So in the chamber. One of the things that has made me take this issue seriously is the fact that among the people who have pushed for the inclusion of U.A.P. provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are Chuck Schumer, Chuck Schumer. exactly. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton made a mention of it, too. And right. It is a range of very high profile senators who are not known for being interested in wild goose hunts. What are you trying to say. I’d say let’s just say it’s a number of people who would probably disagree with you about with you, about the JFK assassination. Maybe not. So one of them is Morley would argue that on the Republican side, on the Republican side, Mike Rounds, right, who’s a Republican Senator from South Dakota, I would say that there is no more stolid, vanilla Republican Senator than Mike Rounds. Mike rounds has been partnering with Chuck Schumer on this issue in the Senate. Have you talked to those guys. Have you talked to Schumer personally. No not personally. So there aren’t secret. Why do you think that they’re interested in this. Well, this is the most bicameral, a bicameral, bipartisan issue in Congress currently. Which is funny because I’m letting it out in part. But there’s interest because there’s something there. Because it’s real. It’s not just made up. It’s not just some crazy, wacky thing. It’s real. O.K, so one thing that’s real that we can establish is that we have a range of testimony from aviators about inexplicable events in the air and a range of videos that seem to correspond with at least some of that. O.K, let’s go then, into what you could call the stronger dose of strangeness, which is the claim that there is a secret program inside the US government that knows a lot about this or knows more about this. You’ve had people testify to that effect before. Before your own committee. Do you think that there is a secret program inside the federal government. I think that there’s a lot of money in the Pentagon that goes unaccounted for. And part of the reason why we initially wanted to investigate is, again, being stewards of the pocketbook. Where’s our money going. If you have people testifying to this and they’re saying that they’re afraid of losing their lives over it. Is there to that. What’s been interesting is the amount of pushback that we’ve gotten. So do we know that money’s missing out of the Pentagon’s budget that we can’t account for. Yes Do we know that people are making these testimonies under oath and risking prosecution for lying under oath. Yes do we also know that there are things that we can’t explain. And we have now the New director of arrow who concurs with us on this. Instead of attacking, what is arrow. Arrow is all the all-domain anomaly office that was set up to essentially investigate these things, which, by the way, the former director was, in my opinion, stonewalling our investigations and efforts. You have a New director that’s come in and basically pushed for the release, and now we have the documentation. All that to say that I have seen enough weird stuff to definitely make me be skeptical of the aspect of everything’s fine and dandy and look the other way. O.K, so everything all right. Everything isn’t fine and dandy. Correct but you. But just to stick with the most prominent example, David grosch, who’s a former US Air Force officer and intelligence official, made very concrete claims, and he’s made them on many, many podcasts. And he made a version of them under oath to you that there is, again, of secret program studying non-human intelligence that has been in place going back decades, that multiple presidents have known about or have been somewhat have been somewhat have been somewhat read into. Do you think that he’s telling the truth I think that he is going off of information that he’s been shown. So I don’t have a reason to believe that he’s lying. But what I will say is that there are programs that exist that are top secret and clearance or read in programs for advanced weapons technologies that we’re studying, not necessarily these things. So I think and part of what we’re doing with the investigations that hasn’t been publicized and representative burlison’s been very good on this, is sending certain letters to different corporations, manufacturers, tech to see if there’s any hard evidence that we can get with that. Because one of his claims and others have made this claim is that contractors in the style of Lockheed Martin have been themselves brought into this program. Now, I do want to though, put out, though, that I have personally come across with some of our other congressional investigators, people that have inserted themselves as subject matter experts in this, that have been pushing disinformation campaigns of false information that I know for a fact to be false. So we are very careful about certain things that we say and also certain people that we have as witness. Witness testimony specifically on this topic because I think that there’s a certain level of grift and then a certain aspect of disinformation happening. And so we’re careful about that. But what I will say about Grusch specifically is for his testimony. First of all, he’s