Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger.
Erin Phillips: And filling in for Daniella Gibbs Léger, I’m lead producer Erin Phillips. Welcome back, Colin.
Seeberger: Thanks, it’s great to be here. I’m feeling very refreshed and nice and relaxed after a great trip to California, and I’m ready to dive right into it. We’ve got lots to unpack.
Phillips: We do, we do. And we will all be taking some time away next week for Thanksgiving, so just a heads-up to our listeners, be aware we will not be dropping an episode next week. We will be enjoying some well-earned turkey dinners. We’ll be back on December 5. But until then, I heard you did have a great conversation this week.
Seeberger: I did. I spoke with Larry Levitt, executive vice president for Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. We talked about RFK Jr.’s alarming lack of experience, how his harmful conspiracy theories could influence U.S. health policy over the next four years, and what states and individuals can do to prepare for potential blows to health care access.
Phillips: I’m excited to hear his insights on all of that and everything we’re seeing right now out of this incoming administration. But before we get to all that, we have to get to some news.
Seeberger: That’s right, because RFK Jr. was one of several alarming personnel choices made by President-elect Trump this past week. Obviously, he’s one of the most extreme, traffics in vile and dangerous conspiracy theories that undermine medical experts who seek to guide us on public health. I talked about this in greater depth with Larry, but RFK Jr. really could hinder Americans’ access to vaccines, among other critical health interventions.
To understand just how disastrous that could be for public health, we just have to look at the data. Over the past 30 years, childhood vaccination programs have prevented 508 million cases of illness—again, that’s 508 million; it’s a lot—32 million hospitalizations, and more than 1 million deaths. They’ve saved $540 billion in direct savings and $2.7 trillion in larger societal savings.
So, RFK’s brand of vaccine denial not just could put lives in jeopardy—it could fundamentally upend our economy, too. His trademark slogan over the last few months, “make America healthy again,” and talk of taking on corporations, feeding Americans unhealthy food—it sounds good, but it’s clearly a red herring to distract Americans from the outright dangerous agenda he’s championed for years. The man is literally about to throw a wrench into one of the most clear-cut disease prevention tools that we’ve got.
But of course, it’s not just RFK Jr. On the national security side, Trump nominated former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (R) as director of national intelligence. She’s a staunch Trump loyalist who’s undoubtedly going to politicize the work of America’s intelligence agencies for the president-elect’s personal gain.
Even more concerning, she has repeatedly parroted Russian propaganda about Ukraine. In fact, she’s [been] so disturbingly pro-Russia that many Republican elected officials have called into question her credentials for the role. Also, on a trip to Syria in 2017, she met with the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, who at the time was being accused of war crimes and even genocide in Syria for gassing his people to death.
The president’s appointment of someone who is so clearly willing to praise and collaborate with violent dictators also could cause America’s allies to question whether they can share intelligence with the United States, or fear that it may compromise their own safety or the safety of the sources and methods from which they obtained that intelligence.
So, let’s really be clear here: The issue is not just that former Congresswoman Gabbard is a Trump loyalist who will say anything for power, dangerous as that may be. Her appointment fundamentally undermines America’s national security and the security of our allies.
And of course, we can’t wrap up this conversation without talking about now former Congressman Matt Gaetz (R) of Florida. Trump nominated the Florida congressman last week to be attorney general of the United States. And, I feel like a broken record here, but this is someone who, yet again, completely lacks the qualifications to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
Beyond that, Matt Gaetz is embroiled in scandals that should immediately disqualify him for office. Before he was nominated, he was under serious investigations from both the Department of Justice and the House of Representatives for alleged misconduct, like having sex with at least one minor and sex trafficking. And the House Ethics Committee was set to vote on whether to release a report on the findings of their investigation in the coming days and weeks. But his nomination and subsequent resignation for the House put the brakes on that committee’s investigation. Convenient, huh? Right?
Predictably, MAGA Speaker Mike Johnson (R) has said he doesn’t want the ethics report to come into public view. That committee will meet this week to discuss whether to release the report, which allegedly contains details about Gaetz using illegal drugs, paying women for sex, and having sex with a minor at a party while he was a member of Congress.
But it’s not just Gaetz’s lack of experience and deeply flawed character, much less alleged criminal activity that makes him unfit to serve as attorney general. It’s also the fact that Americans really should have no faith that Matt Gaetz can be trusted to fairly and impartially enforce the laws of the United States. For example, he’s previously called for defunding and abolishing the FBI, the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], and the Department of Justice, unless, in his words, those departments “come to heel.” That’s outrageous, Erin.
