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, fresh back from norovirus.
Gibbs Léger: Woo!
Seeberger: Yeah, it was real fun.
Gibbs Léger: I am so sorry.
Seeberger: Thank you. In better news though, Daniella, “The Bachelor” returned this week.
Gibbs Léger: I know. I’m halfway through the episode, so no spoilers, please.
Seeberger: OK.
Gibbs Léger: But thus far, I am enjoying it.
Seeberger: We liked the llama? We did not like the llama?
Gibbs Léger: I thought the llama—actually, I liked the llama. And maybe it’s because I read a lot of Llama, Llama, you know.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: Llama, whatever it’s called. Yeah, that. So, it was clever. It was different. It was weird. And I liked that the llama was a little bit stubborn.
Seeberger: Me too. Me too.
Gibbs Léger: Yes.
Seeberger: Well, we look forward and very much welcome a distraction these days. But in the meantime, I heard you had a good interview this week with our CAP Action colleague, Joe Radosevich.
Gibbs Léger: That’s right. He’s our vice president of campaigns and outreach here at CAP Action, and we talked about the real harms the new administration’s actions to date have had, how MAGA is failing to deliver on its promises to the American people, and the steps that lawmakers can take to fight back against [President Donald] Trump’s dangerous agenda.
Seeberger: All super timely topics, for sure. But first, we have to get to some news.
Gibbs Léger: We do, Colin, because in his second week in office—yes, just the second, two—Trump is continuing to ramp up his extreme actions that are out of step with what the American people want. On Monday night, he issued an order that would have frozen all federal loans, grants, and other forms of monetary government assistance. Seems bad.
Seeberger: Quite.
Gibbs Léger: Now, who knows where we’ll be at by the time this comes out, because they keep flip-flopping and confusing even themselves about the status of this freeze. But as of this recording, here’s where we’re at.
The administration claimed they only meant to pause assistance for programs that conflict with Trump’s priorities, but by Tuesday morning, their announcement had already caused mass confusion headed towards real disruptions to government services.
For example, all 50 states reported that they were frozen out of Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans in this country. And several states reported shutdowns in their reimbursement systems for Head Start, which provides child care services to low-income families. So let’s think about that. People who run daycares couldn’t pay their bills. That’s very unacceptable.
Seeberger: Not good.
Gibbs Léger: And not only is this a gross abuse of power straight out of the Project 2025 playbook, it’s nakedly illegal, which is why a judge partially halted the freeze. Now, thankfully, in the face of public outcry, the administration rescinded the order in shame.
Seeberger: Oh, we love to see it.
Gibbs Léger: We do. But make no mistake, this freeze is just the beginning of Trump’s plan to steal from taxpayers, to shut down much of the government. His administration is already responsible for causing direct harm to millions of everyday Americans, and millions more stand to be impacted, especially if the Senate confirms Russ Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget.
Seeberger: Yeah, I mean, it was definitely good to see that the public responded in this moment of, frankly, a real test of our constitutional system of checks and balances, right? They were like, “We’re not standing for this. You’re not a king, Trump.” And so, while it didn’t work this time around, we know that Trump, we know that Republicans on Capitol Hill, are actively looking to gut many of these same programs, right?
Frankly, we saw a memo from folks on Capitol Hill last week laying out the trillions and trillions of dollars—over $5.5 trillion—of cuts to many of these same programs, including Medicaid, in order to pay for their big tax giveaway to billionaires who don’t need it. And so really, this is also just further underscoring that they’re willing to steal from the middle class, from people who actually need help, in order to be able to give more and more to those at the very top.
Thankfully, again, like you said, this order didn’t go into effect. But if it did, the damage would be stark. We would see a shutdown of disaster relief funding, funding for federally funded infrastructure projects, health care, food and water inspections would be taken offline.
We’d also see money cut from 2 in 3 schools in this country—public schools, that is. We’d see child care centers and Head Start programs be taken offline, which means not just do families not have access to child care, but they may not even be able to go to work.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly.
Seeberger: It would have impacted community church outreach programs, as well as the grants that ensure safe drinking water, lifesaving medical research, and so much more.
The law and the courts have repeatedly said, as you were mentioning earlier, that this kind of blanket freeze is illegal. And yet, MAGA Republicans still tried to charge forward. That’s why we need to see some real accountability from the administration. They need to make clear that they understand the pain that they inflicted on people, right?
