GOP Sen. Ron Johnson wants to hold hearings on 'what actually happened on 9/11'
"There's an awful lot of questions," Johnson, the chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said Monday in an interview on the conservative activist Benny Johnson's podcast.
'What actually happened on 9/11? What do we know? What is being covered up?' Johnson said of the 2001 attacks. "My guess is there's an awful lot being covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11."
Asked if he planned on holding hearings, Johnson said, "I think so."
"There are a host of questions I will be asking," the senator said.
Asked for further details, a spokeswoman for the senator told NBC News on Wednesday that a 'potential hearing will depend on what information/documentation is obtained by our office.'Johnson's comments focused on a long-debunked claim about a building in the World Trade Center complex that collapsed hours after the Twin Towers were brought down by airliners.
The Wisconsin senator, who has a history of amplifying conspiracy theories, said in the interview that the investigation into the building that came down, Building 7, was 'corrupt' and suggested its collapse was the result of a 'controlled demolition.'
Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, sharply criticized Johnson's comments.
"Respectfully, Senator Johnson should stop peddling conspiracy theories about the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history and one that forever altered the lives of so many of my fellow New Yorkers," Lawler wrote in a post on X. "Crap like this dishonors and disrespects the innocent lives lost, our brave first responders, and all families and survivors who still carry the pain of 9/11 each and every day."
John Feal, a demolition supervisor at Ground Zero in New York and longtime advocate for first responders, called Johnson's remarks "silly and pathetic."
"If Ron Johnson really wants to know what happened on 9/11, I can meet with him," Feal told CNN in an interview Wednesday. "I'll let him know that innocent lives were lost on 9/11. Heroes died racing towards those innocent lives, and subsequently, 137,000 people are now sick because of the aftermath of 9/11."
Feal said he'll be in D.C. on Tuesday to advocate against the Trump administration's cuts to the World Trade Center Health Program, and said that's what Johnson should be questioning.
"Ron Johnson's priorities are backwards, and he's a silly man,' Feal said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
A conservative crackdown on advertisers has forced a 'brand safety' reset
Conservative media company The Daily Wire is celebrating the downfall of " brand safety," and benefiting from the new state of play in the ad business during the second Trump era. Last week, The Daily Wire's commercial team received a request for proposal, or RFP, from Omnicom, one of the world's biggest ad agency groups. An RFP typically indicates an agency or advertiser's interest in buying ad space. The RFP was a huge win for The Daily Wire. It was only the second time it had received an inbound ad request from Omnicom. The first was in May, but the latest was a much bigger buy. Last year, The Daily Wire's famous cofounder and podcaster, Ben Shapiro, testified that the site had been unfairly shunned by major advertisers and ad agencies who, he said, had deemed its content unsafe for their brands. "Brand safety was being defined by people with a severe bias against a certain point of view," The Daily Wire's editor in chief, Brent Scher, told Business Insider in an interview. But since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, the power dynamics around "brand safety" — the practice of brands seeking to avoid their ads appearing next to, or otherwise supporting, "unsafe" content — have shifted, with some advertisers scrambling to avoid any whiff of anti-conservative bias. The situation is particularly acute for Omnicom, making its outreach to The Daily Wire both unprecedented and unsurprising. Last month, Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Republican-led Federal Trade Commission, gave conditional approval to a proposed $13.5 billion merger of Omnicom and fellow ad company IPG, which would create the world's largest ad agency. It had an unusual caveat: Omnicom agreed to a consent order that would prevent it from colluding with other companies to encourage its advertiser clients to boycott media based on publishers' "political or ideological viewpoints." 