Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, it feels like the election is approaching at lightning speed. Less than seven weeks away now.
Gibbs Léger: I know. It felt like a month ago we were, like, “Oh, that seems so far away.” Now it’s like, “Oh, it’s like tomorrow, basically.”
Seeberger: Happens every time, I swear.
Gibbs Léger: Every time.
Seeberger: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and especially now having gotten past the debate, it’s like, OK, between that, the conventions in the rearview mirror—
Gibbs Léger: Yeah.
Seeberger: —we just got to keep pressing ahead. Well, with the election on the brain, I heard you had a great conversation this week about some important issues voters are keeping their eyes on.
Gibbs Léger: That’s exactly right. I spoke with Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and a former CAP-er, about housing and the state of the economy.
Seeberger: It sounds like it’s a really important conversation. But first, we’ve got to get to some news.
Gibbs Léger: We do, Colin. And we’ve got to address the attempted attack on former President Trump over the weekend.
As I’m sure you’ve seen by now, the Secret Service apprehended an apparent gunman near Donald Trump’s golf resort at Mar-a-Lago. Now I want to start, of course, by condemning this latest threat against Donald Trump’s life. While I don’t share Trump’s vision for the country, politicians have a right to express their views without the threat of violence. Full stop. Period. That’s it.
But we also need leaders in America who understand that in moments of crisis, you turn the temperature down and not up, and that’s not what extremists on the right have been doing. Just one day after the shooter was apprehended and Trump was rushed to safety, he went on Fox News and said that President Biden was somehow to blame for the attempted attack, calling him, quote, “the enemy […] within.”
That rhetoric is dangerous, and it’s wrong. And you want to know why? Because there’s a direct line between the violence that we saw on January 6, bomb threats at elementary and middle schools in Springfield, Ohio, and the attempted shooting of Donald Trump on Sunday. The rhetoric is coming from a very particular group, and it makes all of us less safe.
Many Democrats and Republicans alike have pushed back on this, but there’s a group on the extreme right who refuses to do so. It’s the same extremists who have used threats of political violence for years, who have demonized LGBTQI+ Americans and people of color. They’ve even raised the specter of a bloody second American revolution, which Trump has doubled down on.
And he recently suggested enforcing his immigration plans could be, quote, “bloody.” That rhetoric is completely unacceptable and dangerous. So, folks are absolutely right to shine a light on the harm that these threats of political violence cause in this country.
Seeberger: That’s exactly right, Daniella. But even as we’re talking about this, Donald Trump’s extreme rhetoric is putting people in this country in severe danger.
Speaking of Springfield, Ohio, we all heard Trump’s racist lies about Haitian immigrants—people who are here in this country legally, I must add—during the debate. His comments were so despicable and outrageous that I’m not even going to entertain repeating them. Well Clark State College in Springfield, Ohio, actually closed this entire week over safety concerns; the FBI is investigating threats at Wittenberg University; and elementary and middle school students have seen their schools canceled and had to go into virtual learning due to ongoing bomb threats in the community. People in Springfield are scared to go outside, and some have even been questioned and threatened at work.
Meanwhile, Trump, who complains when political violence targets him, hasn’t seemed to learn anything about the recent threats. JD Vance and Donald Trump have both been asked about are they concerned about what’s happening, and yet they continue, even in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise, to continue to throw out unfounded claims and conspiracies.
Gibbs Léger: Mm-hmm.
Seeberger: Trump is planning to visit Springfield soon and isn’t bowing down from spewing this garbage. In fact, he singled out Haitian migrants in Springfield as being at the top of his list for mass deportation if he becomes president.
Gibbs Léger: The legal residents, as you pointed out.
Seeberger: Yes, yes, that’s right. This is the kind of talk that incites hate crimes against vulnerable people—not just in the Haitian community, but immigrants and people of color across the country.
Each day that this false story is perpetuated, the risk of violence increases. And every story about this nonsense leads us further away about talking about the real concerns the American people have.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. You’re exactly right, Colin. And speaking of those real issues that Americans are facing, there’s a lot happening right now on reproductive rights.
