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, how are you holding up amidst daylight saving time?
Gibbs Léger: Barely. I’m so tired. I know it’s just an hour, but why does it wreak such havoc on my body?
Seeberger: That’s fair. I think I’m more of a morning person, so I’m actually loving it because I’m getting an extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day. And so for me, it’s been really not too shabby, especially also my daughter’s now three, and like first few years of her life, you’d hit March and it was like, oh my gosh, you had to settle in for weeks of just wanting to stay up until 9, 10, 11 o’clock at night. But thankfully we seem to have put those days in the past.
Gibbs Léger: Well, that is very good to hear.
Seeberger: Yes, yes. Well, speaking about rays of light, I hear you had a really great interview this week.
Gibbs Léger: I did. I spoke with CAP Action’s new CEO, Neera Tanden, about Trump’s dangerous agenda and what progressives should do to chart a better path forward.
Seeberger: Well, we love Neera, and there’s nobody who is a more fierce fighter than her. So I can’t wait to hear your conversation. But first, we have to get to some news.
Gibbs Léger: That is right, Colin, we do. Congressional Republicans have led us to the brink of yet another shutdown. It’s something we got to talk about. After breaking off bipartisan negotiations about how to fund the federal government, on Tuesday night House Republicans passed a partisan continuing resolution to keep the government open for the rest of the fiscal year, until September 30.
But even the CR—as it’s called in Washington, D.C.—is bad. Donald Trump had to post on Truth Social begging congressional Republicans to vote for it, because he recognized that the bad optics of them failing to keep the government open when they control both chambers of Congress would not be good.
Gibbs Léger: As part of that effort to persuade House conservatives to vote for it, he even admitted out loud that he would seek to illegally impound funds appropriated by Congress if a bill makes it to his desk. Meaning he would give himself full control to decide what does and does not get funded, a role that our founders vested in the legislature. To be blunt, Colin, this is a crappy bill.
Gibbs Léger: It effectively rolls out a welcome mat for Elon Musk and Donald Trump to continue destroying our system of checks and balances, letting the president’s billionaire donor decide what programs do or don’t get funded.
It gives Musk the green light to continue slashing aviation safety, cancer research, and FEMA. It threatens to cut funding to public schools and health care that students, teachers, parents, and families rely on, not to mention child abuse prevention programs and safe drinking water provisions.
If the government shuts down over this bad bill, it could also impact services that help veterans. And it would cut $1 billion—with a B—from D.C.’s budget, already halfway through its fiscal year, which is absolutely devastating for the city and would result in immediate firings of teachers and first responders.
Seeberger: Yeah, that part is a little personal, Daniella.
Seeberger: But I want to be crystal clear about what opponents of the CR have been arguing this week.
As you mentioned, the founders of this country gave power of the purse to Congress, right? But Trump and Musk, they’ve been taking a hatchet to the federal government and our system of checks and balances. And they’re operating outside the law to decide what programs do or don’t get funded.
We’ve already seen how inept they are. Elon has fired workers protecting America’s nuclear arsenal. He has fired people who keep passengers safe in the skies, who are embarking on air travel. And he’s also fired experts responding to the bird flu.
And we need to be clear that we’re seeing real time consequences. Just this week, America’s major airlines—including Delta, American Airlines, Southwest, and JetBlue—all released their economic forecast for the rest of this year. And they announced that they’re actually slashing their estimates for the year in part because of increasing concerns among passengers about the safety of air travel in the United States.
So, opponents of this bill are rightly pointing out not just that this bill would give a green light to Donald Trump and Elon Musk to continue flouting our system of checks and balances and the core tenets of our democracy, but they’re also really standing up for our economy and the safety programs and services that the American people rely on for health care, for housing, for travel, education, and so much more to ensure that they’re not going to be axed by an out-of-control president or his billionaire donor.
What Congress needs to do is step back, take a deep breath, and pass a 30-day CR, which is effectively a stopgap measure, so that leaders in Congress can come together and actually negotiate a bipartisan proposal to fund the government. That is actually what would be in the best interest of the American people.
