Walter Kirn believes Trump will be the "Disclosure President."

[Jack Mallory]

This segment of Walter Kirn's recent interview with Megyn Kelly is making the rounds, for obvious reasons.
FYI: This excerpt is only seven minutes long (the final 90 seconds are an ad-read).

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=JxUkBtZmWOQ


It presents a few things of note:

1) Megyn Kelly—regardless of your personal opinion of her—is inarguably a seasoned veteran of the MSM. The interview opens with her sharing a clip of David Grusch's most recent Fox News interview with Bret Baier, yet Megyn barely (if at all) seems to have any idea who David Grusch even is. To me, that speaks more to the fringe of the news cycle where, even in late 2025, Grusch still seems to exist as opposed to any sort of an indictment against Megyn. Most people, I would argue, still don't know who David Grusch is.

2) Seconds after watching the clip she demonstrates exactly the kind of flawed interpretation that tends to fuel so much confusion within ufology these days.

@0:38

Grusch: "I don't like to characterize, necessarily, where they came from—they're definitely some of kind of non-human sentience—but it is true, believe it or not: We've recovered the vehicles, and we actually have physical proof. And I was actually, partially cleared into some of those activities. It was beyond oral testimony provided to me, I actually had partial access to the data and actually read the intelligence reports resulting from those programs...

Baier: With your own eyes, you saw it?

Grusch: "Correct. Yes."

Now, any reasonable interpretation of that would be that the "it" that Grusch saw "with his own eyes," would be the intelligence reports, as he claimed. Nothing more.

But Megyn's instant take @1:10 is to proclaim, "He's actually saying he saw the vehicles, and some sort of 'non-sentient' being." [Kirn will soon correct her misinterpretation of "non-sentient" vs "non-human sentience"].

Sadly, though, she's not the only one with this distorted interpretation of Grusch's own words. Social media abounds with no shortage of others claiming similar things from the Fox News interview. This is but one reason the subject is doomed to ever-increasing amounts of division within the "ufo community." Nobody can agree on anything, even when the spoken words are right there for all to hear.

Then it's Kirn's turn to weigh-in on the topic:
He's clearly an advocate and supporter of David Grusch, but I had to chuckle at his initial attempt at arguing in favor of the reality of UFOs. @2:48 He quotes Grusch posing the question, Do you believe in mountain lions? "Everybody would say, Yes, right?" Kirn adds. Then, as if to drive the point home of just how rare an occurrence this might be, he asks the audience "How many of you have actually seen one?"

However, Megyn immediately raises her hand and chimes in with, "I have seen one."

"You've seen one?" Walter replies, clearly losing a bit of the momentum he was hoping for with his example.

"In Montana," Kelly responds.

"Ok...welp..." Kirn continues, clearly realizing the ineffectiveness of his intended strategy.

I had to laugh, though, because I, too, have seen a mountain lion, but my sighting was in Connecticut. Sorry, Walter. They're real. They exist.

But more to the main point of this post:
Kirn goes on to offer what I feel is a very cogent perspective on just how the general public might respond to actual disclosure. He also argues @3:46 as to why he thinks Trump might just be the President to finally do it, while addressing one key issue that I've always maintained when it comes to such a possibility (a topic we've just been discussing in the Age of Disclosure thread): If Trump were to be the messenger, at least half the country (and no small percentage of the global community) would likely reject it outright simply because it's coming from Trump. Such a revelation (of retrieved UFO/NHI) would have to include concrete, verifiable evidence of such a claim. Obviously.

Political pot-shots aside, I found Kirn's take on the subject to be refreshingly sober, as I've never really bought into the "ontological" fear-mongering that is so often associated with the idea of Disclosure. Were it to ever happen, I'm confident that we'd all be just fine.

 

[FatPhil]

Now, any reasonable interpretation of that would be that the "it" that Grusch saw "with his own eyes," would be the intelligence reports, as he claimed. Nothing more.