'Brand suitability' versus 'brand safety' The FTC's move is the latest victory in the battle against brand safety waged by US conservatives. Brand safety in 2025 has become such a political flash point that some ad execs are changing the way they talk about the topic. "I hear the phrase 'brand suitability' far more than 'brand safety' now," said Liam Brennan, a marketing consultant and former ad agency director. "It makes it sound like a cop out, but it's a shift in the approach brands are taking. Before it was 'block, block, block,' now it's more about where my brand should be appearing. It's a more positive approach." While the Trump administration's actions have turned up the heat on brand safety practices, a broader backlash has been building for some time. Brand safety began as a seemingly innocuous practice of preventing brands from appearing next to the worst of the internet, such as violence, pornography, and illegal content. But it gradually expanded, with brands seeking to avoid a wide variety of political issues, or platforms that supported them. In investigations and lawsuits, lawmakers and other high-profile conservatives have argued that ad practitioners, brand safety tech vendors, and industry groups forced the brand safety pendulum to swing too far into partisan areas, unfairly depriving right-leaning outlets of ad dollars. Media companies on the left have said they, too, have been harmed by advertisers who deemed news sites as unsafe for brands. "What may have started as a good idea expanded, and then became too broad," said Mark Penn, CEO of the advertising holding company Stagwell. "Consequentially, it wasn't really about brand safety — it became almost brand censorship." The emergence of brand safety The practice of brand safety arose as advertisers shifted from analog media buying — placing deals directly with the TV stations, billboard owners, or newspaper proprietors they wished to buy space with — toward digital. Using technology, advertisers could target their audiences across swaths of websites, social platforms, and apps with just a few clicks. However, this meant they had less visibility about the content their ads were likely to appear next to. Brand safety technology was created to give advertisers more control over the types of content they wanted to fund or avoid. Keyword block lists were an early but somewhat blunt tool, helping advertisers avoid appearing in articles about grisly news topics like murders or natural disasters. However, marketers often didn't maintain good block list hygiene. Mike Zaneis, CEO of ad industry accreditation organization the Trustworthy Accountability Group, said he was recently reviewing brand block lists that still had the term "Ariana Grande" on them, years after the deadly terrorist attack that took place at the pop star's Manchester Arena, UK, concert in 2017. "Never mind that she's won two Grammys since then," Zaneis said. Enter: The conservative backlash The scrutiny on brand safety notably dialed up in 2024 and took on a partisan tone. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, released an investigation that accused advertisers of illegally colluding to withhold ad dollars from conservative-leaning media like The Daily Wire, X (after Elon Musk's takeover of the company), and "The Joe Rogan Experience." The report took aim at an initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which developed brand safety frameworks and common definitions that advertisers and Big Tech platforms like Meta and YouTube could universally adopt. Elon Musk's X then sued several major brands, including Mars and CVS Health, alleging their participation in GARM involved a conspiracy to withhold ad dollars from the platform formerly known as Twitter. The conservative video platform Rumble also sued GARM and some of its members, making similar claims in its suit. GARM shut down shortly after X's suit was filed. Its parent organization, the World Federation of Advertisers, denied wrongdoing but said GARM didn't have the resources to fight the legal action. In a May legal filing seeking to dismiss the X case, the defendants said the lawsuit was an attempt to use the courts win back business X had "lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." In a statement, the WFA said GARM provided tools to help advertisers better exercise their freedom to choose where to place their ads in the best interests of their brands, and that it was always voluntary and pro-competitive. "WFA will continue to fight these allegations, and we are confident that the US judicial system will find in our favor," the statement said. While GARM is no more, the lawsuits and the Judiciary Committee's investigation continue, and the FTC has joined the brand safety battle under the Trump administration. Ferguson, the FTC chair, has said that maintaining a free ad market and free speech is a top priority and that he hopes other ad companies will adopt policies similar to those in the Omnicom-IPG consent decree. That notice extends to other advertising vendors in the brand safety sphere. In May, the FTC sent sweeping civil investigative demands to media watchdogs and rating firms, including Media Matters and Ad Fontes Media, seeking information about their brand safety practices. In one such letter, viewed by BI, the FTC sought documents related to relationships with GARM, the publicly traded ad verification firms Integral Ad Science and DoubleVerify, and other entities that track and characterize "misinformation," "hate speech," "false" or "deceptive" content, and other similar categories. While the FTC's actions have made many in the ad