Gibbs Léger: One hundred percent Collin. But that wasn’t the only outrageous thing that’s come out of Washington these past few days. I want to talk about the mounting evidence that Trump’s policies are already damaging our economy. Here to break it down is Emily Gee, senior vice president of Inclusive Growth at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Emily, welcome to the show.
Emily Gee: Thank you for having me here.
Gibbs Léger: So, Emily, new CNN polling is showing that a solid majority of Americans disapprove of Trump’s economy. What do you think is driving that opposition, and what are some of the indicators we’re starting to see that suggest our economy is struggling? As an economist yourself, which ones are most concerning to you?
Gee: So as an economist, I will say the vibes are not good.
Gibbs Léger: Wow, that’s an official economic term, I believe.
Gee: It is. So overall, what we’re seeing is people are expecting higher prices. And that’s as a result of Trump’s tariffs, his continued threats of more tariffs, and also his threats of mass deportation of immigrants.
And so it’s not just people like you and me, but also some of the big investment banks who think that we will see higher prices and therefore higher inflation this year. Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, also wonks like The Budget Lab at Yale think we’ll see inflation half a point to one point higher this year because of those Trump tariff policies.
And so what we are seeing among some early indicators is a decline in consumer confidence. The Federal Reserve survey showed that people think that things will not be better a year from now. The Conference Board and the University of Michigan tracked consumer sentiment, and they both found the numbers going down there.
And this isn’t just vibes. It’s actual behavior. We saw a decline in consumer spending in January. What’s happening is this uncertainty around policy is making people very nervous. And so if you are someone who’s on the fence about a home renovation or buying a new car, you might decide to wait it out because you don’t know what’s happening to your job, what’s happening to prices. If you are a small business owner who’s trying to think about what inventory decisions you need to make, or do you want to upgrade some equipment, this is a really chilling environment for making investments.
Seeberger: You called it that the “vibecession” seems to be back, but we also saw Donald Trump this past weekend in an interview on Fox News refuse to rule out the possibility that the U.S. could enter not a vibecession but a recession, and he started to downplay the impact this would have on the lives of everyday Americans.
Can you remind our listeners, what is a recession? What causes it? And how likely is it that we actually could face one this year?
Gee: So, most of the forecasts I was referring to—the Goldman Sachs, the J.P. Morgan, others—think we see a slowdown in growth. But you’re right, that was pretty scary that Trump is refusing to rule out a recession. That is serious stuff.
So, recession is an overall contraction in the economy, not just one sector. And it’s something that’s generally prolonged, usually lasting for multiple months. And so during recession, you see things like people’s incomes go down, less employment, consumer spending tends to go down, as does industrial production or wholesale retail sales. What that means for ordinary families is that recessions are a time when your budget is squeezed, when your income goes down, and you might lose your job or have trouble finding one.
Gibbs Léger: So as prices continue to rise, Americans are already feeling pinched, as we discussed. What other impacts can we expect to feel in our everyday lives? And how do these realities contradict Trump’s promise of a new American “golden age,” as he said in his recent joint address?
Gee: Well, this golden age is going to be one with higher prices.
Gibbs Léger: That sounds terrible.
Gee: Yes. Already, Target, Best Buy, other retailers have said they are ready to increase prices because of those steep tariffs that Trump has imposed. So we will see prices going up. And what’s concerning about inflation is that it’s not just about the input costs. It’s also a lot about expectations.
If businesses expect that prices will keep increasing in the future, they might preemptively increase that. If households are expecting inflation to increase, that really can kill consumer sentiment. And I think if we see economic slowdown or even a contraction, we’re going to see a really tough labor market for workers.
Already, we’re seeing some signs of labor market softening, including what economist Aaron Sojourner calls his labor leverage ratio. That’s a ratio of people who are quit their job, probably because they found something good, to those who have been laid off. And that has been decreasing. So in other words, people are not leaving by choice.