But Megyn's instant take is to proclaim, "He's actually saying he saw the vehicles, and some sort of 'non-sentient' being." [Kirn will soon correct her misinterpretation of "non-sentient" vs "non-human sentience"].

Sadly, though, she's not the only one with this distorted interpretation of Grusch's own words. Social media abounds with no shortage of others claiming similar things from the Fox News interview. This is but one reason the subject is doomed to ever-increasing amounts of division within the "ufo community." Nobody can agree on anything, even when the spoken words are right there for all to hear.

Far be it from me to stand up for Megyn Kelly on anything, but the blame lies almost entirely on Grusch and his choice of wording. His use of "we" to include himself in a group, emphasising that he had access to the innards of that group's operations, and a claim that that group has had physical access to real recovered craft. He may not say it, but he does imply it. Certainly, a pedant that will notice that he didn't actually make the end-to-end claim regarding his eyeballs and alien craft, but pedants are in the massive minority. (And they're highly over-represented here on MB, so we can have a skewed perception on what communication is actually being performed.)

If I may be permitted to conjecture on motive: it would make sense that he thinks he would garner more respect and his statements would have more impact were he to have had first-hand evidence (you yourself bring the evidence that supports this), and therefore he is incentivised to communicate in a way that implies that he has. So it's not necessarily "this distorted interpretation" of his words, it could be *the intended interpretation* of the words.

[late edit: grammaro above]

 

[Mendel]

With anti-vaxxers in the White House, this administration's credibility on scientific topics is very low. Possibly the worst administration ever to say UFOs are real.

Edit: the argument that Trump will brag about any secret kinda disproves he's going to be the disclosure President, because he's been in office 5 years already, and nada. And that includes Elizondo's 2017 revelations.

 

[Mendel]

"I decided I would tell nothing but the truth when I came out here tonight" is an epic self-own.

 

[Calter]

I can't believe a Logal Paul interview is my source, but Trump has already addressed his belief in aliens during a podcast interview back in June 2024.


Source: https://youtu.be/xrFdHO7FH8w?si=bNmfUX0nYKMW6dgm&t=2413

Edit: (Starts are 40:13)

Does Trump Believe in Aliens?

Logan:
I want to talk to you about aliens UFOs uaps the disclosure we've seen in Congress recently it's it's it's confusing and upsetting a lot of Americans cuz something going there's something happening there are
unidentified aerial phenomena in the sky we don't know what they are do you

Trump:
So, it's a question I do get a lot and it's such an interesting question I've met with Pilots that look just like
you actually okay they have more of a crew cut okay they they look like him and they look like you some of them look
like you a little fatter but these are perfect people okay and they're not you
know conspiratorial they're not crazy and they tell me stories that
they've seen things that you wouldn't believe these are not people that you would say (interruption) uh so I've met with Pilots like beautiful Tom Cruz Boller okay handsome Perfect People sir there was something there that was round in form

and going like four times faster than my super jet fighter plane
and I look at these guys and they really mean it yeah and am I a Believer no I
probably I can't say I am but I have met with people that are serious people that
say there's some really strange things that they see flying around out there and you know if you go to Nevada and you
look at that little section of of uh where where they go to look at uh the
aliens where they think all the aliens are land that you know it's one of I think it's a maybe the number one
tourist attraction in the United States

Cohost:
Roswell yeah yeah

Trump:
Roswell it's I think
it's the number one it's the lines of people waiting it you have no idea how
many times I'm asked that question
Logan: but don't you have access to that information
Trump: I have access but and I I
speak to people about it I've had actually meetings on it and they will tell you there's something going on when
they say things things are going four times faster than my beautiful top-of-the-line airplane that goes you
know real fast with no identifi propulsion system right

Logan:
these things are creating their own gravity Fields allegedly

Trump:
well they they have they have uh people that are very smart and very
solid have said they believe there is something out there and you know makes sense that there could be I've never
been convinced even despite that you know I just for some reason it's not my thing but a lot of people believe that
it's true a lot of very good solid people believe it's true what and you have I know there are illegal aliens out
there but those are the ones that come through the Border we have plenty of them those are the ones I know when you say aliens I say are they illegal aliens
these are these might be illegal but we don't want to test them yeah because if they can go four times faster we're not
going to test them uh so it's an interesting question