Phillips: Yeah, it’s really gross rhetoric. It’s gross accusations. It’s gross all around. And what’s more, these nominees are so extreme that even prominent Republicans, as you said, are calling them out.
Ty Cobb, who served in the White House during Trump’s first presidency, said Gaetz’s nomination was “a big f— you to America.” John Bolton called it the worst nomination for a cabinet secretary “in American history.” Those are big words.
Seeberger: That’s coming from John Bolton!
Phillips: Yeah, exactly. The editorial board for the right-wing New York Post called out RFK Jr. for his support of conspiracy theories, describing him as, quote, “nuts on all fronts.” I mean, these kinds of sentiments are casting serious doubts about whether these three nominees in particular could even make it through the Senate confirmation process, even with the Republicans controlling the chamber.
Which is why President-elect Trump is plotting to circumvent the process entirely, ripping off the guardrails of our democracy right from the get-go. He’s personally pressuring Republicans in Congress to back his nominees. And if they refuse to cooperate, Trump has thrown around the idea of using his executive power to adjourn both the House and Senate by force in order to make these recess appointments, a drastic and anti-democratic path that would inevitably lead to legal challenges.
These three Trump appointments alone would do so much damage to our government, compromising our national security, our public health, and our justice system with their lack of experience and extreme views. And in order to install them in their positions, the administration might quickly begin dismantling our democratic systems.
Seeberger: Yeah, it’s an ominous warning about what may be on the horizon for 2025. But I’m also really concerned about what the next Trump administration may do policy-wise to hurt transgender Americans. I’m thinking about that especially this week as we observe Transgender Day of Remembrance. So, here to talk about that climate is Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Cait, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Cait Smith: Thanks for having me.
Seeberger: This president-elect and his allies have made it clear super, super clear that they want to crack down on transgender rights, from restricting access to gender-affirming care to ripping away protections for transgender Americans in the workplace, school, and in broader public life.
What are some of the policy areas you’re most concerned may be under attack under the next administration?
Smith: Yeah, there’s a lot to have a lot of valid concern about right now, and we know that trans folks are deeply nervous. We have seen, for example, The Trevor Project, which runs the largest national hotline for LGBT youth, see a 700 percent increase in calls to their line from young people who are scared.
So, I’m really thinking, like you mentioned, about transgender medical care, particularly for young folks. Transgender medical care is safe. It is best practice. It is evidence-based care, and it’s lifesaving. And that’s true for adults who access this care, and it’s true for youth who access this care. So, that’s top of mind for me right now, is ensuring that folks have access to the care that they need.
We know that there are young folks who are going to schools that right now have some pro-LGBT policies, and here at CAP Action, we found that reversing pro-LGBT school policies not only hurts LGBT youth, but it hurts all young students, all folks in school. So those are certainly, I think, a couple of the big ones. But, like you said, there’s a deluge of attacks, a deluge of rhetoric that really is going to be overwhelming as we move forward.
Phillips: So, Cait, beyond passing legislation in Congress, what are some other ways the Trump administration might threaten the freedoms of transgender Americans through its agencies? And what are some tools, if any exist, that progressives have to stop them at the federal level?
Smith: Yeah, I think there’s a few things that we can do as we’re trying to protect trans folks from some of these attacks.
Certainly, I think it’s important to iterate that nothing is changing right now. President Biden is still president. And I’ve heard concern a lot about, is anything going to go away now? And the reality is, things around changing your gender marker on your passport or on your driver’s license, around access to transgender medical care—everything that is possible now is going to be possible as long as this is the administration and potentially longer. So I think it’s important that folks know that we have a little bit of time right now to figure things out.
Beyond that, states have a lot of power right now to protect LGBT folks. We know that many, many states have already passed nondiscrimination protections ensuring that folks can’t be discriminated against based off of sexual orientation or gender identity at work, at home, at school, and in public life. So that’s really a good thing to remember. We know that the Respect for Marriage Act has already passed, and so we do have some protections around same-sex marriage will continue to exist.
So, we’re really hoping that folks at their local levels are protecting their communities and that we’re passing and ensuring pro-LGBT policies like protections for medical care, ensuring that youth can be safe and thrive and out at school as themselves, ensuring that folks are able to change their gender markers. These are some things that states have some power to ensure and enshrine.