In fact, one worrying sign that we saw in the most recent jobs numbers was that even though unemployment overall held steady, we created jobs, we did see an increase in number of people who were working part time and not by choice. And so 460,000 people in the U.S., more, are working because their hours were cut back or because they couldn’t find full-time work.
Seeberger: Well, Emily Gee, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent” and sharing your expertise.
Seeberger: Well, that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Instagram, Bluesky, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Neera Tanden in just a beat.
Gibbs Léger: Neera Tanden is president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and the CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. She recently served as domestic policy adviser for the Biden administration. She also served in both the Obama and Clinton administrations at the Department of Health and Human Services and on multiple presidential and Senate campaigns.
Neera, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Neera Tanden: So great to be here.
Gibbs Léger: Woohoo! Alright, so, between Project 2025, Trump’s sweeping and sometimes seemingly illegal executive orders, and DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency], a lot has changed since you last led CAP Action. What are your thoughts on this political moment and how to tackle the anger, fear, and uncertainty that many Americans are experiencing right now? What should folks be doing to hold them accountable?
Tanden: So I think one of the greatest assets Trump has is his ability to hold attention to the crazy, crazy things he does all the time. But he also has a sort of strategic asset in that people, particularly the media, has a difficult time differentiating bluster from reality.
So he’s issuing a range of executive orders on things that he doesn’t actually have the power to do. That creates litigation, but an impact—I’m not saying it doesn’t create any impact, but we have to be really strategic in this moment about impact. And so when I look at what he’s doing, I think it’s crucial for us to focus on the actual impact on Americans’ lives.
And so when we’re thinking about what DOGE is doing and the harm it’s doing, it is definitely harming federal workers by firing federal workers. And these are individual tragedies, and it’s important for us to advocate on their behalf. But it’s really also a crucial moment for us to communicate to the American people what the impact of these cuts are.
And it’s the federal workers getting fired, but most importantly, it’s your security in your home when there are fewer firefighters coming to rescue your house during a fire. Or, there are fewer veterans who are working on veterans’ health care because 80,000 of them are getting fired from the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs].
And I think one of the most crucial things we can do—and I’m proud of the work that CAP and CAP Action are doing—is to really draw the connection between what Donald Trump is doing via Musk, but it is Donald Trump doing these things, what he’s doing, and the harm to people’s lives, their health, their welfare, their security. And what he wants us to focus on is him and his bluster and his tweeting. And we have the job, a little bit of an opposition, to draw the connection between his actions and the harms that people are experiencing.
And of course, the fact that he’s tanked the stock market is another example that people could think of. But a lot of people don’t have stocks, so we have to drive that message as well.
Gibbs Léger: So, there’s also a chance that the government shuts down this coming Friday. Can you talk a little bit about how we got here and what Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have done to push us to this point?
Tanden: Well, I mean, fundamentally, they want an open hand to continue to wreak havoc through the federal government. And what really concerns me the most about this is the secret deal that Trump made with the Freedom Caucus. So this, just as a reminder, during Democratic administrations, the Freedom Caucus would not vote for CRs, actually clean CRs.
And what is an actually clean CR? It just means it’s actually keeping the government funded, no big policy changes. But to get the Freedom Caucus to do 180 degrees and support this legislation—which still has some policy strings attached—they made a commitment that this legislation would help them cut more.
And I really worry about DOGE if Democrats vote for this. I really worry about what that means for future cuts. I think they will feel even more unbound, and I worry about how courts will look at this if they have a bill that seemingly sanctions some of these cuts. So, I think they can’t have it both ways.
They can’t say, “Well, to get the Freedom Caucus, this is going to be used to cut more from the federal government.” And again, it’s really important for all of us to be clear, it’s not like a cut to the federal government. It’s firing more veterans. It’s firing more doctors and nurses at HHS and programs like HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration], which no one knows what it means, but it funds doctors and nurses.
