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, are you ready for 2025? It’s here.
Gibbs Léger: No. I am not ready for 2025. I feel like this winter’s going to be a little bit too snowy and cold for my liking if the past week is an indication.
Seeberger: Yeah, we got a little taste this week. If you are in Washington, D.C., you know what we’re talking about. Our kids have been stuck at home the past few days as we all got—I don’t know what it was over where you live, but up by us, we got about 10 inches or so.
Gibbs Léger: Oh, that’s more than we got.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, we got about 6 1/2 inches. Just enough to be annoying, to close schools down. So, we’re back.
Seeberger: We’re back. We’re back. We survived, for me, what was the first time as a homeowner shoveling snow. I used to be in a building, and they’d have folks that would shovel snow. So for me as a Texan, this was a whole new experience.
Gibbs Léger: Ooh, did you love it?
Seeberger: Oh, it was just to die for. Yeah. Speaking of to die for—this is our first episode of the new year.
Seeberger: We’re back, baby.
Seeberger: And I hear you also had a great conversation to kick off 2025?
Gibbs Léger: That’s right. I spoke with former Ambassador Norm Eisen about the fourth anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, Donald Trump’s plan to pardon those who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and this little topic about how we try to save democracy.
Seeberger: Oh, that. An important conversation, to be sure, as we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20. But first, we’ve got to get to some news.
And I want to start off by sending our best wishes to the folks out in LA County who are staring down massive wildfires that have disrupted and forced the evacuation of thousands of people all across Southern California and who are being impacted by these devastating wildfires. We’re seeing homes, businesses, all being completely burnt down to the ground.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, it’s really devastating and really heartbreaking to see, and we hope that everyone is staying as safe as they possibly can. We all have friends and family who live out there, and just heed the warnings. When they tell you to get out, try to get out.
Now, we do have to cover some policy news.
Gibbs Léger: As many of you know, Mike Johnson was reelected speaker of the House last week. He may not have needed as many rounds of votes to secure the speakership as a Kevin McCarthy did, but we should be clear about why he won the backing of House Republicans and what his priorities are for this Congress.
First, let’s take a step back. This election made clear that the American people want their government to protect their pocketbooks, their way of life, and their health. So come January, you’d think that Republicans would have plans to, I don’t know, tackle inflation, lower drug costs, and make it a little bit easier for everyone to save money at the end of the month, right?
Gibbs Léger: Nope. Surprise, Colin. They don’t. Those plans were nowhere to be found. All MAGA Mike, Republicans in Congress, and their billionaire buddies like Elon Musk care about is their own self-interest. It’s why they are laser focused on hoarding power, on lining their own pocketbooks, and rewarding the billionaire class for their support. They are willing to cut vital programs that the American people rely on and to purge apolitical civil servants and the federal government like engineers and scientists to do it.
These plans will have serious consequences for the middle class and everyday Americans. And look no further than the initiative that Elon Musk has been shepherding, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. I really hate having to say that.
Seeberger: A meme agency of all meme agencies.
Gibbs Léger: I mean, honestly, it’s sort of perfect and disgusting. Now look, while there is unquestionably a lot of government that is in need of reform or is failing to fulfill its mission on behalf of the American people—
Seeberger: You could say that’s fair.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, that’s totally fair. But Musk and his MAGA minions have proposed plans that would put at risk government-provided health care for nearly 16 million veterans in this country, cut no-cost child care services that roughly 800,000 low-income people received through Head Start, jeopardize the heating and cooling assistance 7 million people get for their homes in this country—at a time when we’re facing multiple snowstorms and blizzards—and that’s not all.
MAGA Mike and the GOP in Congress also want to ram through massive tax cuts for MAGA’s richest billionaire buddies and the biggest corporations to reward them for their loyalty. And they’ll make the middle class pay for the bill. I mean, this is really dangerous stuff that could hurt ordinary people like you and me and many of our listeners, Colin.
Seeberger: It sure is, Daniella. And we’ve already seen a little bit of the level of disaster that can occur when you give billionaires like America’s oligarch, Elon Musk, this much influence.
Just last month, for instance, Musk actually pushed the government to the brink of a shutdown when he told MAGA Republicans to oppose a government funding deal that would have prevented American companies, including his very own Tesla, from getting rich at American’s expense by investing in China. Republicans fell in line after Musk promised primary challengers for those who opposed him, and he’s seen his wealth rise by—I’m not kidding—hundreds of billions of dollars ever since election day.