And here to talk to us about developments in Congress and around the country is the senior director of the Women’s Initiative at CAP Action Fund, Kate Kelly. Kate, thank you so much for joining us.
Kate Kelly: Thank you for having me.
Gibbs Léger: So we are seeing the impacts of extreme abortion bans all across the country. ProPublica reported just this week on the cases of two mothers in Georgia who died because they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care. So who were they, and why weren’t they able to access the care they needed under Georgia’s abortion ban?
Kelly: Yeah, I think it’s really important, as you said, to understand who they were.
There was Amber Nicole Thurman and also Candi Miller. These were two women who lived in Georgia, both of whom were already mothers. So this is extremely important to understand that the vast majority of people who get abortions in this country are already parents.
Seeberger: That’s right.
Kelly: So these are people who have other children to already take care of, and that’s part of the decision and that’s part of what’s happening.
Both of these women had taken abortion pills. In their state, abortion is already banned, and the way that a lot of people get abortions these days is order pills online, unsupervised or supervised by a telehealth visit. So in their case, they didn’t have a medical provider to consult. They were just taking the pills on their own. They were forced to do so because they had no access to care.
And in the case of Amber, so she had taken the pills and had a very rare complication. Abortion pills are safe, they are very effective, and they’re used by millions of people around the world to terminate pregnancy. But there can be complications, and in those cases, you need to be able to consult a doctor or seek care.
Seeberger: Under the supervision of a physician.
Kelly: Exactly, exactly. And so Amber had taken these pills on her own at home. She had not expelled all of the fetal tissue. And so what she needed to do is go to the hospital and be able to get that care. And she lived in Georgia, and she lived in a place that had made that procedure a felony. So the procedure she needed—it’s an easy procedure, almost all hospitals are equipped to do this procedure.
Seeberger: Very common, right?
Kelly: It’s very common. You don’t even have to be in a hospital to get the procedure. But in Georgia, it had been made illegal, and any doctor who violated this new law faced up to a decade in prison.
So these doctors—who are medical professionals, not lawyers, not policy people—they are very afraid that they will be punished, that their licenses will be taken away, that they could go to jail for up to 10 years. And so when someone presents and needs this procedure, they are put in a very unjust conundrum where they have to decide, “Am I going to provide this care, or am I going to go to jail?”
And so Amber was in the hospital when this happened.
Gibbs Léger: Wow.
Kelly: She was in the hospital. She had gone to the hospital in order to seek this care and was laying in her hospital bed, was worried about what was going to happen to her six-year-old son—the child she already had—and her family. It took 20 hours for the doctors to operate, and by then it was too late.
Seeberger: Gosh.
Kelly: So this is someone who had sought care. This is in a hospital. She is in a hospital where they can perform this procedure very easily, but there’s delays and delays and delays because these doctors are put in an impossible position where they have to violate the Hippocratic oath. They have to let someone die rather than perform a very, very easy and noninvasive procedure. So that’s what happened to her and also the other woman who died, Candi Miller.
Seeberger: I mean, it’s just heartbreaking. It’s also heartbreaking to me that we see fertility care like IVF [in vitro fertilization] getting caught up in the crosshairs of anti-abortion extremism.
We’ve heard a number of lawmakers who are against abortion claim that they want to protect IVF access, but when given the chance again this week in the Senate, they overwhelmingly voted down a bill to enshrine those protections. Can you talk a bit about this and what it really shows about the priorities of these folks?
Kelly: So it’s important to understand this in the larger context of not only access to abortion, but in the case of reproductive justice. So reproductive justice is a framework created by some incredible Black leaders in the 1990s to expand the project to not only secure the right to avoid forced pregnancy or be able to control whether or not you are pregnant, but also to be able to have the families you need and to be able to raise them in a safe environment.
And so I think IVF fits into this larger framework of reproductive justice, where people who need assisted reproductive technologies in order to have the families they need—they’re going after this now. And this was always the plan. These attacks against abortion were only the beginning, and totally demolishing Roe v. Wade was their entry point into the larger project to completely control the reproductive lives of all Americans.