It’s not cutting just people from their jobs—which is tragic—it is making you less safe, your family less safe. When the Department of Education closes, half the staff don’t work there anymore. Funds for kids with disabilities is really threatened. Kids that go to low-income schools, their education is threatened.
So, our focus needs to be on the impact on real people. And that is what the CR is fundamentally about—giving Donald Trump and Elon Musk More carte blanche to cut programs that help Americans across the country.
Gibbs Léger: So, beyond a partisan approach to government funding, House Republicans are also proposing sweeping Medicaid cuts, which Donald Trump recently endorsed. During your last tenure at CAP Action, you helped lead the fight against Trump’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). So what lessons did you learn from that fight that might apply today? And why are these cuts so unpopular? And, how should folks combat them?
Tanden: So, I think there is huge lessons to learn from the Affordable Care Act, if I do say so myself.
Which is, I like to remind everyone, the Affordable Care Act—unfortunately, in my mind—but the Affordable Care Act was not popular when we passed the legislation. And it was not popular before we passed the legislation. And it really wasn’t popular after we passed the legislation. The moment that switched was when Donald Trump sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
And then the opposition—and I’m really proud of the fact that CAP Action led this work with the Center for American Progress—but we developed an opposition that made clear in every congressional district in red states and purple states as well as blue states, the impact of destroying the Affordable Care Act and what that would mean in terms of the 23 million Americans who would lose health care.
Now that number is now 45 million Americans because of the work we did in the Biden administration. But it was 23 million Americans at that point in 2017. And it was not just people lose health care coverage, that rural hospitals would close—and a lot of that was because of the cuts to Medicaid.
Now, after Trump attacked the ACA, it became popular. And it has actually been popular ever since. And this is really one of my most important takeaways from the experience, which is Trump is a destroyer. It’s like he’s breaking things. And it’s almost like a broken bone. You break something, and then the real question is how it heals. Does it heal stronger, or does it fracture in ways that weaken it forever?
And that is the question that we all confront today, which is, I am confident that the majority of people and a lot of people who are on Medicaid, voted for Donald Trump. A lot of people. They forget that Medicaid is the biggest health insurer in Alabama, in Louisiana, in Texas, in Florida, and places particularly where the ACA—they don’t have the exchanges. Medicaid is the largest insurer for people.
And what’s interesting is that even in this moment, they’re not going after the exchanges, ACA exchanges. They are going after Medicaid. Because I think they know the ACA is a little bit of a hot stove for them after what happened.
But the threat to Medicaid is really deep. And I just want to be clear what cutting people’s Medicaid would mean. It would mean that working-class people in America who have cancer will not get their cancer treatment; who have asthma, will not get their asthma treatment. They will not be able to ensure that their kids can go to a doctor, go to the doctor they need. It is the elimination of health care for millions and millions of people.
And the fact that they would like to do that in order to pay for a gigantic tax cut for Elon Musk and his ilk is the greatest transfer of wealth from working-class people to rich people that we have ever seen in any federal policy in the federal government. And so the stakes are very high, and I am glad that we will be part of leading that fight as we have in times past.
What they’re doing is even more egregious than in the first term. I do think it’s possible they will step back from their Medicaid cuts and may try to deficit spend, but that would also have huge consequences in terms of interest rates and how much everybody pays.
So it is, as I said, it’s important for us to be clear about the consequences. Again, there’s a lot Trump does, but it’s important for us to always remember the impact. And there’s nothing more permanent than reconciliation. That is 10-year legislation. That is different from the DOGE. That is different from any executive action. So that is the big battle ahead.
Gibbs Léger: I also want to ask you about the state of the economy. You touched on it a little bit earlier. In just the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen consumer sentiment plummet, stock market nosedive, and major retailers say they’re expecting a real pullback this year in the face of Trump’s haphazard tariffs, which threaten to increase prices. So, it’s kind of looking like we’re now in a “Trump slump”—trademark—thanks to his agenda and his policy.