Which is why the president needs to fire his top policy aide, Stephen Miller, who has repeatedly shown a propensity to flout the Constitution, bungle policy rollouts. You may remember, it was Muslim ban 1.0 or family separation in the first administration. Well, you know what? That guy who saw numerous of his policy rollouts end up having to get walked back—well, guess what? He’s right back doing it again. And this time, it’s harming even more and more Americans.
I doubt, again, that this is the last time that we’re going to see a proposal like this. Because they’ve been chomping at the bit to gut these programs for so, so long. But we shouldn’t give Stephen Miller the keys to the car and say, “Feel free to go for a joy ride.”
Gibbs Léger: No, we should not. And given how vain Trump is, you would think that he wouldn’t want to be surrounded by somebody who embarrasses him. Because let’s be honest, this is embarrassing.
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: They did this whole fanfare and hooting and hollering, and now they had to walk it back.
Seeberger: Yeah. It’s a bureaucratic farce, it feels like.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. It’s very embarrassing. And listen, the sweeping freeze that he tried to implement isn’t a new concept. It was laid out in none other than Project 2025, the radical MAGA playbook for the second Trump term that we’ve all been talking about for several months. And lo, an alarming number of Project 2025 proposals have already made their way into Trump’s early agenda.
In fact, the overwhelming share of his actions from the past week have been practically copy-pasted from the playbook. We are watching Project 2025 come to life in real time.
Seeberger: If only somebody had ever warned of this.
Gibbs Léger: If only someone had spoken out about this.
Seeberger: Yeah, I know.
Gibbs Léger: I know, I know. Two-thirds of Trump’s Week 1 executive actions were either identical or almost identical to proposals in Project 2025, including things like withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement; banning transgender Americans from military service; dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the federal government; and diverting vital military and National Guard resources towards immigration raids.
And it’s no surprise, pretty much as soon as he won the election, Trump dropped the pretense that he was unaffiliated with Project 2025. His allies have reiterated in public interviews that Project 2025 was the agenda all along. And surprise, surprise, some of its architects have been selected by Trump’s lead key agencies, like the aforementioned Russ Vought at OMB.
Seeberger: You know, Daniella, talking about this Week 1 Project 2025 agenda going into action, it really stands out to me that the things that Donald Trump was talking about on the campaign trail when he was disclaiming any association with Project 2025—I’m talking about things like helping Americans get by, making the cost of living more affordable—none of that is part of this agenda.
Gibbs Léger: Nope. Nowhere to be found, Colin.
Seeberger: No.
Gibbs Léger: Nowhere.
Seeberger: It’s infuriating, right? Also infuriating—we have to talk about, there are other elements of Project 2025 that Trump has already been moving forward on. For example, a major part of Project 2025 focuses on giving the president even more power over what have been longstanding independent agencies in the federal government that are intended to put the best interest of workers, consumers, folks who are nonprofits, things like that—put those first because they’re intended to serve the public good. And Trump has already set out to fire commissioners at many of these independent agencies.
I’m talking, of course, about places like the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that are supposed to be there to protect workers and make sure that when they try to organize and vote to unionize, that they could have those unions recognized, or stop workers from being discriminated against by employers who are willing to violate the law so that they can make more money. And that’s exactly what Trump is trying to stop and really implement this radical partisan ideology first and foremost.
We also, though, need to talk about other personnel issues that we’ve seen over the course of the last week. Project 2025’s plan to basically mass-reclassify civil servants, nonpartisan civil servants that serve the public interest, as political appointees, making them eligible to be fired—Trump hit the ground running on that on Day 1. It’s called Schedule F.
We also saw metadata pulled from the original PDFs of these memos on some of these civil service changes. Those memos were revealed that they were written by men with ties to the Heritage Foundation in Project 2025.
Gibbs Léger: Look at that.
Seeberger: Yeah, I know. Whoever could have seen this coming? Including one who hasn’t even been officially given a position in the administration, yet he’s out authoring [Office of Personnel Management] memos?
Gibbs Léger: Wild. How is that legal?
Seeberger: It’s bananas. The Project 2025 agenda remains profoundly unpopular with most Americans, and for good reason.
It would raise taxes on the typical family of four by about $3,000 a year. It seeks to ban abortion nationwide and eliminate the Department of Education altogether, among countless other really damaging, bad things.
Gibbs Léger: Right.