Seeberger: We can really only expect more of this type of behavior from MAGA Mike, Elon Musk, and Republicans in Congress over the months ahead. Americans don’t support their government being mortgaged to the highest bidder. And it really reeks of corruption, I’ve got to say.
I do have to point out earlier this week, you may have seen the news that Jeff Bezos’ Amazon is going to give $40 million to Melania Trump, the president-elect’s wife, for a new documentary on her. This at the same time, comes on the heels of Donald Trump dining with Jeff Bezos, whose workers right now are out on strike. And you think we’re going to hear a word from the president-elect about having those workers’ backs—
Seeberger: —when he’s getting $40 million from Jeff Bezos’ Amazon? I don’t think so. It’s clear that MAGA Republicans like Mike Johnson and Elon Musk pose the biggest risk to our government, our economic growth, and to families’ financial security. So, across the next four years, Democrats have to remind the American people of the corruption MAGA Republicans have brought to Washington.
I think we’re going to see it on full display when we see who’s prioritized in the bills that are passed by Congress, right? Is that tax reform bill going to cut taxes for the lowest-income and middle-class families, or is it got to primarily cut taxes for people at the top of the income spectrum? I’ll be watching closely as I know you will be as well.
But Democrats also, they really need to contrast their vision of delivering for the American people and making their lives better with this kind of rampant corruption and working for the billionaire class that we’re seeing for MAGA Republicans.
Gibbs Léger: That’s exactly right, Colin. Now, while we’re on the topic of Congress, there’s been a lot of talk from MAGA Republicans about a complicated legislative process called reconciliation.
Here to break down what that process is and what it could mean for Donald Trump’s agenda is Bobby Kogan, senior director of Federal Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Bobby, welcome back to the show.
Bobby Kogan: Hey, thanks so much for having me back.
Gibbs Léger: So, for our listeners who may not know what reconciliation means, can you explain what this process is and how it differs from the normal legislating that’s done on Capitol Hill? Why are Republicans looking at it as a mechanism to enact much of Donald Trump’s agenda?
Kogan: Sure. So, in the House of Representatives, you can do whatever you want. As long as you have a simple majority and can make it through the Rules Committee, you can pass your legislation. But in the Senate, you need 60 percent normally, right? It’s 100 senators, so you normally need 60 votes because there’s this thing called the filibuster. And if you don’t have 60 votes to invoke cloture and move past it, then 41 senators can stop any legislation from moving.
There are a couple exceptions, and reconciliation is the biggest and most prominent of them. It is a special expedited process where as long as you stick to its rules, you can pass it with only 51 votes instead of 60. So Republicans are looking to this because it is basically their best path to enact much of their agenda as long as they stick to the special rules.
Seeberger: So, Bobby, speaking of reconciliation, we’re hearing Republicans throw out all kinds of policies that they want to enact through this vehicle. Can you talk about what specific ones you think they may try to pass through reconciliation? As you mentioned, reconciliation was created to allow for an expedited or easier process for passing budget and tax-related legislation.
Can Republicans really enact their whole wish list of policies through reconciliation? Because I mean, some of these things—like defunding DEI, or controlling who or who cannot serve in the military, things like that—seems to be totally far-fetched from budget and spending.
Kogan: Sure. Yeah, so both of those wouldn’t be able to make it through reconciliation. Reconciliation is about getting federal dollars in or out of the government. So it’s not enough for it to touch the federal budget, it’s not enough for it to be related to it.
The way that you should think about it is whether the provision of law that you’re trying to enact, the primary purpose is about changing dollars and cents in and out of the government. So in 2017, Trump did his tax cuts, right? That was done through reconciliation. That was about changing the dollars and cents coming into the government. That, you’re allowed to do.
So they’re looking at doing Trump tax cuts 2.0. That you can largely do through reconciliation, right? They’re looking at doing border stuff. A deportation squad, more detention facilities, a wall, that sort of stuff is all fundamentally budgetary.
Now, if they start changing asylum law, all of a sudden that’s not really about dollars and cents. Yeah, that affects the budget, but it’s not really about the budget. So you should think of it all through that lens. What that means, therefore, is some of what they want to do is absolutely allowed through reconciliation, and it’s very real, right? So a lot of the cuts to the social safety net that they’ve been talking about, that’s very real. Like, we could see last time in 2017, obviously, their ACA [Affordable Care Act] repeal efforts failed. But they were really close to permanently breaking Medicaid. They would have made it. Right now, Medicaid rose with need. They were really close to making it so instead of growing with need, it would be a per capita cap block grant, and it would no longer keep up with need. And it would have fallen further and further short of its promise, right? So there are very real things that they could do, and then there are plenty of things that they simply can’t do.