So, what is your assessment of this shifting economic landscape? And are you worried that we could be facing a period of stagflation, which is when the economy slows but prices remain high, as some economists are worried about?
Tanden: Well, I worry about this in really two ways. Obviously, the incredibly erratic use of tariffs and the fact that he’s putting tariffs on Canada is like we’re living through the crazy, right? Policies are not rational.
I think what’s fascinating about this is that he is taking a series of actions that will allow all of us to be clear that he is driving inflation. His policies are driving inflation. His policies are driving increases in costs for consumer goods. People pay tariffs. They are a form of tax. These are facts. And so when he has these across-the-board tariffs, we should all be concerned. And there are real harms to people, and it’s important for all of us to lay them out.
But I also think this is an area, an example of how unbound he is, which I think we should all be also worried about. Because a lot of people said even after November, “Well, he’s going to be bound by the markets, he won’t do crazy things.” And the fact that he’s willing to completely tank the market says to me that he doesn’t have fear of anyone, and he doesn’t care. It doesn’t matter to him. He just wants to do what he wants to do, however much it hurts anyone—working-class people particularly, because, of course, price increases have a huge impact on working-class people.
So I think, obviously, the fact that the economy is doing worse, people have real fears of recession. He acknowledged recession is possible and may even happen on Sunday. Not really reassuring for markets. But also I just think there’s real harm there that he’s doing, and his policies will drive actual cost increases for families who are feeling already very squeezed. It makes me worried about what’s going to happen next month, what’s going to happen two months from now, what’s going to happen three months from now.
Now, thankfully, I do think the public is also recognizing these issues, and that’s why the CNN poll came out where, for the first time, he had negative approvals on the economy. As we all know, the economy was a source of strength for him in his first term. He still lost his reelection in his first term, but it was a real source of strength. So I think that’s helpful.
And again, people ask me, “Well, why does it matter? He’s not bound by the polls.” And it’s true: He is not bound by the polls. But it is crucially important that his numbers are down in swing districts and swing states. And Republicans look at this because the only group in America that can really stop him in reconciliation, which only takes 50 votes, is other Republican senators, other Republican House members who are busy pre-obeying. And only if they see that their elections are on the line will we have any hope for them to get one microscopic dust petal of courage.
Gibbs Léger: So this ties into my next question about the ongoing debate about how people should push back to Donald Trump and his allies in Congress. Some have suggested a strategic retreat over the next few months or to quote-unquote “play dead.” Others seem to believe that we should let the courts rein in the administration’s excesses.
So, I’m going to ask you in a moment about the policy vision that we’ll be developing here at CAP Action for the future, but I want to get your take on these arguments that are happening right now.
Tanden: Yeah, I mean, just to track Bernie Sanders, I’m a little bit worried that people think we’ve been playing dead for a long time. But I think this is a recipe for disaster, actually. My view is that the country is hungry for change, that they will give Trump credit for change, even trying, if we don’t have an alternative. That it’s incumbent on the broad center left to have an alternative vision, not just to critique what he’s doing. And obviously that can be easy on some topics. But also to provide a vision of how we think we should manage the economy better, how we can grow the economy for everyone, how you can have an economy that is growing and also fair.
So I think playing dead is—again, people might confuse that with what we’ve been doing already—but I think that leaves us in a position where we sound like we’re just defending the status quo or we don’t have answers for people. And my fundamental view is that people will always go for a wrong answer if they think you don’t have one. So that’s why it’s really crucial that we offer alternatives.
And I think actually the opposite of playing dead is people are scared. I mean, it’s not like I sleep perfectly well at night every night. I understand why people are scared, because we have a leader who is unbound, who is willing to do things no president has ever done, use authorities that no president has ever used. And he does feel like he’s targeting particular people. That does make people feel vulnerable.
I think what we need is not leaders who play dead. I think we need leaders who feel the moment of the times is to respond with tough action. And I want to be clear, we have limited tools in front of us. They have a majority. People voted for a majority. That is what we have. But the pressure we can apply is on Democratic leaders, but really also on Republicans.