And so that is what this is. It’s not just a one-off. It’s not just an accident that they mention it. It is part of this decades-long crusade they have to completely infiltrate and put themselves in the decision-making process.
And so when it comes to the IVF vote, the Senate voted on it again because Republican lawmakers say one thing because they know IVF obviously is wildly popular across all parties, and people want people to get the care they need particularly in creating their families. And this happens to Republicans. This happens to Democrats. This happens to lots of families who need this health care.
And so they forced the vote in order to show who really supports it and who doesn’t. And I think it’s also important to understand this isn’t coming out of nowhere because as we know, earlier this year, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF should be considered as children under state law. So this is a much larger fight connected to this anti-choice movement objective of taking away rights from women and giving them to frozen embryos.
Seeberger: And this is all a consequence of the far-right, extreme majority on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, throwing not just abortion rights, but fertility care writ large into total chaos across the country.
Kelly: Yeah. And you have to also consider that the Supreme Court—I believe it currently has seven of the nine justices were raised Catholic, and this anti-IVF position really is doctrine. So it’s really about legislating doctrine—a specific doctrine, not just one Christian denomination in particular, but really about legislating Catholic doctrine on everyone.
So it’s not about religious freedom or all these different things that they claim it is. It’s about enforcing one particular position, one particular religious doctrine, on everyone in the country.
Gibbs Léger: Separation of church and state, really just a suggestion to some folks. So as we approach November, voters in many states are taking issues with abortion access into their own hands via ballot referenda.
So what impact do you think those will have this fall? And why are some courts and elected officials, like what we saw recently in Missouri, trying to stop them from appearing on the ballot to begin with?
Kelly: So I think it’s really important to talk about ballot initiatives because it’s very positive. It’s about taking people power back.
When you’re talking about the dire, dire landscape of women like Amber and Candi dying because they can’t receive very simple, necessary health care, it’s very heavy. But when you think about potential of people to take that power back—and that’s what’s happening in the states—it’s very exciting.
So there are 11 ballot initiatives, and there was one in 2023 that was successful, and then I believe there were six in 2022. So every time it’s been on the ballot, there have been positives. So for example, in 2022, they defeated the anti-choice measures and passed the abortion access measures.
And I feel very strongly that will be the case in all of these different states, and that’s the reason they’re trying to keep them off the ballot.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Kelly: They know they’ll be popular. They know abortion is wildly popular across every demographic in every state in this country. People want to be able to access the care they need, and that doesn’t matter what party you affiliate with. You want you and your loved ones to be able to get the care they need.
Seeberger: Hear, hear. Kate Kelly, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Kelly: You’re welcome. Thanks for having me.
Seeberger: Well, that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Rohit Chopra in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Rohit Chopra is the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He previously served as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission and in senior roles at the Department of Education and the CFPB. He was also a senior fellow here at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Rohit Chopra, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Rohit Chopra: Thanks for having me, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: So just this week the Federal Reserve announced they were cutting interest rates for the first time in four years, I believe. Can you tell us what this means for both consumers and small businesses, and how it will impact things like mortgages, credit cards, and auto loans?
Chopra: Well here’s what we saw starting in 2022: When the Fed started raising rates, consumers felt pinched in so many places in their life. We saw mortgages, for example, go from under 3 percent on average and zoom up. Credit card interest rates went up even higher than the Fed raised rates, leading to over $100 billion in interest and fees that people were paying. It was more expensive to buy a car. And of course, it’s had a real impact on the cost of student loans.
So we’re now seeing the start of cutting rates, and I want to make sure that consumers and families actually benefit from this. Too often, we see that those who have big stock portfolios or big investors can benefit when they can raise more cheap money, pumping up the price of assets. It’s critical that households and families can get relief on their mortgage, their credit card, and more.
Gibbs Léger: In the past, you’ve spoken about how Black and Hispanic homeowners have benefited less from rate cuts than their white counterparts. So can you talk to our listeners about why that is and how we can avoid it this time around?