Cohost:
yeah yeah for sure is there a chance that one of these orgs
is potentially hiding information from you about aliens

Trump:
um um I guess so it's
uh you have the Deep State and you do have a deep State and certainly they could but I don't think on this subject
I was interested in it because I've been asked so many times and I I talked to people that have said that they've you
know it was a sighting and it's uh very believable it's it's very possible that
there is something and why wouldn't there be you know you take a look at the universe and you see all of the
different planets and you see this you know look here we are on one relatively
small planet why wouldn't there be on on a planet that's you know 400 times the
size why wouldn't there be some something somebody uh so you know it's certainly
believable to me

Logan:
the thought of it freaks me out you know it's it's weird to think that we potentially are only
the source of life in like an infinite ever expanding Universe um but but you know technology
Trump: but they'd never be able
to take you in a fight no chance I'll bet on you

Forgive the formatting since it's just a copy paste of the youtube transcript, I only added who says each line and removed an irrelevant bit that made it confusing without seeing what's happening.

Essentially, Trump said he has talked with pilots who talked about UAP (my money is in one of the usual suspects), but even after all that he still doesn't believe in aliens.

He mentions it's believable/possible and that the deep state hiding aliens is also possible, but if he went 4 years as president and all he knows about aliens is what some pilots told him, then it's hard to imagine that he would now be in a position to "disclose" since clearly whatever organization is investigating aliens is doing so without even the president being informed.

 

[Ann K]

It ends with what I consider to be a true statement, something like "if Trump were to announce it himself, half the people in the country would disbelieve it". Given the level of lies, exaggerations, or complete misunderstandings he utters daily, that's a given.

 

[Bob Jase]

Anything to distract from Epstein.

 

[JMartJr]

He quotes Grusch posing the question, Do you believe in mountain lions? "Everybody would say, Yes, right?" Kirn adds. Then, as if to drive the point home of just how rare an occurrence this might be, he asks the audience "How many of you have actually seen one?"

However, Megyn immediately raises her hand and chimes in with, "I have seen one."

"You've seen one?" Walter replies, clearly losing a bit of the momentum he was hoping for with his example.

"In Montana," Kelly responds.

"Ok...welp..." Kirn continues, clearly realizing the ineffectiveness of his intended strategy.

I had to laugh, though, because I, too, have seen a mountain lion, but my sighting was in Connecticut.

Reminds me of something I like to post in reply to the usual Bigfoot video, consisting of a distant blurry something that may be humanoid but it's behind too mane branches and too out of focus to be sure if it is or not:


Just for comparison, here is a picture of a bear. It is clear, in focus, high resolution, not blocked by trees or bushes -- you can see the animal clearly, tell exactly what you are looking at. There are thousands of pictures and videos of bears, this good or better.

Because bears exist.

I actually do switch to a mountain lion or elk from time to time, just for variety...


This argument is just "UFOs are real because people claim to see them, and people also claim to see other real things." Well yes, but people also sometime claim to see stuff that is not real because they misinterpret what they are seeing, misremember it, or sometimes even just make stuff up. The reason we know mountain lions and bears (and elk, and icebergs, and volcanoes, and meteors, and blue whales, and...) exist is not based on "some people have seen them." It's not even "we have good pictures of them, like we do for bears and mountain lions..." -- but since they DO exist, as a side effect we also have better pictures than we do for stuff that does not exist.

 

[deirdre]

He also argues as to why he thinks Trump might just be the President to finally do it,

I only added who says each line and removed an irrelevant bit that made it confusing without seeing what's happening.