And let me go back to the Medicaid debate and the ACA. During the ACA, we weren’t spending our time shoring up Democrats to vote. We were spending our time making clear to Americans what the consequences of losing the Affordable Care Act was. And I’m proud of the ways that CAP Action innovated to ensure that people in purple districts and people in red districts and red states actually understood. I’m really proud of the fact that Marco Rubio complained that think tanks were coming into Florida, scaring people on the numbers of people that were going to lose health insurance, all of which was 100 percent backed by the data.
Actually, what happened that people forget about, but in the House, multiple Republicans—it was first defeated in the House. And even on the second time where they actually passed it, they gave as many Republicans a pass because many of them voted against it. And, of course, famously in the Senate, people voted against it.
Now, some of those leaders have lost. But the more we make the consequences sharper, the more impact we can have. So I think the worst thing in progressive politics and the broad center left is Republicans act very unreasonable, so then we think there’s no reason to try to pressure them in any way because they will never listen. So then we just end up talking to Democrats. And again, every Democrat can vote against reconciliation and it will pass.
So we have to train ourselves to actually talk to Republicans who are in districts that Kamala Harris won. My favorite example is North Carolina. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is voting for every single one of these nominees. He’s up in 2026. He is acting like he only has to care about his primary. He doesn’t have to care about his general election. North Carolina was a three-point state. Trump won that state only one point more than Pennsylvania. The good people of North Carolina can say, “I don’t agree with this, Thom Tillis, and you need to step up.”
Gibbs Léger: So that ties in nicely to my last question. Obviously, you believe deeply in the mission of CAP Action and the importance of our work in this moment. So I’d love to close by hearing your thoughts on what role do you envision for this organization over the next few years, especially when it comes to developing that policy agenda and those answers that the American people are looking for?
Tanden: I think the most important thing for us to be effectively opposing the Trump regime—and I do think it acts like a little bit of a regime. It doesn’t feel constrained by democratic norms anymore. I actually think the most effective way to do that is to always remind people that there is a choice here between two visions of change.
It is not Trump’s wrecking ball versus defending the status quo, defending what has happened for years. I think we should all understand as broad center left progressives, we believe in progress. That is the core of what we espouse. And so that makes it more incumbent upon us to offer an alternative to what Trump is proposing, not just an opposition or a critique.
And the Department of Education is a perfect example of that. What they’re doing to the Department of Education is horrifying and will hurt children. And I think we should make that case that it hurts children with disabilities, it hurts low-income children. These are two of the big funding streams through the Department of Education. But I think we will be a lot more persuasive to all parents in the country if we make the case that we have a vision of how to improve your schools, to ensure kids learn reading on grade, math on grade. Your child’s educational system, your public schools are taking them to where their talents lead.
That is our vision of education in the country. And actually, you need a strong Department of Education to do that. But every parent has a stake in our vision of change. And that provides an alternative to Trump wrecking the Department of Education and hurting children and us improving public schools, improving education, and describing how the Department is part of it. And I think one is a little bit more persuasive and maybe allows us also to create a vision where people recognize that we are invested in their family’s success, their kids’ success, and their success.
Gibbs Léger: Well, that is a great way to end our interview with a note of hope about how we can fight back against what is happening.
Tanden: So let me say one last thing because you know I always want to make my one last point, just jam it in there. But I do want to say, look, I understand people are scared out there and they are anxious and worried. And as I said, again, I wake up a little scared every once in a while, and I’m pretty tough.
I do think that this is a moment—it’s hard to see because it can be so scary—but of true opportunity. Donald Trump is misreading the quote-unquote “mandate” he has. It was actually a close election. I don’t want to say that erases real problems on the broad center left. There’s a lot of work we need to do on an affirmative agenda and really communicating to the American people that we are hyperfocused on solving their problems.
But I do not think people actually voted to gut Medicaid by trillions of dollars or to tank the economy. So, this is an opportunity for us to reach out to the broad middle as well as energize our base and build a stronger, more resilient majority over these next several years. And that is really our goal, and I hope people will join us.