Gibbs Léger: So, I realize I’m asking you to read the tea leaves here, but Republicans have a very narrow margin in the House as well as in the Senate, and Trump has waffled, not surprisingly, on whether he’d like all of these priorities packaged into one or two reconciliation bills. So, do you think they’ll pass? And if they do, you talked already, but like, what are some of the other harms to the American people that you’re most concerned about?
Kogan: They have a very slim majority in both the House and the Senate. In the Senate, they can afford to lose three, and in the House, they can afford to lose two— I hope I said the right numbers there. The fighting about whether they’re going to do one, two, three bills is all in recognition of the fact that it’s really difficult.
Some of the Republican agenda is quite popular, some of it’s OK-ishly popular, and some of it’s profoundly unpopular. And so the idea here is trying to attach some of the more popular things to some of the less popular things in hoping that all of a sudden they will have enough votes, right?
There’s been a lot of consternation about their tax bill. Their tax bill, when it passed last time, they had about a dozen House Republicans vote against it. Why? Well, it’s very expensive, it gives a disproportionate share of its benefit to the rich, and it actually raises taxes on about 10 percent of Americans.
So it was a tough sell to say, “We’re going to do this multi-trillion-dollar tax cut that mostly helps the rich and corporations and also raises a bunch of middle-class taxes.” That was a tough sell, right? And so now when they want to extend it, a lot of it was temporary due to some of the rules of reconciliation and their unwillingness to pay for it.
When they want to do that, they are doubling down on some of the unpopular parts of it. On the flip side, if it expires, then some people’s taxes will go down, some people’s taxes will go up. Their whole disagreement here is a reflection of the fact that they haven’t figured out how to deal with their own internal politics.
I think that they will get something done. It just depends on how disciplined they are. So [Rep. John] Thune’s (R-SD) idea was to do a border defense energy bill, and there are ways to do that. Obviously, I think a lot of what they do would be pretty profoundly immoral, but there’s ways to do it that are nonetheless pretty popular with the American public, and that’s something that I think they’d be able to do, no problem.
You start getting into repealing the IRA credits, where all of a sudden you’re going to be raising costs on a lot of Americans and also on a lot of businesses in America, a lot of small businesses. All of a sudden, that might get a lot more difficult.
So, I think it really depends on whether Republicans are willing and able to be narrow in their focus or whether they feel the need to inflict a lot of harm on the American public.
Seeberger: It is going to be a knock-down, dragged out fight, Bobby, and we will definitely have you back on to talk about it more as it all plays out. Thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Kogan: 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, Blue Sky, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Ambassador Eisen in just a beat.
Gibbs Léger: Former Ambassador Norman Eisen is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and is the founder of State Democracy Defenders Action. He is a globally recognized expert on law, ethics, and anti-corruption. He served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the first Trump impeachment from February 2019 to February 2020. He also served in the Obama White House and was the U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014.
Ambassador Eisen, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Norman Eisen: Thanks for having me. So excited to be here.
Gibbs Léger: So, a few days ago, we commemorated the fourth anniversary of January 6, and there have obviously been attempts by those on the right to whitewash this history. Why is it important for us to remember what actually happened on that dark day?
Eisen: As [George] Santayana said, if we don’t learn history, we’re condemned to repeat it. The attempted self-coup that Donald Trump tried after the 2020 election has now been accomplished through the ballot box. And with the former president returning back to power and the risk of those abuses emerging—and not just the risk. At the State Democracy Defenders Action, we track his promises to impose autocracy in our American autocracy threat tracker. Find it on our website. It’s over 300 pages long.
So, the risk is high of a recurrence of activity like that. We must keep what happened on January 6 and the runup to January 6 in mind as we get ready for a second Trump administration.
Gibbs Léger: Now, Trump has promised to pardon many of the insurrectionists who stormed through the Capitol on his behalf four years ago, even though many have been found guilty through fair trials.
So, can you talk a little bit about the sentences some of these criminals are serving and what impact it could have if neofascist and militia leaders like Enrique Tarrio or Stewart Rhodes were pardoned by Trump?