Can we have some timestamps gentlemen? @Landru

Certainly, a pedant that will notice that he didn't actually make the end-to-end claim regarding his eyeballs and alien craft

a pedant might notice that Brett Baier specifically gestured down to the paperwork Grusch was talking about and not out. that's why he says "it" (the data which is the intelligence reports) and not them (ie vehicles).

Meghan knows Brett Baier well, so her misunderstanding -that isnt corrected by Kirn -is pretty sloppy of her. Baier is a bit of a pedant himself. Maybe she hasn't seen his show in a while and she forgot. Although i havent seen his show in a while and i haven't forgot.

Baier even clarifies it all a bit later in the interview, he is talking about the paperwork.
BTW the interview opens with footage of Grusch's testimony in front of congress.

4:39
>> Bret: WHEN YOU MENTION THAT

TESTIMONY, OF RECOVERING THE

PILOTS OR RADIO MAINS NONHUMAN,

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU SAW -

AS FAR AS THE INTELLIGENCE - WITH

YOUR EYES?
4:47
>> YES.

A bit odd Meghan and Metabunk are dissecting a clip off probably Twitter and not looking for the whole interview to get context


Source: https://youtu.be/HFIOoS7XFN4?t=278


ADD EDIT: it is of course possible Meghan clipped the footage herself. she has either honestly fallen into a few rabbit holes in the last year or so, or she is pretending to for clicks.

 

[Calter]

Can we have some timestamps gentlemen?

My video should open on a given timestamp, but just in case it's 40:13

 

[Mendel]

Essentially, Trump said he has talked with pilots who talked about UAP (my money is in one of the usual suspects), but even after all that he still doesn't believe in aliens.

Yes, exactly!

people that are very smart and very solid have said, they believe there is something out there
and you know makes sense that there could be
I've never been convinced even despite that [..]
for some reason it's not my thing
but a lot of people believe that it's true
a lot of very good solid people believe it's true [..]
I know there are illegal aliens out there
but those are the ones that come through the Border
we have plenty of them
those are the ones I know when you say aliens
I say are they illegal aliens

 

[Jack Mallory]

Can we have some timestamps gentlemen?

Done!
My posting history will show that I am typically careful to include such details, but the video is relatively short to begin with, and I was posting very late at night, which is probably why I omitted them this time. They've since been added.

 

[Jack Mallory]

A bit odd Meghan and Metabunk are dissecting a clip off probably Twitter and not looking for the whole interview to get context

To be clear: The point of the OP was Walter Kirn's reaction to clip as shared by Megyn, Kirn's perspective on Trump, Kirn's relationship to Grusch, and that the fact that Kirn is even addressing the topic at all in such a manner. I would think that the original Grusch/Baier interview would warrant it's own thread for proper analysis, so I didn't want to confuse the two.

 

[Horsehockey]

Anything to distract from Epstein.

There is nothing that Trump would appreciate more right now than for a UFO to land in Milwaukee and for little alien creatures to walk down the ramp to say hello. Epstein? Who's that?

 

[NoParty]

The headline of this thread made me laugh.

I immediately thought of all the Q-Anon chumps who claimed to believe that
Trump was actually secretly fighting pedophiles behind the scenes. That fairy tale certainly didn't age well.
(At least pal & child sex trafficker Ghislaine got cushy accommodations after meeting with Trump's former lawyer)

At the end of the day, there's nothing really to feed Trump's insecure ego on the UFO issue, so he surely doesn't care.

 

[deirdre]

To be clear: The point of the OP was Walter Kirn's reaction to clip as shared by Megyn, Kirn's perspective on Trump, Kirn's relationship to Grusch, and that the fact that Kirn is even addressing the topic at all in such a manner. I would think that the original Grusch/Baier interview would warrant it's own thread for proper analysis, so I didn't want to confuse the two.

i figured that, but you confused the issue yourself by introducing Meghan's interpretation of Baiers question first.

i didnt watch your full interview with Kirn -no timestamps-but since Grusch discusses Trump disclosure in the context of the Biden administration not disclosing anything (Baier's question), to me it kinda sounds like excuse making from Grusch. I'm going to assume Kirn is excuse making also unless someone quotes him directly to prove me wrong.