industry nervous, some execs consider much of brand safety to be, as Stagwell's Penn puts it, a "fabricated issue." Penn said there were only limited situations in which brands might really be negatively affected by where their ads appeared. "From the polling I've done, conservatives think that they were being censored and demonetized, and liberals think they were being censored, so nobody was particularly happy about what was going on," Penn said. (Stagwell owns the public opinion and advisory firm The Harris Poll.) Will the brand safety crackdown benefit news publishers? Execs at The Daily Wire say the scrutiny on brand safety was warranted and has gotten results. "My team is inside of the bigger agencies, having discussions, whereas the door was automatically shut 12 to 16 months ago," said The Daily Wire's SVP of ad revenue, Christine Hoffmann. "We're getting business from Fortune 500 companies, like Chevron, like Amazon, like Paramount, and that was business that was nonexistent to us." Other conservative news outlets, including Fox News and The National Review, have also noticed a bump in advertising interest since Trump took office for the second time. Ad industry insiders previously told BI this reflected advertisers' realization that half of the country voted for Trump, but that it could also be a signal of advertisers hedging against political risk. The notion that the crackdown on brand safety will provide a long-term bump to news publishers is untested and, for many industry insiders, feels unlikely. An executive from the media buying giant GroupM testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year that just 1.28% of its clients' global ad budgets went toward news outlets. Meanwhile, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon — with their superior scale and adtech — are set to take in more than half of global ad spending outside China this year, according to the latest forecast from the World Advertising Research Center. Omnicom has agreed to be audited to demonstrate its compliance with the FTC's proposed consent decree, which also includes an agreement not to create block lists, unless requested to do so by clients. The FTC's provisional agreement says Omnicom-IPG can't collude with other firms to steer client ad spend based on political ideologies, which might cause some advertisers to simply opt to avoid news altogether. As BI previously reported, some ad industry insiders and analysts think the government's crackdown on brand safety is an overreach that will hurt publishers of all kinds while further consolidating power with the tech giants. New tools could help brands avoid the censorship label, but there's no room for GARM 2.0 Some in the ad industry tell BI they're hopeful that brand safety could enter an apolitical era, powered by tech rather than individual decisions over blunt filters. "My view is that AI will bring greater nuance to brand safety — making it more effective for buyers and less restrictive for sellers," said David Kohl, cofounder of the performance marketing firm Symitri. Kohl said startups like Mobian are building models that assess context, user sentiment, and real-time ad performance to identify which media environments deliver and which don't. Elsewhere, Stagwell is creating what Penn describes as a politically neutral news marketplace, in partnership with the adtech company The Trade Desk, enabling advertisers to buy multiple news sites at once, according to demographics. While brand safety might become more tech-enabled, it seems unlikely there will be a GARM 2.0 for some time yet. "It would be far too easy to become a target," said Lisa Macpherson, a former marketing executive who now serves as the policy director of Public Knowledge, a tech policy consumer advocacy group. Just ask the advertising agency group Dentsu. Late last year, Dentsu quickly exited its involvement with the creation of a new coalition that had intended to encourage ad investments in "credible" news. Days after the press release about the coalition was published, the House Judiciary Committee requested documents from the ad firm, having noticed similarities to GARM. In response, Dentsu said it had decided "not to pursue the initiative" nor "pursue any other effort with similar aims." Macpherson said advertisers would continue to do what's necessary to protect their investments in their brands. Yet, as the threat of lawsuits and document demands related to GARM rumbles on, people in the ad industry will likely avoid using the phrase "brand safety" in emails or marketing materials. "They may describe it differently," Macpherson said. "They will be very careful to couch it in language that evokes their constitutional right" to send ad dollars or not spend money on certain media outlets based on the suitability for their individual brands, she added. Zaneis of TAG said the recent government and legal scrutiny of brand safety practices might have been the jolt the industry needed, forcing marketers to pay closer attention to an issue that had gotten out of hand. "We may not like how we got here as an industry, but it's where we should have been all along," Zaneis said.