Seeberger: So, Trump won in part by distancing himself from this unpopular agenda, but Project 2025 is, was, and seems to be the MAGA agenda for a second Trump term. And Republicans, we’re about to see them push even more of these policies in the months ahead. And we’ve got to hold them accountable for it.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. It’s really terrifying to think about, but if we notice and acknowledge the links between what Trump is doing, his agenda, and Project 2025, we can at least be ready for the outlandishly harmful policies that they’re going to try and pass.
Seeberger: Yeah, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one, right?
Gibbs Léger: Exactly, exactly.
Seeberger: Very true, Daniella. 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, Bluesky, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Joe Radosevich in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Joe Radosevich is the vice president for campaigns and outreach at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He previously served in a variety of senior roles for Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. In 2016 and 2018, he managed back-to-back winning statewide campaigns for Shapiro and Klobuchar, respectively.
Joe, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Joe Radosevich: Thank you for having me here.
Gibbs Léger: What a pedigree. All right.
Radosevich: It doesn’t measure up to yours.
Gibbs Léger: Well, let’s jump right in, because there’s a lot to cover.
Radosevich: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: So, despite pledging on the campaign trail to make it easier for everyday Americans to get by, MAGA Republicans only seem focused on delivering for their wealthy donors. In Trump’s first few days in office, he ended the plan to drop the cost of generic drugs to $2 for seniors on Medicare—to the delight of Big Pharma—and gutted two of our fastest-growing industries, wind energy and electric vehicles, to the benefit of his big oil donors. Earlier this week, he tried to ram through a blatantly illegal federal funding freeze that saw all 50 states frozen out of their Medicaid programs and several shut out of their reimbursement systems for Head Start.
Radosevich: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: And as if that wasn’t enough, Trump next plans to gut many programs Americans rely on and ram through tax cuts for the wealthy and the largest corporations.
So, is this what the American people want? How does it diverge from the priorities they expressed during the election, even among Trump supporters?
Radosevich: Yeah, especially among Trump supporters. I mean, I think that, of course, this isn’t what the American people want. And I think that we need to parse out a little bit the story that people are hearing from Trump and the Trump administration and the actions that they’re taking.
So, you were highlighting some of these actions that we need to put a spotlight on and make sure that people know and understand. But at the same time, appreciate that the big headline he’s getting through is shaking things up, right? And that is something that a lot of people want, including, frankly, a lot of progressives.
We’re not satisfied with how things are. We have a lot of ideas about how to improve people’s lives. So I think the challenge is, though these actions totally diverge from what he’s been promising and saying, it isn’t always going to be cutting through to people. And so, what are we thinking about in terms of our focus and in terms of how we approach the problem and, frankly, theatrics and hype to make sure that that big headline isn’t, “Oh, Trump’s shaking things up, he’s doing all this crazy stuff,” and is instead, “Oh, this is the oldest story in the book. He’s letting these insiders, he’s letting the people funding his race, he’s letting the people who have access get what they want, and we’re going to pay for it.”
Gibbs Léger: Right. So this news cycle has been very crowded this week/year, because it has felt like a year. And with so much barreling at us, how should progressives identify the most harmful policies and stay focused? To your point, how can we avoid being baited into conversations that aren’t productive?
Radosevich: Right. I think there are two key tests before we engage or jump in on something. Because there’s going to be so much coming at us.
And the first one is: Are people harmed right now? There is going to be so many things to talk about that when we’re thinking about, I think, perspective things, it’s important for a place like CAP to know, how is this policy going to impact people? We’ll have the facts. We’ll be ready to go when they do something terrible. And I think we saw that yesterday when folks at daycare facilities, Head Start facilities, were frozen out of funds, we knew how many people were impacted in Pennsylvania or in Wisconsin. The test, though, is: Were people harmed by this? And that’s the first one that we have to get to, because otherwise we’re going to lose folks. It’s not connected to their lives.
And I think the second test is we get one story to tell. And it might be a little too early to know exactly what that story is against this administration. We’re Day 8 or something. I don’t know when this is coming out. But the corruption that they are planning to unleash that really has been the reason that Americans have lost their grip on the American dream over the last few generations—that is the big story.
And it’s not just about Trump. It’s much bigger than him. And so I guess that that would be the other piece. Your questions was about, OK, what do we focus on the stuff he’s doing? Did it harm people? Does it show the insiders who are in charge, the corruption that they have unleashed on us? But then pulling back, because we’re not always going to want to react to him, what’s going on in people’s lives?