 

[deirdre]

There is nothing that Trump would appreciate more right now than for a UFO to land in Milwaukee and for little alien creatures to walk down the ramp to say hello. Epstein? Who's that?

that's not true at all. you must be behind on the news!

 

[MapperGuy]

If Trump has not revealed the "TRUTH" by now there is no truth to be revealed. His love of publicity would have made such a revelation irresistable. How many Nobel Prizes would he get for that? How much money could he make by selling portions to government contractors for kickbacks? And what a GOOD excuse for cancelling the next few elections?

 

[deirdre]

And what a GOOD excuse for cancelling the next few elections?

because we're at war with blurry radar blips that don't attack us?

 

[jdog]

because we're at war with blurry radar blips that don't attack us?

Are those UFOs or Venezuelans?

 

[JMartJr]

I think we're getting a bit far afield here, friends.

 

[Jack Mallory]

I think we're getting a bit far afield here, friends.

Yeah, I'm done with this thread, personally. To be honest, I'm sorry I even started it. The handwringing and political tangents, that have nothing to do with anything, are exhausting. I originally thought about including a request to avoid as much, as the mere mention of Trump's name is more than some can handle. I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary but clearly I was mistaken. Oh, well.

 

[FatPhil]

Yeah, I'm done with this thread, personally. To be honest, I'm sorry I even started it. The handwringing and political tangents, that have nothing to do with anything, are exhausting. I originally thought about including a request to avoid as much, as the mere mention of Trump's name is more than some can handle. I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary but clearly I was mistaken. Oh, well.

If you are purging health-related information from governmental websites, then you are not the administration of disclosure. (Almost instantly, Feb?)
If you are purgine crime-related information from govermental websites, then you are not the administration of disclosure. (Ditto, same idiologial purge)
If you are hamstringing CDC such that HAN can't sent alerts about disease outbreaks, then you are not the administration of disclosure. (Early, about the time RFK Jr started more openly pushing unpaseurised milk - just a coincidence, I'm sure. /s)
If you are not releasing employment-rate statistics because they are unfavourable, then you are not the administration of disclosure. (Last week)
If you are not releasing inflation statistics because they are unfavourable, then you are not the administration of disclosure. (Ditto)
If you are not reasing GDP statistics because they are unfavourable, then you are not the administration of disclosure. (2 days ago)

My conclusion would be that this is not an administration committed to disclosure. What's the compelling evidence to the contrary? What's *any* evidence to the contrary?

 

[deirdre]

Yeah, I'm done with this thread, personally. To be honest, I'm sorry I even started it. The handwringing and political tangents, that have nothing to do with anything, are exhausting. I originally thought about including a request to avoid as much, as the mere mention of Trump's name is more than some can handle. I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary but clearly I was mistaken. Oh, well.

no offense but your thread title, and the way you wrote the OP, doesnt make it at all clear what you were hoping this thread to discuss. (and the thumbnail of your video has Trump's big face, so...)

 

[JMartJr]

here im only testing if the "thumbnail" changes if you pasted the video in at the timestamp kirn starts talking about aliens.

As a point of information, on my machine I am seeing the same image both times.

 

[deirdre]

Are those UFOs or Venezuelans?

are you comparing the quality of the Venezuelan drug cartel boat photos/evidence to the UFO radar photos/evidence we get from the "whistleblowers"?

 

[deirdre]

As a point of information, on my machine I am seeing the same image both times.

me too, i removed that part in my comment but forgot to hit "save" sorry.

 

[JMartJr]

me too, i removed that part in my comment but forgot to hit "save" sorry.

No worries. I f that's the worst thing that happens today, it's gonna be a great day!

 

[deirdre]

No worries. I f that's the worst thing that happens today, it's gonna be a great day!

do you have to travel today? if so, hope you dont hit any traffic jams or annoyingly long lines!