Chopra: So one of the main ways that monetary policy, the Fed’s price setting, transmits to the household sector and families is through mortgages. Mortgages are the biggest piece of consumer debt by far, around 70 percent. It’s people’s biggest asset. But we’ve taken a hard look at past refinancing cycles.
And what many researchers have found is that those in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods didn’t necessarily get a chance to get those savings through refinancing due to rate cuts compared to others. And that’s even when we control for income, for home equity, and credit profile.
And Daniella, you know that so much of our wealth gap today is not just due to current circumstances. It’s really driven by policies that gave a leg up to some and pushed some people behind. We know that our country has a history of redlining, where government mortgages were not issued to people in certain neighborhoods. We know that certain veterans’ benefits after World War II and others were not given to those in certain neighborhoods.
So for us, we really look at the ways in which this does get transmitted, and often, mortgage refinancing happens quickly to those with big mortgages, those who are affluent. But it’s just so important that we do work to make sure that everyone can cash in on these benefits. The CFPB is really going to make sure that redlining, including modern forms of digital redlining, aren’t setting those homeowners behind.
In the past few years, we have revitalized with the attorney general and the assistant attorney general for civil rights our mortgage discrimination and anti-redlining program. But we’re doing a lot—from appraisal bias and more—to make sure those appraisals are accurate and the value of your home is not based on the photos on your mantle. So we’ve got a lot to do, and it’s just critically important we get that right.
Gibbs Léger: The work that you’re doing is so critical. I, like many others, have my own appraisal bias story that I will share with you off pod.
We talk about homeowners, and hopefully all homeowners will be able to see the benefits of this interest rate cut. But the CFPB is also working to help them in other ways, including cracking down on junk fees. We’ve heard the president talk a lot about this in his agenda, but when I think of junk fees, I think about airlines and Ticketmaster. So what are some of the junk fees Americans face in securing housing, whether they’re homeowners or renters?
Chopra: Junk fees have been creeping across sectors of the economy. And you’re right—for certain things like a concert ticket, it may feel like price gouging—it is price gouging—and maybe it’s just inconvenient. But for so many people, those junk fees actually set them on a treadmill of debt or it blocks them from opportunity.
So we have really worked very hard when it comes to overdraft fees, credit card fees, so many in your financial life, and it adds up to tens of billions of dollars per year. We have taken enforcement actions against some of the biggest banks in the country for doing things like reordering your payments in order to trigger more junk fees or charging for fake or worthless services that they didn’t even provide.
But when it comes to housing, there’s lots of fees that push up the cost even to just get a mortgage. These big fees drain down payments and make it harder to get ahead. But I’m really worried, too, about rental junk fees. I’ve seen stories and the data about how some corporate landlords can advertise that they have rental housing available and take in hundreds of application fees when maybe they only have one unit. We’ve seen something called move-out fees. When you rent an apartment, you often have to put out your first month rent, security deposits, sometimes a last month rent, and now there’s more and more fees.
This move-out fee really gets me because a renter might get a notice of a big rent increase, and they think, “OK, I’m going to move.” But it turns out that they have to pay some sort of hefty junk move-out fee, which all of a sudden changes the math, and they might not even have the funds to front all these fees and up-front costs just to move to a safe and affordable home.
So we know that some of the big corporate landlords, some private equity-owned rental housing companies, and more are looking at all the ways to harvest more from renters, and it’s having a big impact on their economic life. And together, across government, we’re looking to crack down on them to really make sure that housing can be more affordable.
Gibbs Léger: So this administration’s crackdown on junk fees is part of a larger effort to lower costs altogether and to mount a strong economic recovery. So what’s your perspective on the current state of the economy, and how did we get to this point? And I really am interested in hearing how you think consumers are faring today.
Chopra: Yeah. So look, there’s so many positive signs in terms of a solid labor market that unemployment in the past few years has come down so much. But I still worry about some of the exploitative pricing practices that we see not just in the grocery aisle, but online and in our daily lives.