Seeberger: I think, Cait, that one of the reasons why we have seen the surge in folks reaching out to The Trevor Project—a real fear taking root—is that this coming administration won doing so by leveraging an intense attack on the trans community. And I would say that it’s really never been more clear that progressives need to move forward with a proactive vision for protecting the rights of all Americans, including transgender people.
What can Democrats learn from folks like Congresswoman-elect McBride, Gov. Beshear, others about combating anti-trans narratives and supporting the rights of transgender Americans as part of a broader political strategy?
Smith: Yeah, that’s a really excellent question. I think that is part of the fear right now, is that trans folks and particularly young trans folks will be left behind and that people who supported them will be afraid to support them because it seems like it’s not popular enough or whatever it may be.
And I think it’s really important to remember that, yes, there’s strategy here, but these are people, right? We’re talking about kids. We’re talking about young people. We’re talking about a large portion of our community and their rights. And we saw many LGBT candidates win their elections. We saw a lot of folks standing beside trans folks. And we know in the past that moving away from this issue doesn’t work.
For example, there’s been a lot of discussion around trans youth in sports as part of these ads that you’re talking about and part of this anti-trans rhetoric. And state legislatures have passed many bans on trans youth in sports, and for folks that are wanting to use that as a bargaining chip—it’s not one, because those states go and then pass bans on trans medical care access and other additional harmful—just like bans on access to sports are harmful, they pass more harmful anti-trans legislation.
So, we have to know that there’s a track record here. And that track record is that we cannot use any part of trans rights as a bargaining chip. We must stay strong with trans young folks, even when it’s scary. Because they’re scared too. And we can learn a lot from the resilience that we see among young trans folks who, in many states, have been going to their representatives year after year, month after month, asking and demanding for their rights to be protected in many of these states that have been working to take those rights away. So, I really look to those young people as a wonderful example of resilience that I really hope also extends to our decision-makers, who should also be standing up for those rights again and again as well.
Phillips: Cait, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Smith: Thanks so much for having me.
Phillips: Well, that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Instagram, or Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Seeberger: And stick around for my interview with Larry Levitt in just a beat.
Seeberger: Larry Levitt is the executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. He previously directed communications for Kaiser and was editor-in-chief of their online health policy news service. Prior to that, he served as a senior health policy adviser to the White House in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and worked in policy roles for the state governments of California and Massachusetts.
Larry Levitt, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Larry Levitt: Great, thanks for having me.
Seeberger: So, I want to get started by—Donald Trump recently announced that RFK Jr. is his choice to be Secretary of Health and Human Services in his second administration. This is an agency that you previously worked for. RFK Jr. obviously subscribes to a number of really extreme conspiracy theories about health that we won’t even repeat on this program because they’re just so dangerous.
Can you talk about why many are questioning his qualifications to serve in this role? And what impacts could a leader like RFK Jr. have at HHS?
Levitt: Well, I would start with what HHS is. It’s an enormous federal agency, and it includes things like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which RFK Jr. has talked a lot about and we’ll probably talk some about as well. But it includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I mean, those programs that HHS oversees cover about 150 million Americans. So, think of it as a giant public insurance company with the potential to affect health care for a huge percentage of the population.
We’ve heard RFK Jr. talk about the dangers of vaccines, about chloride in the water, about dietary supplements, about additives to food. We know nothing about what he thinks about, and really, he has no experience in overseeing health care programs on the scale of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.
And I think a lot of people may think, OK, it should be a doctor who is the secretary of Health and Human Services. And sometimes that’s been the case. But often it’s not necessarily a doctor. It’s someone who came from the health care industry or someone who came from Congress and sat on committees that oversaw Medicare—a governor, insurance commissioners. So, people with experience running big organizations and dealing with the health care issues that HHS will deal with. And RFK Jr. does not have that kind of experience.
Seeberger: You mentioned RFK Jr. has talked a lot about fluoride and water, about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Can you speak a little bit more about what could an administration do that might impair access to vaccines? Or, what could a second Trump administration do that could jeopardize fluoride in water, which has helped prevent tooth decay for several decades now? Can you talk about what some of these impacts might be and how they would actually affect public health?
Levitt: I mean, the most important thing RFK Jr. could do as secretary of Health and Human Services about vaccines and fluoride in the water and damaging people’s health is simply to talk.
