Transcript:
Colin Seeberger: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger.
Daniella Gibbs Léger: And I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger. Colin, how was your long weekend?
Seeberger: Oh, it was lovely, Daniella. I mean, honestly, I think the weather in Washington, D.C., was about as good as it can get for an entire holiday weekend.
Seeberger: I mean, usually by Memorial Day we’re all suffering with, like, 95 percent humidity. It’s crested 90 degrees. No, it was perfect all weekend.
Gibbs Léger: It was really wonderful, and I think we are now paying for it with the cold rain that we’re having today potentially through Friday. But yeah, it was a really lovely weekend. And I heard your Tuesday—or as I like to call it, “fake Monday,” after a long holiday weekend—was punctuated by a great conversation that you had.
Seeberger: It was. I spoke with Michigan Law professor Barb McQuade. We discussed upcoming Supreme Court decisions, the Trump administration’s brazen attacks on institutions and the rule of law, and how both states and everyday people can stand up and push back against Trump’s authoritarian regime.
Here’s just part of our interview, where she talked about the slew of attacks the administration is making on Harvard, as it tries to bring a perceived intellectual opponent to heel.
Barbara McQuade: So I think ultimately Harvard will prevail here. Can the president do it? Well, I don’t think he’s going to get away with this, but it really does seem that he is looking for every way possible to squeeze Harvard now that they have dared to push back against some of his demands.
Gibbs Léger: Well I can’t wait to hear the rest. But before we get into that, let’s touch on the news. Because Memorial Day—it was far from politically uneventful, shall we say.
Seeberger: You could say that again.
Gibbs Léger: So Donald Trump spent the weekend complaining on Truth Social that his bestie, Vladimir Putin, was being a bad friend.
Gibbs Léger: You know, it seems to have suddenly dawned on Trump that maybe—four years into the war—Putin is killing innocent Ukrainian civilians for no good reason. So listen, maybe Trump has finally realized that diplomacy via Truth Social doesn’t work? And on Sunday, he complained that Putin is, quote, “playing with fire.” I don’t know exactly what that means, but, OK, Trump, go off. He doesn’t have the wherewithal—“he” meaning Trump—to control Putin at all, and he never has. And the problem is, Putin knows this.
Gibbs Léger: And so what exactly is Donald Trump’s goal with Putin, with Russia? Is it to make Putin his best friend? Or is it really to try and end this war? He came into office saying that he was going to end the war in a day.
Seeberger: Yeah, he has some special powers, right?
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, exactly. Well, it’s been several hundred days, and no, we are nowhere close to ending this war. And he’s now talking about possibly pulling away from negotiations because it’s clear he doesn’t have the leverage that he thought he did over Putin. So he looks pretty weak to me.
Seeberger: Pretty weak indeed.
Gibbs Léger: And then we need to shift and also talk about Gaza here. Because Trump has also talked a very big game about what he wants to do there and how he was going to end the conflict there, but we are no closer to a solution there. The opposite is happening.
Humanitarian aid is being blocked, civilians are being killed with impunity, and all Trump is doing is making weak generalizations. And he said over the weekend, “We want to see if we can stop the whole situation as quickly as possible.” What does that even mean?
Seeberger: What, like he just woke up one day and was like, “Hmm, maybe we should do something about this.”
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, exactly. And this is just another example of Trump’s uncertainty, unwillingness to actually engage in foreign policy. There’s no vision. There’s no end game here.
Seeberger: No, there’s no end game, there’s no vision, partially because Donald Trump is distracted by whatever his vanity project of the day is.
Seeberger: Donald Trump has talked about saying that he wants to take Greenland from Denmark. He’s talked about annexing Canada and taking over the Panama Canal—not actually focusing on what are these massive global conflicts that have ripple effects across the rest of the world, right?
Seeberger: I’ve got to say, in the case of Canada, it even prompted King Charles to make a trip over from the UK to the Canadian Parliament to address Canada about its sovereignty. This is the type of address we haven’t seen since the 1970s.
Seeberger: Yeah. Yeah, totally. And we haven’t even gotten to Trump’s reckless trade wars. It seems like just another indication that the man’s approach to foreign affairs actually has no real strategy behind it. It really makes zero sense.