been one of our better witnesses, been able to also help point us to where we should be looking. And he is not incorrect in saying that. One of the big issues that we are having right now. Remember I was talking earlier about special interests, corporate kind of power within the chamber, et cetera is that I don’t necessarily think that people are lying when they say, well, the US military might not have it because we’ve farmed out so much of our tech and research to corporations that aren’t held to the same privacy and oversight laws as a government agency or contract would typically have if it was under our purview and the Department of War. And so that’s the problem that we’re facing right now. But what I will say is that if there was nothing there, then why go through so much pain and heartache and heartburn and really preventing us from being able to see the bare minimums. Why fight is so hard at the release of some of these classified videos that we just got released. Why push so hard to get our briefings canceled, only to find out something completely separate when there’s a change of administration. If this wasn’t true, why are so many members of Congress, both in the Senate, Democrat and Republican, and literally on polar opposites of every other issue. Why is it that we’re so adamant about actually pushing this forward. If it weren’t for this administration, we would have never seen those videos. But again, allowing that the videos and the pilot testimony are evidence of something and we don’t know what. If there were this kind of program, why would Chuck Schumer, Anna Paulina Luna, a range of people with serious power in the US government not be able to access information about it. And I mean this both in the direct sense of are lawmakers who have a certain set of powers, but also in the sense that if someone has this information, why wouldn’t they want to go into Chuck Schumer, give it to Chuck Schumer, and then the next day be on the front page of the New York Times’ as the person who blew this story wide open. This is what keeps me skeptical. So the question of why isn’t someone coming forward is, I think you have the aspect of power and money. So we’ve been told that we don’t have up until recently, we were told we don’t have clearances to see certain information that was housed within certain aspects of the intelligence community. And it was not until President Trump gave the order that the Department of War would actually release the footage, which, by the way, this is the other issue of overclassification. But this goes back into even going back all the way to Kennedy is you have factions of the government within the intelligence communities that are so compartmentalized, so bureaucratic and entrenched that you would think that we would be able to go and do this, and we can’t. This goes back into why is it that the intelligence community, the CIA, tried so hard to prevent certain things from coming out. I mean, even Mike Pompeo tried to prevent the release of the classification of the JFK files during the first Trump administration. And it wasn’t until Ratcliffe came in and I had a conversation with Ratcliffe. He goes, I’m not going to cover or try to hide the mistakes and the sins of agencies past. That was from the CIA director. So all right. So Ratcliffe so he’s in charge of the CIA. Yes. Does he have access to specifically this. Well, to Yeah to if to the who in the structure of the US government, if you had a secret program or a set of secret programs and they had been farmed out to defense contractors, let’s say, or they’d be put inside the Department of Energy rather than to the Defense Department. Who knows. Hypothetically, you’re into U.A.P. since you brought them. I am, I am, I am aware of let’s call it the mythology around the subject. But who in the government would have the capacity to figure this out. And all of to answer your question, all of the actual data and specifics surrounding this were housed from what we have found under the Department of War. But specifically to how contracts work is there’s pots of money that are set up, and then different agencies have access to those pots of money, and then they will allocate the contracts. And once that money goes to a contractor, then our ability for oversight and disclosure goes away. And that’s the problem is O.K, so you just said what we have, what we have been able to tell. What have you been able to tell that there is a set of secret programs and you don’t know what they are. Well, there’s unaccounted funding. I’ve heard rumors of certain programs, but then the issue is. So what. You don’t have reading clearances to. So what you have concretely, you think is unaccounted money. That could be for Secret weapons programs. Well, we know for a fact that the US government has secret weapons programs. That’s a fact. That is a fact. Absolutely The question is, are these things being given to contractors, and is there any validity to the statements made by witnesses that we’ve had countless that have come forward risking perjury, that are saying that there’s evidence of back engineering programs. That’s what we’re still following up on and trying to find hard evidence of. That’s