I mean, he would have an incredible platform as a cabinet secretary. His views, the misinformation he spreads about vaccines, get a lot of attention now. They would get even more attention as a government official. And we would see HHS with RFK Jr. as the head be an accelerant for misinformation.
And that would hurt trust in government. I mean, we look to government to provide evidence about vaccines, about public health measures. We look to scientists and experts. A lot of that has gotten very politicized since COVID, but I think we would see a decline in trust of government.
There are also some very specific things the secretary of Health and Human Services could do. Secretary of HHS oversees FDA. And normally, it is FDA that makes a decision about whether a vaccine is safe and effective and should be on the market. The secretary of HHS actually has the authority to overrule that decision. Similarly, the CDC makes recommendations about which vaccines people should get. They don’t require them, but they make recommendations. Again, the secretary of Health and Human Services can overrule those recommendations.
So there’s a lot that the secretary could do to affect whether people use vaccines, whether people take public health prevention measures. The actual decisions about whether to require vaccines in schools, whether to require fluoride in the water are made by local governments, and he would not be able to influence those.
Seeberger: Got it. That’s helpful. Larry, I’m curious. Trump has long vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He famously fell one vote short when he was president the first time around. But that doesn’t mean he has pulled back from his support of those efforts and may try to dismantle the law again.
His advisers, I’ve read earlier this week in The Washington Post, have really put a bullseye on the Medicaid program in order to pay for extension of his signature 2017 tax law. I’m curious how you are thinking about what sort of cuts or rollbacks to programs that help make sure the American people have access to health coverage, particularly for those most in need, may be at risk in the second Trump administration, and what sort of long-term impacts could those changes in policy have for folks?
Levitt: As you said, we saw this big debate over repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017. It did fall one vote short with Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and a dramatic thumbs down at the end of that debate. And I think we’ve fallen into this trap of thinking, if Trump tries to repeal the ACA, that would have these enormous effects. If he doesn’t try to repeal the ACA, then access to health care will be fine. And it’s not so binary. I actually think it’s unlikely there will be another big high-profile effort to outright repeal the ACA.
Seeberger: Well, it will not be branded that way.
Levitt: It will not be. No, that’s right. That’s right. I mean, even during the campaign, Trump said he had concepts of what to do. He was going to release the details in two weeks. We’ve certainly heard that before, and we didn’t see the details.
As you said, I think Medicaid will have a big target on its back. Republicans are clearly going to extend the Trump tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2025. They’re going to look for more tax cuts, and there will be pressure to pay for at least some of those tax cuts. Trump has said that Medicare and Social Security are off the table. Defense cuts are off the table. That leaves Medicaid as the next biggest program and would be a big target for cuts.
There’s a playbook for this. Trump in his budgets, as president before, proposed a block grant for Medicaid, turning over lump sums of money to states, giving them much more flexibility, and cutting a trillion dollars out of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act over a decade.
There’s been talk of getting rid of or eliminating enhanced federal payments for the Medicaid expansion. This was the Affordable Care Act expansion that extended Medicaid to all low-income people, though 10 states have still declined to do that. There are 24 million people covered under that expansion, many of whom would end up uninsured without it.
We saw, in the first Trump administration, efforts to give people what they called other options, but these were things like short-term plans, association health plans that did not follow the rules of the Affordable Care Act, did not provide protections for preexisting conditions. JD Vance talked about this during the campaign as well. And I think we’re very likely to see moves in that direction again.
Seeberger: Speaking of the campaign, obviously pocketbook issues were a huge focus in this election. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed in 2022 was one of the Biden administration’s biggest accomplishments in terms of saving people money, right? It had the enhanced premium tax credits. It had a number of different drug pricing provisions, many of which you’ve got Republican senators like Mike Crapo of Idaho or Tom Tillis of North Carolina who are out there publicly saying that they have their sights set on halting those negotiations with the Medicare program and stopping a number of these different provisions.
Can you talk about how reversing some of these proposals in the IRA could actually end up driving up costs for Americans who need those enhanced subsidies or need more affordable medications?
Levitt: I mean, there were all kinds of jokes when the Inflation Reduction Act passed that, “Oh, it’s not really about inflation or the cost of living.” But it really was, in health care. I mean, let’s take these one by one.
So, the enhanced premium assistance lowered premiums for people in ACA plans, so that’s about 21 million people now, by an average of $705 a year. Those subsidies expire at the end of 2025. And Republicans don’t have to do anything to stop them. They just have to do nothing to avoid extending them. That would immediately increase out-of-pocket premiums for people in ACA plans by 79 percent. So a huge financial hit to people.