Daniella, I remember in the midst of the pandemic where you heard excuses for raising prices related to supply chain, and some of that was real. There were shortages that led to input costs going up. Like diapers—there was a certain type of input, a pulp input, that there was a shortage for. But the thing I worry about is that those supply chain issues have really eased, but a lot of the prices have not come down. And that’s often because it’s two or three companies that make all the products in a particular category.
When you walk down that cereal aisle, it may look like you have 50 choices, but it’s really just two or three companies that make most of them. The same is true for so many different household items, including things like diapers. So we have a lot we need to do to make sure that companies are not using inflation as an excuse to gouge people.
We sure see it in their earnings calls and what they tell Wall Street. They’re pretty happy that they can pump up prices, not because input costs are going up now for them, but because they want to make more profits for their shareholders. I really think when it comes to food, when it comes to so many sectors, we need to instill some real discipline into this market, make it more competitive, stop some of the practices that lead to exploitation and price gouging.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I totally agree. I just recently learned that many of the grocery stores that we see are all owned by one or two companies as well, so I’m really glad that you guys are on the case there.
Chopra: Well look at this big merger that’s pending right now between Kroger and Albertsons. The CFPB did an analysis that showed that Kroger and some big dollar store chains are now charging fees when you use your debit card for cash back. That had long been something that was not charged, for free. And when Kroger purchased another regional chain, they started introducing those fees there.
So we really worry that when there are these big conglomerates and they’re the only game in town, what choice does a consumer have but to pay out of pocket and get ripped off? And that’s something all of us need to be focused on changing, not just for the benefit of families, but for our economy overall.
Gibbs Léger: Agree, agree. So we like to try and end all our interviews on a positive note. So I would like to ask you, what are some of the CFPB’s biggest wins from this year, and what’s your focus area for the rest of this year?
Chopra: Well we have gotten back billions of dollars—
Gibbs Léger: With a B.
Chopra: —with a B—for people. That means that every single person, often consumers, are almost paying an extra tax when companies commit fraud, and we have dramatically amped up our efforts to hold companies and individual executives accountable for this.
We have done so much when it comes to repeat offenders like Wells Fargo and others that seem to be in a rinse, repeat cycle of cheating people. So we’re going to keep doing that, and more importantly, we were able to do this under the cloud of a Supreme Court case that questioned our viability. There’s a lot of people with big money trying to defund and kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and that’s because we are a bulwark against some of this greed, corruption, and abuse.
We’ve got a lot going when it comes to credit cards. We’re really making sure that you’re not being cheated with fake fees. We’re protecting people’s points and rewards that they rely on to finance their family trip. We’re also looking hard at people’s privacy, especially when it comes to the underworld of data brokers who are harvesting data on us 24/7.
So there’s a lot to come from the CFPB and others who are ensuring a fair, transparent, and competitive economy. And President Biden and others have been strongly in favor of making sure that not only are we chugging along, but that we’re holding accountable those who are gouging and cheating people.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Well, Director Chopra, I want to thank you for joining us on “The Tent.” And I want to thank you for all of the work that you’re doing on behalf of the American people.
Chopra: Well, thank you so much, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: Thank you.
Gibbs Léger: Well, that’s going to do it for us this week, folks. Be sure to go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go, Colin—
Seeberger: Yes, Daniella?
Gibbs Léger: This football season.
Seeberger: We’re two weeks in—
Gibbs Léger: Yes.
Seeberger: —right? Three weeks for college. I’m already exhausted.
Gibbs Léger: For you, it’s like a tale of—what was it, A Tale of Two Cities?
Seeberger: I know, it is. I did have my college football team, the Texas Longhorns, became the number one team in the country for the first time in about 15 years or so.
Gibbs Léger: Congratulations.
Seeberger: Unseating Georgia—
Gibbs Léger: Good.
Seeberger: —who barely eked out a win against Kentucky. Really came down to the wire there. And I have to say, UT looked pretty good, even though we didn’t have Quinn Ewers, who’s our quarterback. Wasn’t able to play, I guess he strained his abdomen or something like that.