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Steve Bannon Attacks Elon Musk Over New Party: 'You're Not American'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Steve Bannon has attacked Elon Musk over his plans to create a new political party. Speaking on his War Room podcast, President Donald Trump's former chief strategist called out the South African-born billionaire, who has U.S. citizenship, and said he was "not American." The Context On Saturday, Musk—who supported Trump during the 2024 presidential election campaign and who the president put in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency before the pair fell out—announced he was forming a new political party called the "America Party." He had previously posted a poll on July 4, asking respondents if they wanted a new party, with 65.4 percent saying that they supported the idea. Steve Bannon is seen at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 21, 2025. Steve Bannon is seen at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 21, 2025. Credit: Annabelle Gordon/CNP Photo by: Annabelle Gordon - CNP/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote: "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom," citing the poll. As a foreign-born U.S. citizen, Musk cannot run for president but he can support third-party candidates, who can put themselves on the ballot in every state, if they have enough signatures to support their bid. It is rare for third-party candidates to break through significantly. What To Know On his podcast on Friday Bannon said: "The foul, the buffoon. Elmo the Mook, formerly known as Elon Musk, Elmo the Mook. He's today, in another smear, and this—only a foreigner could do this—think about it, he's got up on, he's got up on Twitter right now, a poll about starting an America Party, a non-American starting an America Party." He added: "No, brother, you're not an American. You're a South African. We take enough time and prove the facts of that, you should be deported because it's a crime of what you did—among many." What People Are Saying Responding to a clip of Bannon's comments that was posted on X, Musk wrote: "The fat, drunken slob called Bannon will go back to prison and this time for a long time. He has a lifetime of crime to pay for." Dafydd Townley, an American politics expert at the University of Portsmouth, previously told Newsweek that "third parties do not tend to have a long lifetime in American politics," adding that Musk's new party "would likely split the Republican vote, potentially resulting in a Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, at least in the short term, due to the winner-takes-all electoral system." What Happens Next It is not known how the party will be structured and what other figures will be involved in it. Whether it manages to break through the two-party system and enjoy success remains to be seen.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Ex-fighter jet pilot Stephen Fuhr is on a mission to change how we arm the military
OTTAWA - Not that long ago, former air force fighter pilot Stephen Fuhr was just one among many voices in Canada complaining about the way the federal government makes big defence purchasing decisions. At no point, he said, did it occur to him that he would wind up in his current position - as the prime minister's point person for fixing Canada's sclerotic military procurement system. 'I find it very ironic that I was one of many that complained ... why does it take so long?' said Fuhr, 59, in an interview with The Canadian Press. Fuhr knows first hand how the state of Canada's military procurement system feels to people on the ground - how byzantine government rules make vital equipment purchases move at molasses speed, leaving soldiers and pilots without the tools they need to fight a modern conflict. The once-prominent critic of former prime minister Stephen Harper government's management of defence - notably the original F-35 stealth fighter procurement process - is stepping up to change how the system works. Prime Minister Mark Carney named Fuhr secretary of state for defence procurement on May 13, giving him a new, narrowly focused junior role in cabinet. The Carney government's focus on reforming defence procurement is happening as new threats emerge on the world stage - and as Canada and other NATO allies come under heavy pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to ramp up defence spending by a staggering amount. Canada is also looking for ways to bolster its domestic defence industry and partner more with Europe as it pivots away from a more isolationist and protectionist United States. For the first time in a long time, the military is a core government priority. 'I feel good about it,' Fuhr said. 