an ongoing congressional if you have the witnesses, if you have David Grusch saying he can tell you who he heard these things from and you can go talk to those people. Yes And have you talked to those people. So the question is, will the witnesses come forward in the event that they would potentially be hit with espionage after the administration is out. And that’s why we want the whistleblower protections. We’ve sent letters to different contractors. Actors, though, and this is why the push for the whistleblower protections. But you are maybe not saying, but strongly implying that there is a set of people that you yourself have talked to. We have information about this. Yes we have talked unwilling to come forward under current protections. Correct that are afraid to. We’ve actually had multiple witnesses that refused to come forward because they specifically said that they did not want to lose their clearances, or they’re afraid of retribution after the fact. And in David Rush’s case, we saw specifically that after he testified, his records were released. At the same time, though, David rush is on every podcast in America, he’s walking around, seems fit and healthy, as far as I can tell. The same applies to a number of other people who have spoken publicly and made pretty wild claims about this. So we have a lot of evidence that you can be a U.A.P. whistleblower and become at least like Joe Rogan level celebrity, not end up in jail, not be murdered. Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. So there was weird stuff that happened with Rush, and you can ask him about this, but he was coming in to talk with us in a skiff and on his way, and someone pulled a gun on him while he’s driving down the highway. I’m sorry. This just seems a very ineffective way to cover up a multi-decade conspiracy theory. Sorry see, they’re a multi-decade conspiracy. That’s why if I were running, if I were the cigarette smoking man from the x-files and I was running this conspiracy, I wouldn’t have someone randomly pulling a gun on David rush. I’d have somebody slipping him the reverse engineered or disappearing him or. Well, right weird. Weird deaths of scientists, maybe. I mean, there’s a lot there, I think. But you have people, but you yourself are sitting here having this conversation with me, right. And implying that you’ve talked to people who have more information Yeah, we’ve heard a lot. But the question is, are we able to produce that as evidence. So I’m not going to come up and tell you what I’ve heard without being able to actually confirm it for myself. Why can’t the president solve this dilemma. Surely the president has the capacity. So the president did authorize the release of the files. He authorized the release of the video with the president. Know the files because there’s testimony, the testimony. And accounts are not video evidence. So you authorize the files and there’s a rollout on the files that’s ongoing. The next thing that he should do, and that I’ve suggested is whistleblower protections that would give basically a period where people would not be subject to violation of the Espionage Act if they were able to provide concrete evidence on these alleged programs that do you think the president has been read in to these alleged. I’m not going to speculate on rumors that we hear and I’m not going to also call the president and say, Mr. President, can you please. So I think that the question, why aren’t you going to look. Why aren’t you going to call the president like this. I mean, with respect to everything else we’ve talked to in this interview, we’ve covered a lot of important subjects Yeah but if you’re the president who reveals the existence of non-human intelligence the US government has been in touch with. That’s a much bigger deal than debating, debating rules, changes for House Ethics laws. And so House Ethics rules. And people can argue different points on this. I’ve heard all sides people say it’s not a big deal People say it’s a very big deal. From your perspective, it’s a big deal. I think it’s a big deal. I think that I mean, I could be underestimating it. I guess it’s one thing. Yes I think that a US government cover up of a program that had concrete evidence of non-human intelligence communicating with human beings, flying craft around whatever else. I think that would be a pretty big headline in the New York Times’ Yes, I do. And I think that people this is a frustration. You can tell that I’m frustrated Yeah this is a recurring frustration that I have. There are a lot of people, and they are people who I trust and take seriously on in who seem to who are in high levels of government, who seem to take this issue seriously, ranging from yourself to Chuck Schumer to the vice president of the United States, who’s made a lot of public comments about this. All of these people, it seems to me, should have the collective power to resolve this issue, except for the fact that we can go back to the fundamentals and that there is and there has been proof of an overclassification and aspect of the intelligence community that has largely been entrenched and calling the shots. And we have personally been denied clearances as members of Congress