What about housing? It’s ridiculous, the cost of housing for a new family. That’s something that we should be talking about that might not be in the headlines about Donald Trump. But it’s still about this power of the amount of money that a certain group of people have had to lock people out of homes, to buy up homes, to use algorithms to jack up rents illegally. That’s a bigger story that, frankly, more Americans are interested in than what did Trump do yesterday.
Gibbs Léger: That’s 100 percent right. So, also this week, the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for a number of Trump’s most dangerous personnel picks.
Radosevich: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: Including RFK Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
We also have Kash Patel, his pick to lead the FBI, and Tulsi Gabbard, his pick to lead our national intelligence strategy. It’s not funny, but like, I just can’t believe it. All of these people pose grave threats to Americans’ health and security.
So how do you think Democrats should be approaching these confirmation hearings, and what should they be asking in order to make those threats clear to people?
Radosevich: Well, I think all of the people you named here—and I would throw in my personal favorite of Russ Vought as someone who’s incredibly dangerous—these three folks are not qualified for their jobs. That should be damaging. That should mean that they aren’t going to get in, but that probably won’t be the case. But it is still important, even though qualifications on face value right now may not be the thing that people are most convinced by, right?
There is a desire to shake things up. We still need to make those lack of qualifications clear, because they’re going to mess something up and people are going to get harmed. And so it is important to lay out for future accountability, these are clearly not people who can be in these jobs. And Democrats need to draw a line on, there might be some people we disagree with but are qualified. I am totally fine, frankly, with Democrats supporting some of those nominees. For the people who are not qualified, or for the people who have a financial stake in a lawsuit against vaccines—
Gibbs Léger: For example.
Radosevich: —or who have been palling around with our adversaries, we do need to make that clear and oppose them in as united a fashion as we can.
So that when they mess up, we can point back to this and we can have a plank of accountability. Like, this is what happens when you allow someone like an RFK to be in charge of a children’s vaccine program that has been very effective, that was started in the ’90s, so that it sets up our ability to hold them accountable.
In private, Democratic senators need to have one-on-one conversations with a few Republicans to see what would be possible, to see who can be stopped. But this administration is going to move on from that real quick. And that’s a private game. So, qualifications are really important in these hearings for us to be able to call back to it.
And then the second piece is, we get one story. These hearings have to be part of that story, and opportunities to point out where they have conflicts, where they are benefiting insiders instead of the American people. And frankly, I think some provocative questions. I would ask Russ Vought how much money you would have to pay him to change his position on something and just see what they have to say.
Because the only thing that’s not for sale in this current Republican Party is that everything is for sale. The only core belief is that with enough access, with enough money, they’ll, “Oh, I’ll change up my position on TikTok. I’ll change my position on Bitcoin. I’ll change my position on anything.”
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, everything has a price with this administration. Speaking of accountability and lack thereof, the first week of this administration looked more like an Elon Musk administration, with the world’s richest man and his loyalists dominating key offices and already swaying really important decisions.
So what opportunities there do you see for progressives to call out the dangers of this billionaire Cabinet designed to do the bidding of insiders like Musk? Does the American public approve of billionaire donors lining their pockets while making the middle class pay?
Radosevich: Of course not. But, again, on the political reality of this, there’s a lot of cynics. And cynicism is something that we have to fight as progressives every day. And a lot of people think, fair or not, that a billionaire, they’re going to have access. They’re always going to be able to pick up the phone and call someone in the administration. They’re always going to be able to figure out some way to benefit themselves.
And our charge is to go one step beyond that and show how people are being hurt. Just pointing out, “Oh, all these billionaires get meetings that they want in Washington.” I mean, yeah.
Gibbs Léger: It happens.
Radosevich: Yep. It’s sort of like, that’s life, to a lot of people. And so we can’t stop there. And I think sometimes on the left, we maybe stop too early in that story. We just point at the corruption and hope that people can fill out the rest of the sentence and understand the impacts, and we really can’t do that.
The good news is, they know it’s true. When we can tell that full story, most Americans don’t say like, “Oh, those guys don’t want to do that. They’re OK with lower priced generic drugs. They’re not really just out for money.” That’s not the case. They get it. But we do need to draw the connection in terms of how people are harmed.