Gibbs Léger: Who was your quarterback? Who played? Who was it?
Seeberger: Quinn Ewers?
Gibbs Léger: No, no, no. Who was your backup?
Seeberger: OK. Archie Manning.
Gibbs Léger: Listen, I feel like I get to take some sort of credit or be happy about that because he’s a Manning.
Seeberger: Yes. We will allow it.
Gibbs Léger: Thank you. I need something because it ain’t coming with the Giants this year.
Seeberger: I mean—
Gibbs Léger: Listen.
Seeberger: Daniel Jones—
Gibbs Léger: Ugh, Danny Dimes. I like the beard. I had to say something nice. I am just furious that we have spent so much money on this quarterback, but we should have won this game. If it weren’t for our kicker trying to be the hero and run down—
Seeberger: I’ve never seen anything like it.
Gibbs Léger: But I have seen that. I have seen kickers sprint down the field to try and stop a play and pull a hammy. It happens a lot.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: And if we had him, we wouldn’t have tried to go for two. We would have won this game. And Malik Nabers, I actually felt bad for him. That’s our number one pick for us. He caught everything all day—beautiful—except the one catch we really needed him to catch that would have won us the game. That was the one he dropped.
Seeberger: You know, poor Malik. I felt bad.
Gibbs Léger: I felt bad. I don’t even know who I was angry at. I was just angry at the world.
Seeberger: Well, that’s fair. I will say, speaking of your opponent, the Washington Commanders—
Gibbs Léger: Boo.
Seeberger: —I am very much missing our former defensive coordinator who now works for the Commanders, Dan Quinn. Honestly, I really wanted him to replace [Mike] McCarthy, the Cowboys’ coach.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah.
Seeberger: This is McCarthy’s last year of his contract. And like, unless we’re winning the Super Bowl or going to the NFC championship—
Gibbs Léger: He’s not getting it—
Seeberger: —he ain’t getting a new contract. But God, I was really hoping that we could keep Quinn and hold out and make him our head coach.
Gibbs Léger: I have to say, I hate The Commanders with every fiber of my being equally with the Cowboys, but ever since Dan Snyder left and this new ownership, they’ve been making really good moves, and it pains me to say that.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: Quinn was an awesome hire. They have a really promising new quarterback, and I don’t like it, Colin.
Seeberger: And you know what? They’re getting rid of problematic staffers.
Gibbs Léger: That, too. That helps.
Seeberger: That was wild. I don’t know if you saw that news report a few weeks ago, but—
Gibbs Léger: Yeah.
Seeberger: —yeah. The office, the players, the coaching—everybody at the Commanders right now, I feel like, is headed up and moving in a good direction. And we’ll see if they can battle with the Cowboys—
Gibbs Léger: I hope not.
Seeberger: —with the Eagles for who can win the NFC East division.
Gibbs Léger: I like how you didn’t even bother putting the Giants in that category, Colin.
Seeberger: I mean, OK. I’m sorry.
Gibbs Léger: That’s really rude, but unfortunately, it is accurate. I can’t even pretend. I mean, we may go 0 and 16 or 17. However many games we have, we may not win one this year.
Seeberger: I will be here with sympathy and welcome you with open arms to root for Archie Manning, who sounds like he’s also going to play this weekend.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I’m excited about that. I will give you that. But I thought you were going to invite me to vote for the Cowboys, so I’m like, come on.
Seeberger: I’m not that bad.
Gibbs Léger: All right, thank you. All right. On that note, we’re out of here. Take care of yourselves. It’s fall allergy season. Yes, that is a thing.
Seeberger: Fall allergy season?
Gibbs Léger: Yes, like new pollen, weeds, ragweed, and some other stuff. Yeah, my stuff has been on fire, me and my child.
Seeberger: OK. Well, go hit a pumpkin patch, drink some cider, and enjoy all of the loveliness of fall.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, and we’ll talk to you next week.
“The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and cohosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer. Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests of “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.