He’s, of course, blinked again over the weekend, after making threats of imposing 50 percent tariffs on the European Union at the end of last week. Just 48 hours later, oh, guess what?
Seeberger: Trump caved, right? There’s really no end game here, Daniella. There’s no strategy. He’s just acting on wild emotions, I guess, or informing his strategy based on who’s the most recent person who he’s talked to who—oh, let’s be honest, may have some stake in a company that’s got foreign holdings or may have seen their stock take a hit after some of these announcements were made. He’s really squandered all of America’s soft and hard power in foreign policy with this uncertainty, and it’s really affecting businesses and America’s international competitiveness.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, it totally is. And you know they say women are emotional leaders. Miss me. Miss me with that mess.
Gibbs Léger: So switching gears, we also have to talk about the reconciliation bill that passed the House last week. Republicans like to call it Trump’s “big beautiful bill,” but what this really is is a big bad bill. And they passed it in the dead of the night by a single vote. And now it faces an uphill battle in the Senate, which is interesting to me because Trump said over the weekend that there could be major changes to the bill.
Seeberger: I did see that.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. So are you—
Seeberger: Oh, news to all those House members, right?
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. It’s like, are you trying to tell me that you left your fellow Republican House members out to dry?
Seeberger: He wouldn’t do that.
Gibbs Léger: Not at all. He wouldn’t force them to take a terribly unpopular vote back home in their districts—for what? But you know what? Shame on them, because their first mistake was listening to anything that Donald Trump had to say in the first place.
Seeberger: Correct. It’s not like they didn’t know who they were getting into bed with.
Seeberger: And there’s a reason why senators are saying that, “Yeah, let’s pump the brakes on this thing that came out of the House.” And that’s because there are concerns both among moderates in the Republican Senate Conference as well as folks on the hard right.
Seeberger: Because the bill explodes the deficit to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars, which is just going to increase borrowing costs for the American people. It’s going to make people’s wages lower value, meaning that they’re basically getting poorer under this proposal.
And then, like I was saying, among the moderates, they’re concerned about the fact that this proposal would actually end up ripping health care coverage away from 14 million Americans by 2034. They even made this bill even more radical in the closing hours of negotiations in the House by speeding up some of the various different provisions, ripping away even more financial assistance to purchase health insurance, which would actually expedite the timeline for terminating the clean energy tax credits that would put more than half a million—half a million—
Gibbs Léger: That’s a lot.
Seeberger: —that’s a lot—operational construction jobs at risk by getting rid of the clean energy tax credits. There’s also concerns from folks like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska because Alaska’s a real high-cost state for food, right?
Seeberger: And so there’s major concerns about ripping away people’s food assistance. Folks are already getting by on just a couple of dollars a meal through SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], right? And the cuts that Republicans have put on the table in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would actually bring that down even further, making it so—we’re talking about families with kids may see their food assistance ripped away. We’re talking about kids going hungry here.
So it’s no surprise that there’s a lot of concern in the Senate Republican Conference. We will see where it goes. And those are the practical implications. You also look at the politics of this, Daniella?
Seeberger: You know, it’s not great. We see poll after poll after poll shows that Americans actually oppose cutting Medicaid in order to pay for more tax cuts. And according to KFF, that even includes a majority of Republicans. Data for Progress actually found that 83 percent of Americans opposed cuts to SNAP, and that includes in every congressional district. There’s less than 15 percent support for cuts to SNAP.
Now, we got to call this out: Just hours before Republicans voted on this thing in the House, we actually got new information from the Congressional Budget Office, which showed that over 10.3 million Americans would actually lose Medicaid coverage. We already knew that over 5 million more would end up losing coverage through some of the changes they’re talking about making to the Affordable Care Act.
Really let’s call this proposal what it is, and that is just the latest iteration from the Republican Party ripping away health care from people, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Seeberger: And this is just 2017 all over again, it seems. And let’s not forget: How did that play out for the Republican Party in the 2018 midterms?