Because I’d say, backing up—and I was in an attorney general’s office for a number of years —and people expect companies to make money.
Gibbs Léger: That is what they do.
Radosevich: They think they are there for their shareholders, and they’re supposed to make money and make profit and almost do whatever they can to do that, within the bounds of the law. And our job in government is to hold them accountable when they don’t do that.
And so when something like this is going on, some of this type of corruption, the responsibility falls on the people in government, not really these companies. I mean, we should call them out for their bad behavior, but at the end of the day, the American people that we’re really trying to reach, they think, “Yeah, of course these guys are trying to do that. What are you doing? How are you stopping them?”
Gibbs Léger: So, let’s talk about that accountability. As you mentioned, you served as chief of staff for Gov. Shapiro when he was attorney general, including the first two years of the Trump administration.
So, given your experience, what should state attorneys general and other state and local officials like governors and mayors be doing to effectively hold this administration accountable for bad federal and legal policy? And what role do you think they’ll be playing in the next couple of years?
Radosevich: Certainly the last week has felt like a lot of déjà vu, not in a great way. I do think that, actually, as a movement, we are smarter right now, and we are being a bit more strategic. I think that some of the obituaries about the Democratic Party are a bit premature. But I think those lessons from ’17—OK, something really important. We need to show some wins. I mean, a big part of the initial response to Trump that was effective was showing people that a lot of Americans disagree with this. And having some backbone is really important. It’s not necessarily always going to be a big political victory but just having some moral clarity and having a voice that shows there are a lot of people who disagree with this and we have power is important.
And governors and mayors are going to be the key way to do that. Full stop. The challenge is going to be we’re going to use the courts to stop some of this bad stuff, but a lot of people don’t trust the courts. A lot of people don’t like the system. A lot of people, they have plenty of examples of things that seem common sense that maybe have been stopped.
And so, we’re going to rely on that tool, but that can’t be our message. It can’t be that, oh, well, they’re doing this because they didn’t comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, which is really how a lot of stuff was stopped in ’17 and ’18 especially. That ain’t enough. We’ve got to focus on how people are harmed very quickly in that story. And that will be a challenge because the venue of how we’re going to do this stuff will be the courts sometimes.
Gibbs Léger: So, sounds like we have a tricky couple of years ahead of us. I want to thank you for all the work that you do here at CAP Action and thank you for joining us on “The Tent.”
Radosevich: The whole team here, yes, thank you.
Gibbs Léger: Well, folks, that’s going to do it for us today. As always, please go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go: Football!
Seeberger: We are finally—
Gibbs Léger: We’re here.
Seeberger: —finally—
Gibbs Léger: We’re at the end.
Seeberger: The football season that I want to just control-alt-delete from history is finally coming to a conclusion. We do have our two Super Bowl teams.
Gibbs Léger: Yes!
Seeberger: You may have heard of them, the Kansas City Chiefs?
Gibbs Léger: Perhaps you’ve heard of them.
Seeberger: Yeah, once or twice. And the Philadelphia Eagles.
Gibbs Léger: It is a rematch of their Super Bowl from two, three years ago?
Seeberger: Three, right? No—
Gibbs Léger: Two years.
Seeberger: Two years.
Gibbs Léger: Two years. And that one saw the Kansas City Chiefs win. So, it’d be very interesting to see if Jason Kelce, formerly of Philadelphia Eagles, gets his revenge on his brother, Travis Kelce, even though he’s not playing anymore, Jason that is.
I’m excited. I’m just happy the Commanders didn’t make it, because I’m a hater. Full stop. I am. When it comes to football, I’d show no mercy. You should know that about me by now.
But also, my dear sweet Commanders fans, in the first year of new ownership, new coach, a rookie quarterback, you made it to the division finals. That’s amazing. And you should sit with that, and you should feel proud and happy. Now, I know my tone may sound condescending, but I don’t mean it that way. I’m really serious. Be fricking happy, OK?
Seeberger: They made the conference final.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. You made the conference final. OK, get over it, you lost to the Eagles, but like, your future is so, so bright. I don’t want to hear it. So, that’s my thought. I just want to share that with all the Commanders fans. Kelly, hi. Anyway, who do we want to win this game, Colin?
Seeberger: Well, I do not share your enthusiasm for the Philadelphia Eagles. If you know—
Gibbs Léger: I don’t like them!
Seeberger: —any Dallas Cowboys fan, they are at the very top of the can-do-no-good list.
