Who?
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) — Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets
LISTEN: Laslo & Burlison
Ask a Pol asks:
We’ve heard different things — what happened with the cancelation of this week’s scheduled SCIF briefing with UFO whistleblower David Grusch?
Key Burlison:
“The whole goal was to get Grusch and his expertise in the room with the SCIF, and given that we were on the cusp of getting that approved and the fact that — the other reason was that we had, everybody was jammed with meetings,” Rep. Eric Burlison exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “Basically, we're moving it to that May 12th week — that will be UAP Week.”
UPDATE on Grusch’s clearance status:
“He at least got Top Secret Clearance,” Burlison says.
Yeah?
“So right now he's working on, it's like clearance to talk about the special programs — the Special Access Programs,” Burlison adds. “I'm not like really savvy on the…”
Yeah? Me neither. But you're confident Pentagon gave him enough approval to…?
“Well, enough to like, to get into a little bit more of the conversation than we otherwise would,” Burlison says.
Caught our ear:
“UAP Week,” Burlison tells us.
Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO), slightly edited for clarity.
TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Eric Burlison (4-30-2025)
SCENE: Rep. Eric Burlison’s making his way from the US Capitol back to his office across the street when Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo catches up with him and proceeds to walk him to the entrance.
Matt Laslo: “What happened with the SCIF briefing this week? I've heard different things.”
Eric Burlison: “We could not get, in time — the whole goal was to get Grusch and his expertise in the room with the SCIF.”
ML: “Yeah?”
EB: “And given that we were on the cusp of getting that approved and the fact that — the other reason was that we had, everybody was jammed with meetings.”
ML: “Yeah, because you guys just took a two week recess.”
EB: “It just makes sense that we're gonna have, basically, we're moving it to that May 12 week — that will be UAP Week.”
ML: “Yeah?”
SUBSCRIBER-ONLY CONTENT*
*Unless you read us for free on Reddit and really want us to fail as a startup UAP-focused news outlet… cheers, brah-duder…
EB: “So…”
ML: “Do you know — have you heard back about his clearance? Or is that part of it?”
EB: “Right now, he is — he at least got Top Secret Clearance.”
ML: “Yeah?”
EB: “So right now he's working on, it's like clearance to talk about the special programs — the Special Access Programs. So, I think it's like, TSSSI, or something like that — I'm not, I'm not like really savvy on the…”
ML: “Yeah? Me neither. But you're confident Pentagon gave him enough approval to…?”
EB: “Well, enough to like, to get into a little bit more of the conversation than we otherwise would.”
ML: “Yeah?”
EB: “But what we may end up having to do if we can't ultimately get that full approval, is we'll have to have a meeting where we basically say, ‘Okay, we will have — we’ll have to break it apart.”
ML: “Yeah?”
EB: “We have a portion of the meeting where it's top secret, and then a portion that — where Grusch would have to leave, and then we could have a further conversation.”
ML: “Interesting, but you guys could still…”
EB: “That's what I have proposed.”
ML: “Because, like, his public testimony — what, like, half of his comments were, ‘I can only talk about that in a classified setting,’ so just based on that alone, you guys kind of know some spots to go?”
Security barrier creeks open on Capitol grounds, distracting Burlison. .
ML: “Do you think that would be effective, but much better than what we had last year at a minimum?”
EB: “I'm sorry, can you repeat that?”
ML: “It would be — this would be progress?”
EB: “You mean to have this meeting?”
ML: “With Grusch — even if he doesn't get the full clearance back?”
EB: “Yeah, absolutely.”
ML: “Yeah?”
EB: “I think it will be. And I think that just having him be, obviously, he can provide me, and he is providing me with with the right questions to ask, but it would be much more effective if he were there.”
ML: “Yeah?”
EB: “You know, because, as you know, things move. I mean, every time I'm in a committee hearing we have five minutes of questions, you have what you have laid out at the beginning, and if you're doing your job, then you have to pivot based on how they respond, right?”
ML: “Yeah.”
EB: “And so that's what I think we have to be prepared for. And that's why I thought, I think at the end we’re going to have it, we just — if we had had it this week, we had almost no time, because of all the meetings that were happening, the markup meetings and everything. And so we're trying to — we're trying to carve out some time to do it…”
Laslo proceeds to ask him questions for a feature he’s working on about the DOGE Subcommittee he’s on…
FAST FORWARD: End of chat..
ML: “Have a good one, sir.”
Burlison enters the Longworth House Office Building, while Laslo turns around and heads back to the Capitol when Rep. Trey Nehls (R-TX) sees him.
Rep. Trey Nehls: “Wildman.”
ML: “Look at this guy. Where's your stogie?”
Nehls smiles broadly and lifts his hand with the stogie in it up over the railing that was blocking Laslo’s view.
ML: “There it is!”
Hey Matt, how can I buy you a beer?
Yessir! buymeacoffee.com/AskaPol
No SCI for Grusch no SCIF for Grusch no disclosure from Oversight clown car. (But good work, Matt. Keep bugging them.)
Can anyone explain the importance of Grusch’s restored security clearance? A clearance typically provides access to information to an individual so they can do a job, not so they can discuss that information with others. Maybe it’s needed simply to enter a SCIF? But why then all the effort to get Grusch into a SCIF last year during his testimony if he didn’t have a clearance? Also, Title 10 and Title 50 have explicit laws regarding how sensitive/secret intelligence and defense information gets shared with Congress and with whom specifically. How does a security clearance change an individual’s ability to comply with those laws.