that have top secret clearances, access to these different things. So my job is not to tell you what I’m not going to be I don’t know that I’ll never now I need you to tell me what to believe Yeah no, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to roll a little green man in on a silver Platter for anyone. But what I can do is I can present you with the evidence that we have seen. And I can also tell you what we’ve been up against. And what I will tell you is on my conversations with the president, he has been very clear about wanting transparency on this issue, and he understands that it’s important. And I have had those conversations. The reason why I’m not going to call him and say, Mr. President, have you been given access to a reading program on you is because at the end of the day, there’s a certain aspect do I really want to press the president on something that if he was comfortable with telling me that, he would tell me directly because I feel that I have a very good relationship with him, but also this aspect of even if he had that he might not be able to tell me, because we’re being told that we don’t have the correct clearances. So at the end of the day, what can he do. But he could, but he could tell you, he could tell me he’s allowed to tell people. And he can also direct agencies to give us full blanket access and clearance. Because the other thing that we are coming up within the intelligence communities. They said, well, you have to go to this division of government to get the clearance or have to get it from House Intelligence, et cetera, when in actuality he’s the overarching authority. And just like he gave Director Gabbard all the read in authorities and access to different things pertaining to JFK, MLK and RFK, he can give us similar clearances. Now The White House has been doing a good job on the rollout, and we have not been getting pushback. If it turned out that there was no secret program. What would be the explanation for that it was all disinformation. Is it possible that there has been a multi-decade disinformation campaign to make people believe in U.F.O.s. We’ve heard that theory. However, it’s a little bit hard to. I think continuing to parrot that theory when you have so many people, witnesses and now video evidence that is saying otherwise. I guess you could say the video evidence could show a phenomenon that the government doesn’t understand and the whistleblowers could reflect a inside the Pentagon like hazing ritual meets disinformation operation. And those could be separate. And there’s this other aspect of I think people don’t want to talk about it because it freaks them out, and they don’t want to be looked at as kooky, because remember, up until recently, I think it’s really Gen X and beyond if you talk about this can have a conversation, but if you talk to older people about it, they’re kind of weirded out by it. So I think this aspect of how people are understandably weirded out by it, because it’s very weird in the sense that they don’t even want to have a conversation on it. They just don’t want to deal with it at all. They’d rather not Chuck Schumer Chuck Schumer is an older American. Chuck Schumer seems very open minded. And Hillary Clinton, I think, on this topic. All right, so just to end, though, I do need you to speculate. What do you think that what do you think that these things are. The one thing that we got in a briefing from the FBI and the one thing that the whistleblowers have said, scientists that we’ve talked to is that which. Which they don’t believe which scientists have some of the scientists that have come in to skiffs to brief us. O.K who work for the government or had worked, had worked or were contractors is that these things, whatever the phenomena exists, that they don’t believe that they operate in the realm that we can understand currently. So the term that they use is interdimensional now. And this is used repeatedly. This is used repeatedly by the witnesses. Now have I seen something pop out of a portal. No I’ve never personally witnessed one of these things. I’ve never personally witnessed one of these things. So it’s been interesting in collecting all this information and then sorting out, sorting, sorting out who’s lying, who’s telling the truth and what evidence we have that can better put together this picture. What I will say is that concretely, the phenomena exists. Yes, you have too much evidence that says otherwise. And what I’m currently focusing on right now is whether or not we can put in place to find out in regards to the funding aspect and mechanism and oversight. We can get protections for these whistleblowers to see if there’s validity to that. I’ll be the first person to say, if we had someone that came forward, came forward, and it was not accurate, I’d say it was not accurate. But to date, we have, people that will chicken out coming to the hearings because they’re afraid. I don’t want to say chicken, but they’re very concerned. And do you think you have people who chicken out because they’re grifters and they don’t want to be. Oh, I definitely think yeah, I definitely think that there have been instances of people getting skiff flew. And that’s always I’m