'Canadians are supportive of us being more involved in defence spending. There's a big opportunity for our industries and businesses in defence and being able to pull our weight on the world stage with our defence relationships.' It's also a moment of uncertainty - for Carney's government, for Canada and the world. Fuhr's background in the air force trained him to prepare for the unexpected. On Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into major U.S. buildings, Fuhr was in Inuvik, where he was flying a CF-18 on force-projection exercises. He spent the security crisis patrolling the Arctic skies as events unfolded south of the border, then was sent to CFB Comox on Vancouver Island, where he was kept on alert until Canada relaxed its air defence posture. 'It was pretty surreal,' he said. 'In the moment, we don't know if there's more. We just know these airplanes are coming and they have to land somewhere.' He was in the Royal Canadian Air Force for two decades and at one point was in charge of overseeing all of Canada's CF-18 Hornets. Formerly a conservative-inclined voter, he made the jump into federal politics with the Liberals a decade ago after becoming frustrated with the contentious F-35 purchase. Fuhr warned that the cost of the deal was doomed to explode and that the process had gone awry. He was right: the budget for the F-35 purchase has since ballooned and Ottawa is conducting a review of the project in response to the Trump administration's trade chaos. Still, Fuhr shrugs off the idea that he would chime in with his opinions about the F-35 at the cabinet table. 'My strong opinions are 10 years old, and a lot has changed in 10 years,' the Kelowna MP said. But he could end up helping to decide how the next big-ticket items roll out. Carney made numerous defence commitments in the spring election. One of them was a promise to establish a new defence procurement agency to speed up equipment purchases for the military, and that agency falls under Fuhr's mandate. The party's election platform pledged legislative changes to 'expand risk-based approaches' to purchasing approvals, 'centralize expertise from across government' and 'streamline the way we buy equipment for the military.' Canada's military has suffered from peacetime budget woes under governments of various stripes since the Cold War ended. Major items of military equipment are nearing the end of their usable lifespan and new purchases are moving slowly through a risk-averse and slow-moving bureaucracy. For the past half century, military purchasing decisions tended to involve multiple government departments. Carney's plan for this new agency would create one main point of contact, as in wartime. 'We're trapped outside the technology cycle, which is a really difficult place to be, and we have to get it done faster. It has to be more organized. It has to be easier for industry,' Fuhr said. Canada, in other words, is pushing for a military comeback. Fuhr is fresh off of a comeback of his own. He became a Liberal MP in 2015, when he rallied support from unlikely corners like the local Green Party, whose candidate stepped down to endorse Fuhr. A former chair of the House of Commons defence committee, he's been around the political block. But he was defeated in 2019 by Conservative Tracy Gray. He didn't run in 2021 but returned to the ballot in April, and this time he defeated Gray. This isn't the first time the government has tried to reform procurement. It's also not the first time there's been a cabinet-level position tied to procurement. The Harper government tapped Julian Fantino as associate minister of defence to overhaul procurement, and Justin Trudeau's Liberals promised multiple defence procurement reforms in the 2015 and 2019 elections. Neither government moved the needle much - and both failed to spend enough to address the Canadian Armed Forces equipment gap. Fuhr insisted it's different this time. 'If it was ever going to happen, it's going to happen now,' he said. He said Canada has to make a major 'lift' to meet its alliance defence commitments and Carney 'wants to get it done.' When asked what he brings to the role, Fuhr pointed not to his time in the air but to his work on the ground with the military and his family's aerospace business, SkyTrac Systems, which they eventually sold. 'I know what it's like for industry to try and get involved in defence procurement because I lived that life for a while,' he said. 'I bring a well-rounded skill set, not just I flew airplanes.' Fuhr might be out of the military but he can't stay out of the skies. Right up until he decided to run for office again, he was testing and certifying pilots on instrument ratings, ensuring they can fly by instruments alone. The retired air force major in his spare time flies a Vans RV8, an kit-built two-seater aircraft he purchased several years ago. The small, low-wing recreational craft is painted to look like a fighter jet - he even has a shark mouth painted on the nose of the plane. He may not have much time to get up in the air this summer. He'll be in and out of meetings with officials drafting up blueprints for the new procurement agency, sorting out its size and scope. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