Gibbs Léger: Well, Neera, I want to thank you for all the work that you do here at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Tanden: And I want to thank you for all the work you do here at the Center for American Action Fund too, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: Thank you for joining us on “The Tent.”
Tanden: Thanks for having me.
Gibbs Léger: Well, that does it for us, folks. Be sure to go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go, we’ve got to talk about some reality TV, Colin.
Seeberger: Of course we do.
Gibbs Léger: OK, so I didn’t finish watching all of “The Bachelor,” the “Women’s Tell All,” but I am over Carolina.
Seeberger: Oh God, so over Carolina.
Seeberger: I mean, the entire episode was just the Carolina show.
Seeberger: And then this, “Woe is me,” sobbing, leaving the stage, “I’m the victim here” stuff—
Gibbs Léger: It was too much.
Seeberger: No, I don’t have time for it.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, not at all.
Gibbs Léger: Very ridiculous. I thought Sarafiena was adorable when her mom came on the screen.
Seeberger: I love Sarafiena.
Gibbs Léger: I know, I know. I was like, oh, maybe she’ll be in Paradise?
Seeberger: She’s definitely going to Paradise.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, she should. So I don’t know what’s going to happen at the finale, but I’m just kind of like, eh.
Seeberger: Yeah, to say the least. I mean, personally, I love Dina. I thought that Dina was far and away the best, most impressive option. That said, the hometown was weird—
Gibbs Léger: Super weird.
Seeberger: —where she elected to not have her family meet him. Which like, you know what, to each their own. But it seemed like you had only one toe in the pond, you know?
Gibbs Léger: Right. Like I’m not going to get proposed—I’m not gonna get engaged to somebody if I’ve never met their family.
Seeberger: Yeah. So I’m not super thrilled with the finalists, but I think Juliana is probably my favorite at this point.
Gibbs Léger: I think so, too. I really liked Juliana. I think she’s funny. She’s smart. She’s cute.
Seeberger: I feel like their energies match up together, too.
Gibbs Léger: Agreed. I don’t know why Zoe’s there.
Seeberger: Well, speaking of finalists—
Gibbs Léger: Yes. Spoiler alert, people.
Seeberger: Yes. If you watch “The Traitors” and have not watched the finale, then stop listening. We will talk to you next week. But for those of you who do, oh my gosh, last week’s finale of “The Traitors” was amazing. I’m obsessed with Gabby Windey. Gabby, if you’re listening, we’d be happy to have you on “The Tent.”
Gibbs Léger: We would love to have your delicious takes on “The Tent.” Please.
Seeberger: She’s spectacular. Was so excited that she, Dylan Efron—Zac Efron’s little brother—won, as well as Dolores Catania from “Real Housewives of New Jersey,” and Ivar—I don’t even know what Ivar’s last name is, but he’s connected to the royal family. And he was just there. But it’s so much fun.
Seeberger: They are just a thrill to watch every week. I don’t know what I’m going to do on my Thursday nights anymore.
Gibbs Léger: There’s got to be a “Real Housewives” or something you can pop in.
Seeberger: I’m sure, but like, it’s honestly going to bring me less joy. It was so funny. It’s like all the characters, all the Bravo people being terrible strategists, all the reality competition shows people totally just trying to take each other out. Oh my gosh, the gamesmanship was so good. And then Alan Cumming is the best character on television I think right now.
Gibbs Léger: He is phenomenal. I’ve loved him forever. Well, that is a ringing endorsement, if you haven’t watched it yet, to go ahead and watch.
Gibbs Léger: And, once again, Gabby, call us.
Gibbs Léger: Please. OK, folks it is officially allergy season. And so I will be complaining about this for the next several months, as I do every year, but the weather is nice. The days are longer. So, Spring is here, and I’m happy about that.
Gibbs Léger: But y’all take care of yourselves, and we’ll 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, 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.