The Inflation Reduction Act also addressed drug costs. It capped out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors and people with disabilities at $2,000 a year, capped insulin copays at $35 a month. And as you said, it gave the government authority for the first time to negotiate the price of drugs.
Many people may not remember when drug coverage was added to Medicare, it included a provision prohibiting the government from actually negotiating the price. They had to pay whatever price drug companies charged in insurance plans. That provision to give government authority to negotiate drug prices has already applied to 10 drugs. Ten more drugs will be announced early next year. And it’s reduced the price of those drugs significantly. So, rolling it back would increase drug costs for people, increase drug costs for the government, and increase premiums for people in ACA plans.
Seeberger: Larry, we’ve had a President Trump before, and we mentioned some of his record on supporting for repeal of the ACA. Are there other Trump first-term health policies that you expect to see perhaps a significant departure from in a second Trump administration? Or do you think it’s really going to be kind of the same playbook?
Levitt: I think early on, we’re going to see a lot of the same playbook. It’s attacking immigrants. It’s restricting funding for Planned Parenthood through federal family planning programs. It’s expanding these insurance plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions. It’s Medicaid waivers that allow work requirements in the Medicaid program, even though the vast majority of Medicaid enrollees are working or have good reasons for not working, like caring for a family member. So, I think we will see a lot of the same.
But one thing we know about Trump is that he’s quite unpredictable. And I think we’ll see some surprising proposals in health care. I mean, there was in fact one in the first Trump administration: He put in place rules that required hospitals to disclose the prices they charge. This is something a lot of people have wanted for a long time, both to make the market work better and to protect patients. And Trump, in his unpredictable manner, actually did it.
Seeberger: I’m just thinking back to, I think kind of left, right, center—I think all Americans would say what Operation Warp Speed accomplished was really impressive, right? And now you’ve got President-elect Trump, who is trying to distance himself from that success and questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines, which is probably the hallmark achievement of his presidency. So yeah, like you say, anything is on the table. He’s certainly unpredictable, to say the least.
Levitt: Yeah, I mean, imagine a parallel universe. I mean, if you remember back to 2020, Trump was predicting that the FDA would approve COVID vaccines before the election. And, in fact, was criticized for trying to put political pressure on the FDA to approve vaccines before they were ready.
So, imagine this parallel universe where Trump embraced vaccines, embraced science. We could be in a very different place right now.
Seeberger: Speaking of science, there’s a lot of uncertainty about what the future of health care in this country is going to look like. These things can go down a number of different paths.
I’m curious to know from your perspective, what do you think Americans should be doing between now and January 20 for their own personal and financial health? Are there steps that they can take to shield themselves from some of the uncertainty or potential damage that could come from a number of these different policy interventions? Things like updating their vaccines or seeing their doctors, maybe selecting a new insurance plan? Things like that I’d be curious to get your perspective on that.
Levitt: Yeah. So, I think that last one’s a good example. I mean, there’s open enrollment going on right now under the Affordable Care Act. Those enhanced premium subsidies we talked about are still in place for 2025. So, no one should hesitate to get insurance because of a fear of what might happen in the future.
And as we saw in that ACA repeal debate in 2017, I remember talking to a journalist on the night of the election in 2016 and saying that the Affordable Care Act was toast. And I turned out to be wrong about that. And I think we have to remember that Republicans may propose these ideas like cuts to Medicaid—that doesn’t mean that those ideas will actually come to pass.
I mean, with Medicaid, there will be a really strong effort on the part of governors and patient groups and hospitals and nursing homes and insurance companies even, to oppose those Medicaid cuts. So, none of this is a fait accompli.
Seeberger: I love that optimism. And here on “The Tent,” Larry, we like to end on a bright note. So, I am curious to get your thoughts on what states are doing. You mentioned governors intervening to fight some of the cuts to Medicaid programs. Of course, you could then have to shoulder a bunch of additional costs if the federal guarantee ends up being eliminated.
I’m curious, what are states doing to step up and push back against some of these efforts and make sure that people have access to the health care that they need?
Levitt: Yeah, I think one thing we saw during the first Trump administration was states taking legal action to stop some of the efforts in health care. And I think we will very much see that again.