Eisen: These are violent criminals who have been convicted for their wrongdoing on January 6.
And if Donald Trump sweeps together those people, when you had five deaths emerging out of January 6, you had hundreds of law enforcement officers who were injured—that’s a slap in the face to the law enforcement community in the United States. It’s extremely dangerous to release these individuals who we know from history, that when you have insurrectionists who form prison networks, that can be extremely perilous. And it will be a disgrace to the memory of the events that day, profoundly against the Constitution.
And we have to object to it now and hope that the president does not pardon those individuals when Donald Trump returns to power on January 20. The surest way we can help avoid that is by being very outspoken now while we have the opportunity, so that the president-elect says, “too much trouble if I do that” and backs away from that heart.
Gibbs Léger: President Biden recently awarded Liz Cheney and [Rep.] Bennie Thompson (D-MS) the [Presidential] Medal of Freedom for their efforts on the January 6th Select Committee. That work obviously was very important, so why is it that Speaker Johnson is now promising to investigate the January 6th Committee and attacking its former members? What might come of this, and why are Republicans trying to change the narrative—the narrative that many of them agreed with in the immediate aftermath of January 6?
Eisen: Well, Donald Trump himself issued condemnatory statements after January 6, but then he quickly swiveled back around to engage in revisionist history that it was peaceful and patriotic. No, it was a violent insurrection. It was one that he inspired with his words on the Ellipse that day and his attempted coup by substituting electoral votes—which is what he wanted—of the actual winner of the election for the electoral votes of Donald Trump, who lost the election. It was an elaborate plot that culminated with the violence of January 6.
Unfortunately, the price of being in Trump’s Republican Party is absolute loyalty. And since Trump has subscribed to that revisionism, his followers in the party have gone along with him. Speaker Johnson was the leader of the election subversion group. He put together a brief of members of Congress to be filed in the Supreme Court in the case that Texas brought to baselessly throw out Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. The Supreme Court rejected that. There was no reason for it, but they’re still going, and that’s what this committee is going to be about. It’s revisionism, election denial at its strongest. And we need to be equally or more vocal to provide the actual truth, evidence, and the law that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept that the end result was a violent insurrection that he was responsible for inciting with his remarks on the Ellipse and much more conduct.
Gibbs Léger: This coming Friday, President-elect Trump will face sentencing in New York. Several months ago, he was charged with 34 felony counts over his efforts to withhold key information from voters about hush money payments that he made to a porn star in 2016. Now, this may very well be the only sentence that comes out of the many investigations and trials that he has faced these past few years.
So, can you talk a little bit about what that means for our system of justice, the fact that he has largely been able to escape accountability for his likely wrongdoing? And—and I take no joy in asking this, but—what signal does it send to the world that the United States is about to be led by a convicted felon?
Eisen: It doesn’t send a very good signal to the world or in the United States. Look, the justice system is set up with an aspiration of giving accused individuals every opportunity to prove their innocence. Innocent until proved guilty. And there’s a tremendous number of safeguards built in. If you’re wealthy and powerful enough, you can utilize those safeguards to delay justice and to deny justice, and that’s what Donald Trump has done.
Unfortunately, poor folks don’t have those advantages in the system. Donald Trump does, and he’s used them to the hilt. It is important to note that despite all those obstacles, he was found guilty of 34 felonies of election interference and covering it up with falsifying business documents in connection with the 2016 election.
That’s what he’s going to be sentenced for, and it does send a powerful message if he is sentenced as scheduled at the end of the week. Now he’s gone to the one court—after being refused over and over again—he’s gone to the one court in the land, the one appellate court that may be complicit and corrupt enough to stall that sentencing.
He’s asked the United States Supreme Court, the same ones who invented this outrageous and baseless presidential immunity, to stay that sentencing on Friday, based in part on that immunity. But even that terrible Supreme Court decision, it’s only immunity for official acts. The conviction for the 2016 conduct is about campaign conduct before he was president. That can’t be covered.
Eisen: And about writing personal business checks to cover up the campaign. Well, that can’t be part of the official acts within the immunity case. So I think that the right and legal thing is for him to face sentencing. It is a travesty that he’s dodged accountability in so many other cases. At least he should face it in this one.