Gibbs Léger: Fair enough.
Seeberger: So I will be rooting for the Kansas City Chiefs. I do think it would be cool to watch them be the first team to win three Super Bowls in a row, especially if it means defeating the Philadelphia Eagles. That would be great.
But I totally agree that the Commanders—Jayden Daniels is 24. He’s got such a bright future ahead of him and seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Calm, cool, collected. Totally stoked to see—and when I say stoked, I mean totally dreading to see—how he and his team stack up against the Cowboys next year. The Cowboys got a new head coach over the weekend.
Gibbs Léger: You sure did. How do you feel about that choice?
Seeberger: I am not inspired.
Gibbs Léger: That is the prevailing answer.
Seeberger: Yes. There is a reason why Scottheimer? Schottenheimer?
Gibbs Léger: Schottenheimer, yeah.
Seeberger: I don’t know how to actually say it, but he has been an assistant coach everywhere he’s been.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah.
Seeberger: Because he’s not—
Gibbs Léger: Right.
Seeberger: —not cut out for the head coach job.
Gibbs Léger: It was a perplexing decision, is the best way to put it.
Seeberger: Yeah, it’s a nice way to put it.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. I wish you good luck on that. I need to clarify, I don’t love the Eagles, OK?
Seeberger: Thanks for making it clear.
Gibbs Léger: I mean, I’m just saying, I hate the Commanders more. So it was important for them, for me, to not make it to the Super Bowl. I do like some Eagles players. They are great on social media. Some of them are very pleasing to look at. I mean, I’m just saying, I do like some of the players. But like, I’m not an Eagles fan.
I want the Kansas City Chiefs to win because I want Taylor Swift to be happy, but also because I want Tom Brady to call that game knowing that Patrick Mahomes did something that he couldn’t do.
Seeberger: Please. That would be amazing.
Gibbs Léger: Like a balm to my soul in these turbulent times, Colin.
Seeberger: Yes, you and every New York Giants fan.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. Speaking of turbulent times, I’ve been turning to TV a lot to get me through.
Seeberger: We all.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. So, we talked about “The Bachelor” earlier.
Seeberger: That’s a healthy escape, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: It is a healthy escape. Relatively, I suppose. So, I thought our listeners might like to know what things we have been watching. I just finished watching “Alex Cross,” and it was terrifying, spooky. I should know this about all the Alex Cross movies. It’s horror, crime, whatever. But so, so good. I highly recommend it.
Seeberger: I will need to catch that. I have been watching a few different things. Like I said, I was sick end of last week. So, I was stuck at home. I was solo parenting and everything. So my child was latched to me or she was in bed, and I was just watching TV. And so I watched some episodes of “Hacks.”
Gibbs Léger: OK.
Seeberger: Which was very good. I hate that I was so delayed in catching up on it. And then I’ve been watching a lot of true crime, which is not usually my vibe. But I was taking myself back to being a young kid at the grocery store, seeing JonBenét Ramsey’s face plastered all over National Enquirer and this, that, the next.
There’s a new true crime series on Netflix covering that case, and then another one on Lacey Peterson’s murder. And it was the rabbit hole that I needed to escape into.
Gibbs Léger: Whatever it takes. That’s not personally my jam. I want to escape from the true life that I’m currently living sometimes, so I prefer to go dive into reality. I may be the only person in this recording studio who watches “The Challenge” on MTV.
Seeberger: You are, but I watch “The Traitors,” who feature some people from “The Challenge.”
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Exactly. I feel like I need to start watching “Traitors.”
Seeberger: Oh, my God, it’s so good.
Gibbs Léger: But for those people who do watch “The Challenge,” “The Challenge: All Stars” are coming to MTV, so you don’t have to watch it on Paramount+. So yes, I’m very excited about that. Because I was like, I’m not getting another subscription.
Seeberger: No. Over my dead body.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. My poor wallet. So I’m really excited about that. So yes, we’ve got a couple of things to keep us occupied. This is good.
Seeberger: Keep it coming, content producers.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly.
Seeberger: Give us what the people need.
Gibbs Léger: Please do. I need another cutesy, demure thing that I can go down a rabbit hole on TikTok, while we still have it. So please come through, internets.
Seeberger: Please.
Gibbs Léger: Well, until that happens, you all take care of yourselves, and we will 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 co-hosted 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.