 

[Ann K]

as the mere mention of Trump's name is more than some can handle.

It's apparent that the mere criticism of Trump is more than some can handle.

 

[jdog]

are you comparing the quality of the Venezuelan drug cartel boat photos/evidence to the UFO radar photos/evidence we get from the "whistleblowers"?

It's more of a snarky aside about going to war against boats off the coast of Venezuela.

 

[deirdre]

It's more of a snarky aside about going to war against boats off the coast of Venezuela.

ah, the "war on drugs". i think nixon started that.

 

[enilc]

ah, the "war on drugs". i think nixon started that.

Birds of a feather

 

[Mendel]

idiologial

that should be a word

 

[FatPhil]

that should be a word

Yes. Good spot.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

I found Kirn's take on the subject to be refreshingly sober, as I've never really bought into the "ontological" fear-mongering that is so often associated with the idea of Disclosure.

I've placed my interpretation of the (subject?) in this transcript to aid in the reading of it:

From 04:02
[Kelly] So, what can you just like outline it for us more clearly? Like what exactly is he (Grusch?) telling you?

[Kirn] They've seen they've recovered craft that uh have crashed. Some of those craft have fought each other. In other words, they people say, "How could they crash? They come across the universe." Well, we're not so sure they'd come all that far. Frankly, we're not so sure they don't have places nearby to come visit.

They're a little bit like gardeners from the descriptions of the people I've had as sources. They check on the garden every once in a while, but they have their own business. They have their own family fights. They have their own voyages. Now, what he's (Grusch?) talking about are actual bodies on the ground.

I imagine there's going to be a day where you're going to sit down in front of your television and people who you trust, scientists, politicians, ones who don't necessarily agree on with each other on everything, but do agree on something like the truth will bring forward the evidence. You will be convinced. It will not rock your world.

If you're a religious person, you can handle it. If you've read the Bible, there are all sorts of creatures in there who aren't explained. If you believe that these are a demonic presence, I don't think they (extraterrestrials?) are anymore than certain animals are.

But, you know, there was a time when we thought we were alone in the universe almost as a planet, that the sun revolved around us and so on. We survived the we survived the the revelation that it was the other way around. We'll survive this.

It'll be interesting (disclosure?). Kids will be more interested in science. Uh, I think our universe will light up for us again.

Uh, they've kept it to themselves for, I think, obvious reasons. Uh, and I spoke to someone just recently. I said, "How should they first disclose this?" And he said, "They should take the craft that they've reverse engineered that have capacities that you and I don't know about and fly them over Phoenix."

And in fact, that happened because the Phoenix Lights is one of the great UFO scares of all time if you know about it. Um, so so I I predict that's going to happen and I don't think it's going to be all that long.

And I don't and I think after all the movies and all the, you know, uh, pop culture, we're not going to be all that shocked by it. I think we'll integrate it and uh, it's not going to destroy our civilization to find out.

Walter Kirn repeats the UFO folklore from Grusch et. al. and it appears that Kirn trusts him, and believes his claims are true.

Folklore is the weaving of a mythological history. Claimed tie-ins to recorded events by imagination and speculation add to the authenticity e.g. the Phoenix Lights reference. This is also how the timeline for alternate history fictions are constructed.

Interestingly, Kirn cites belief in the mythological creatures of the bible as a risk for some to rationalize alien intelligence as demonic. Rather than realizing the parallelism in UFO folklore belief, he rationalizes that as a method of factual reassurance.

Disclosers are convinced that nefarious forces are concealing extraterrestrial contact and evidence, and alleged technology that would make the world a better place. So Kirn's optimistic take in the net benefit of disclosure is not surprising or unique.

Kirn's lack of criticism for Grush et. al. who claim there is much evidence, yet "for reasons" cannot disclose anything other than what amounts to "trust me this is real", is cognitive dissonance. The usual faith that disclosure will come soon is also repeated.

IMO, there is nothing new or revelatory in Walter Kirn's outlook.