And then let’s remember that many others have been held accountable. Ken Chesebro has pled guilty in Georgia for his role in the attempted coup. John Eastman has lost his law license, as has Rudy Giuliani. So, there’s been other forms of accountability. Criminal cases are proceeding at the state level all over the country against alleged co-conspirators. But the hope for Donald Trump is that he does get sentenced on those 34 felony convictions by a jury of his peers.
Gibbs Léger: Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying to release his final investigative report on Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his attempts to steal top secret classified documents from the White House.
As of this recording, Trump’s lackey judge Aileen Cannon in Florida has temporarily blocked the special counsel’s final report from being released, and the Justice Department said they would release only part of Jack Smith’s findings on the 2020 election plot.
Why is it important for the public to see all of these documents? And can you explain to our listeners how outrageous Judge Cannon’s handling of Trump’s classified documents case has been?
Eisen: Judge Cannon’s baseless order attempted to block the release of both volumes, but DOJ is not going along with that, is only the latest in an abominable series of rulings.
She started out after the search warrant was executed at Mar-a-Lago by attempting to block DOJ then also, in that case, from utilizing the documents that were seized to investigate the case. She had ruled here that the special counsel is an illegal office. That would come as a surprise to every other court to consider the question, which has rejected that insinuation.
The attorney general has the power to issue special counsel regulations under federal law. DOJ has done that previously. It’s another made-up legal theory. And based on that made up legal theory, she’s now trying to mess with DOJ.
The matter is at the 11th Circuit. We’ll see what the 11th Circuit holds, but all you need to know about Judge Aileen Cannon, you can learn from the timing of her throwing out this case based on these ridiculous arguments about the special counsel. She did it on the first day of the Republican National Convention. It was like a nominating speech!
Eisen: That makes no sense whatsoever.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. Some say that she is just auditioning for a seat on a Supreme Court, if possible. So my last question: I don’t have to tell you that many Americans out there are hurting, and many no longer have faith in our democracy. I think it’s part of the reason why this past presidential election, voters picked the guy who tried to overturn the government four years ago to run it again because they don’t necessarily believe that it’s working for them. It makes me think that the antidote to January 6 is showing the public that our government and democracy is working for them.
Do you agree with my assessment? And if so, how do we do that?
Eisen: CAP is so important in that venture. I’m looking forward to continuing to work with you and with all my friends at CAP and CAP Action because we have to explain that democracy is about helping the people. Trump is about helping himself and his billionaire buddies to the wealth of government.
Look at this administration. We’ve never seen so many billionaires in a cabinet. Donald Trump is making no pretense that the Trump organization, his family members, are going to stop doing business profiting around the world. He even had one of his business partners at his press conference this week to make no bones about what we’re confronting here.
It’s a new American oligarchy. And we have to contrast that. And CAP has been so eloquent over the decades in articulating policies where we want America and American government and our president to serve the public interest, not themselves. We have work to do in explaining how we will have a democracy that delivers.
The past four years have been, on paper with data and statistics, an extraordinary record of prosperity. But Americans are hurting, and we need to speak to them about why democracy will be better for them than an oligarchy. I think once the Trump administration gets rolling and people see the kinds of activities that he’s promised—whether it’s firing tens of thousands of the hardworking civil servants who make government deliver for all of us, whether it’s increasing the risk of climate change, whether it is putting somebody in charge of HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] who’s against vaccinations and exposing our kids to disease—as people see the evidence before their eyes, we’re going to have to make the case on why that’s negative and why democracy is positive. And I look forward to doing that side by side with my friends at CAP and CAP Action.
Gibbs Léger: Well, ambassador, I want to thank you so much for joining us. You are right, we have a lot of work to do. But I’m thankful for folks like you out there who are fighting the good fight to help save our democracy for the next four years.
Thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Eisen: Thanks. Thanks for having me.
Gibbs Léger: Well, that’s going to do it for us this week. As always, go back and check out our previous episodes. So, before we go, a lot to cover. First, Golden Globes.
Seeberger: Golden Globes.
Gibbs Léger: What was your favorite moment, biggest takeaway?
Seeberger: Kicking off awards season 2025, I was really excited to see Kieran Culkin win for “A Real Pain.” I think he’s just, brutally, to use a word, brutally talented. I’m of course making a pun because “The Brutalist” won best motion picture drama. But was very excited for Kieran. Also love that Viola Davis got honored with the—
Seeberger: —Cecil B. DeMille Award, which was very touching to see the hard work and talent of somebody honored over the course of their career, not just like a single project. Which, I mean, her range is just incredible. And she has done so, so much and done all of it flawlessly. So, I couldn’t think of somebody who’s more deserving of that than Viola Davis.