like, I have a skiff. You say you have all this classified information I have now permissions and you guys aren’t coming in. So those people you think are. Yes, hundreds percent. I also think that there are people that are just straight up nuts. Like some of them are just crazy, but then they’re the ones that are legitimate. And I think that this is such an interesting topic that when you don’t shine the light and when you can’t have the conversation, it doesn’t matter if it’s this JFK, MLK, RFK, Epstein, whatever it is, then you give a reason for this to be exploited by foreign intelligence agencies, and then it can just take on a life of its own. So I’m willing to at least have the conversation and see what evidence we have. So it’s been an interesting if you had the evidence of a secret program and you had it, it couldn’t be revealed you would find a way to reveal it. Eric Burlison also in my committee hearing, this is your fellow Congressman Yeah, I allowed him to play a piece of footage that was refusing to be released. So you have ways. You have ways. And we’ve been achieving catastrophic disclosure. Well, well, not catastrophic disclosure. We have ways of trying to find workarounds. Yes, on the information that we’re given. But remember, we’re still operating with one hand tied behind our back because of the fact that you still don’t have whistleblower protections in place, you still don’t have the U.A.P. Disclosure Act that’s been passed. You still have people working within the chambers preventing us to be able to do it. And the reason why we can’t fully, I think, operate in the level that we need to is because there’s nothing that’s been put in writing, there’s not like an executive order that’s been signed by the president like there was on MLK, JFK and RFK by the end of Donald Trump’s second term. Do you think that you or anyone else would be able to come on this podcast and give me a definitive answer about whether the kind of secret program, wild and crazy scenario is true. I would hope I would hope that we get enough movement on this, but I want to point to something specifically that Obama said and that President Trump said. And then just that’ll help answer your question. Are aliens real. They’re real. But I haven’t seen them and they’re not being kept in. What is it. Area area 51. There’s no underground facility unless there’s this enormous conspiracy. And they hid it from the President of the United States. When President Obama came out on that podcast and said stuff about U.A.P.s, and then President Trump responded on Air Force One, and he goes, I think he maybe said something classified. Well, he gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that. So aliens are real. Well, I don’t know if they’re real or not. I can tell you. He gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that. And then President Obama kind of backtracked. And then President Trump confirmed what Obama basically said, saying, I’m just going to release this. That shows you the internal struggle happening right now within the entire intelligence community and government on this specific topic from all sides. So we are still up against whether or not just like when President Biden signed the executive order or pushed for more release of the JFK files, and not a lot of stuff came out just like President Trump tried in 2016 with JFK, and not a lot of stuff came out. It’s because there’s still an entrenched perspective and bureaucracy of people that don’t want this information to be released. And so we have to rely on other people essentially helping to push the release of this information. This is a do you believe that we should know this or not. And I think that those are the two perspectives that we’re facing right now in the government. But it has been wild. On Obama, you have Obama, Schumer, me, Hillary Clinton, President Trump, and everyone in between. That’s kind of like, I just want to get ultimately, I just want to get you and Chuck Schumer together in a room. Off the record, you probably could on this topic. We’ll see. All right. Anna Paulina Luna, thanks for joining me.

Anna Paulina Luna Wants Everything Disclosed Anna Paulina Luna Wants Everything Disclosed

Anna Paulina Luna on Epstein, J.F.K. and U.F.O.s.

By Interesting Times

June 5, 2026

Transcript

Watch Today’s Videos

More in Opinion›

### The Supreme Court’s Jim Crow Logic 2:20 ### The New Right’s Very Old Vision of Men 1:40:30 ### S the Wolf 9:37 ### China Is ‘a Loss’ 2:48 ### The Gating of the American Dream 2:40 ### Tucker Carlson’s Big Bet 2:22

Video ›

Today's Videos

U.S.

Politics

Immigration

NY Region

Science

Business

Culture

Books

Wellness

World

Africa

Americas

Asia

South Asia

Donald Trump

Middle East Crisis

Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Visual Investigations

Opinion Video

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Site Index

Site Information Navigation

• ©2026 The New York Times Company

• NYTCo

• Contact Us

• Accessibility

• Work with us

• Advertise

• T Brand Studio

• Privacy Policy

• Cookie Policy

• Terms of Service

• Terms of Sale

• Site Map

• Canada

• International

• Help

• Subscriptions

• Your Privacy Choices