And in fact, there was a Supreme Court decision last year that overturned what’s known as the Chevrondeference, which was the idea of giving deference to federal agencies where federal law is ambiguous. And that was overturned by the court. That may actually work in opponents to the Trump administration’s favor now. If the administration tries to overstep its legal authority, there may be greater opportunity to stop that on the part of states and outside groups. There are states moving forward on health care, even with the election, and it doesn’t necessarily break down into partisan lines.
There are states moving on health care costs, trying to address hospital prices. And those are states like California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, but also states like Indiana. So I think those pocketbook issues, which is where we started, are really what is motivating voters. I mean, we saw that during the election.
It’s important to remember that health care really is an economic issue. That’s how people think about it. It’s their financial security. And I think we’ll see states continue to move forward to try to reduce the cost of health care.
Seeberger: We’d love to hear that. Larry Levitt, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Levitt: Thanks for having me.
Seeberger: Well, that’s all for us folks. Please go back and check out previous episodes. Like you know, Erin said, we are not going to have an episode next week. Which means, of course, we have to talk about Thanksgiving traditions and our favorite dishes. Erin, what are you looking forward to this Thanksgiving?
Phillips: Well, since Daniella’s not here, I might as well go ahead and say it. I love a pumpkin pie. I sure do love like the classic pumpkin pie. I don’t know why Daniella doesn’t like it. We’ve tried to hash this out many, many years in a row. But I will be delighting in the ultimate Thanksgiving dish.
I love a little gratitude moment at Thanksgiving, going around the table saying what you’re grateful for. And I’ve got to be honest, Colin, I haven’t spent the last couple of Thanksgivings really with family. I’ve been saving that for the winter holidays when we have more time off, and traveling around Thanksgiving is just so hard. I’ve just been doing small friendsgiving-type meals. So I’ve really been enjoying low-key Thanksgiving. You got the pumpkin pie. Maybe you even do a Chinese food dinner. Maybe you’re not cooking for Thanksgiving this year, if you don’t feel like it. Just enjoying time with friends, family, chosen family, whatever you want, and keeping it low key. What about you?
Seeberger: I love that. And also, I will say, your secret about pumpkin pie is safe with me.
Seeberger: I will say, in our house, we usually do not travel too much for Thanksgiving. It’s so raucous trying to navigate holiday travel. And then you get there and it’s like you have a couple days and then you’ve got to pack up and go home.
So for us, we usually like to celebrate Thanksgiving at home, and we also usually do a very small gathering on the Wednesday night before Thanksgiving. People are like, “I’ve got too many other things I need to think about. I don’t have dinner for the night before,” or what have you. So we usually try to have people over and enjoy seeing our friends who are also not traveling over the holiday.
In terms of food? Oh, gosh. I have too many thoughts to list, but I personally am a green bean casserole fan, and I know that that is controversial.
Phillips: Not with me, Colin. I love green bean casserole.
Seeberger: No? OK, OK. My daughter has taken to brussels sprouts, so I think we may have to make some brussels sprouts too, but we’re big into the greens. And then my husband makes an amazing stuffing, and I’m looking forward to enjoying that as well.
And then otherwise, I think that we may try to catch a movie. My daughter is super excited about the release of “Moana 2,” which happens on Thanksgiving Day. So we’ll probably make it to the movie theater as well.
Phillips: That sounds awesome. I’m hoping to go see “Wicked” myself. So that’s another exciting movie obviously coming out soon. And I can’t wait for that.
Seeberger: Love that for you.
Phillips: I do have one last food question before we wrap, Colin, and that is: Are you a canned cranberry sauce lover or a homemade lover?
Seeberger: Oh, it’s got to be out of the jar. It’s got to be sliced. It’s got to be chilled. I have very, very specific thoughts on this. I prefer the Ocean Spray brand of canned cranberry. It’s got to have the ridges, it can’t just be a smooth cylinder. It’s got to have the little ridges from the can. Don’t save the canned cranberry. Just buy an extra can, guys, and that way you can enjoy it for leftovers the next day.
My one take on this Thanksgiving is: Do you really need the 12th side dish or whatever it is? Just make one less and give yourself the time back. Don’t stress. 2024 has been kind of wild. So enjoy time with your loved ones. Enjoy time with your families. And take the time to be thankful for all the blessings we have in our lives.
And with that, we will not talk to you next week, but we will talk to you the week after. Wishing you all a very happy, safe, and healthy holiday. Take care. Happy Thanksgiving.
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Colin Seeberger, and co-hosted by Daniella Gibbs Léger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer and guest host for this episode. 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 at “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.