Gibbs Léger: I totally agree. My favorite thing about Viola Davis was when she was nominated for a best supporting actress for “Doubt,” and I think she was on screen for, what, eight minutes?
Gibbs Léger: But it was so incredible.
Gibbs Léger: My favorite moment is a very, I think, deep and meaningful and profound one. It was Andrew Garfield and his outfit and the glasses.
Seeberger: Oh, for me, it was Jeff Goldblum in the almost Statue of Liberty green for me. Jeff Goldblum, for folks who don’t know, played the wizard in “Wicked,” which I was very excited to see got a Golden Globe for best cinematic and box office achievement. It is now the highest-grossing musical movie of all time, and we haven’t even gotten to “Wicked Part Two.”
Gibbs Léger: Which I cannot wait for, because I saw “Wicked” over break. And—
Gibbs Léger: Oh, of course, it was amazing.
Gibbs Léger: The funniest part was that I was like, OK, everybody says they cried, so I know this now, so I’m not going to cry.
Gibbs Léger: At the end of the movie, I legit was like, “What’s on my face?” I didn’t even realize that I was crying.
Gibbs Léger: I know, I know.
Seeberger: Love that for you.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. Also, Jonathan Bailey is a perfect human being.
Gibbs Léger: That’s it. It’s also the new year. I personally don’t believe in new year’s resolutions. I set out some intentions for myself.
Gibbs Léger: So that way if they don’t happen, I don’t feel as bad. My biggest intention this year is to say “no” more often.
Seeberger: I really, really love that for you.
Seeberger: I think we all need to say “no” more often. My thing with saying “no” is I’m team say “no.” It’s very important to.
Seeberger: But “no” shouldn’t be your default.
Seeberger: That’s my take on “no.”
Gibbs Léger: I agree with that.
Gibbs Léger: When it’s your default, then that’s gone too far.
Gibbs Léger: But “yes” shouldn’t be your default either.
Gibbs Léger: Let me plug in a little more of that “no” so I can do the things that I actually want to do.
Seeberger: I like it. I like it. For myself, I resolve that the Dallas Cowboys are going to have a better season in 2025.
Seeberger: Last year was—
Seeberger: —brutal. I am also resolved to spend as little time in Washington, D.C., this summer as I possibly can.
Gibbs Léger: I love this. Yes.
Seeberger: Yeah, so that is going to be fun. I mean, my kiddo, we’re still kind of figuring out what her school plan’s going to be for the next year and whatnot. But like, it’s starting to set in that, oh, week-after-week care that you get in child care is not going to be coming for summer care when your kid’s in actual school-school, right? And I shouldn’t say school-school, but beyond just infant, toddler care. And yeah, I think that is going to hopefully push me out of D.C. as much as possible this summer.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, or you’ll be like me, where me and my friends after Christmas but before New Year, like, OK, what are we doing for summer camps?
Gibbs Léger: Like, it’s so terrible.
Seeberger: Well, I have much to learn, my friend, because I hear the sign-up process is like “The Hunger Games,” so I’ll have to learn some tips and tricks from you.
Gibbs Léger: Indeed. Any predictions for this year?
Seeberger: Ooh. Predictions? Well, I mean, I think we were all waiting the back half of last year for “Reputation (Taylor’s Version)” to come out. But I do think—and we were joking about this before we started recording today—your lip, Daniella, is giving “Rep TV”—
Seeberger: —so this is 2025 appropriate. And I’m very excited for that. And maybe there’ll be other exciting news for Ms. Taylor.
Gibbs Léger: Perhaps! Perhaps she will just show up somewhere like Zendaya with a ring on her finger and will not say a word about it. And frankly, I would love that for her and for us.
Seeberger: I would love that for her so much. So much.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Well, I was going to make a comment about our colleague who still thinks it’s a PR joke, but we’ll circle back to that because I really want to have her on the show when they get engaged.
Seeberger: Yeah, we’re going to have to break that down.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I think so. All right, folks. That’s it for us. It’s wintertime, cold and flu season is here and apparently norovirus and all this other stuff. Yikes.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, take care of yourselves. Wash your hands, and get your flu and COVID shots, and we will talk to you next week.
Gibbs Léger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and 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.