Seeberger: No, no. People were pretty PO’d over the prospect of having their health care coverage ripped away, over having to pay more for their health care coverage. And yet what Republicans have put on the table in several aspects of this bill would actually make the problem so, so much worse. And so I think that there’s going to be huge ramifications as we look toward next November.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, so it’ll be very interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks in the Senate. Well that’s all the time that we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, please hit us up on Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Seeberger: And stick around for my interview with Barb McQuade in just a beat.
Seeberger: Barb McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, where she teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, national security, and data privacy. From 2010 to 2017, she served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. She was appointed by President Barack Obama and was the first woman to hold that position. McQuade is also a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC and co-hosts the “Sisters in Law” podcast. She’s also the author of Attack from Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America. I’m a big fan of hers, so I am very excited to welcome back Barb McQuade to the podcast.
Barb, thanks so much for joining us.
McQuade: Oh thanks very much for having me, Colin.
Seeberger: So last week was a doozy of a news week, if I may say so. And late in the week, we learned that the Trump administration is actually trying to revoke the visas of all international students attending Harvard University. Meanwhile, experts estimate that international students contribute over $43.8 billion to the United States economy every year.
Is this action not just a plain violation of the First Amendment? And can Trump really target Harvard this way?
McQuade: Yes it is. And no, he can’t, though watch him try. And he’s doing it. As you said, not only is it a violation of the First Amendment, but we saw a judge very quickly block this action. Harvard filed a lawsuit the same day, I think, that the Trump administration took this action. It alleged violations of the First Amendment on the grounds that this is pure retaliation for its freedom of speech, its academic freedom, its hiring practices, its teaching, its admissions practices; but also under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment—they had no opportunity for notice or hearing to contest this move; and also under the Administrative Procedure Act, which does also require procedural rights before an agency can take action like this.
So we saw a judge enter a temporary restraining order (TRO). That is only temporary, but it does include a finding not only of irreparable harm, but also of a substantial likelihood on the merits by Harvard.
So I think ultimately Harvard will prevail here. Can the president do it? Well, I don’t think he’s going to get away with this. But it really does seem that he is looking for every way possible to squeeze Harvard now that they have dared to push back against some of his demands.
Some of the stated reasons here is antisemitism, which seems like, in my view, seems sort of pretextual. No doubt there is problems with antisemitism all over the country. It’s a serious problem, and we want to work to address it. And Harvard has admitted that they believe that some of the steps that they took during the Gaza protests were perhaps not protective enough of their Jewish students.
But this goes so far above and beyond all of that. It seems unrelated to any concerns that they might genuinely have about antisemitism. So it seems to me that that’s being used as a fig leaf to just go after Harvard and put the squeeze on higher education.
Seeberger: Yeah, I don’t think that disrupting funding for clinical trials for therapeutics and drugs to help people who are struggling with chronic conditions is going to do [anything] to solve antisemitism.
But of course, Trump is not just going after universities he perceives as hostile. He has also begun to weaponize the [U.S.] Department of Justice (DOJ). After Ed Martin was deemed too extreme by even Republican senators to serve as district attorney for Washington, D.C., Trump named him the head of the Justice Department’s weaponization group.
What does this mean for political opponents, and how can they go about pushing back against this type of politicization of the Department of Justice?
McQuade: Yeah, this move by the Justice Department really breaks my heart. As somebody who spent 20 years as a DOJ lawyer, the nonpartisan nature of the work is what made it work worth doing.
McQuade: And first we see Donald Trump and then Attorney General Pam Bondi accuse their predecessors of weaponizing the Department of Justice. In my view, they did no such thing. They certainly charged Donald Trump, but in my view, those were valid charges, valid indictments.
And so what Donald Trump has done is to say those were clearly politically motivated, weaponized actions, and therefore, the people who participated in those decisions must be held accountable. And so we are seeing things like the charges against all the January 6 defendants being dropped and pardons for all of them.
And in her memo, Pam Bondi names by name Jack Smith, the special counsel; Letitia James, the attorney general of New York who brought that successful $400-plus million fraud case against Donald Trump; and Alvin Bragg, who secured 34 convictions against Donald Trump for falsification of business records to conceal the payment of hush money in the 2016 election.
And so to call all of that “weaponization” clears the way for someone like Ed Martin to train the target of DOJ action on those people. And what is especially disturbing is he made a statement at a press conference announcing his new role where he said that, “Even if the evidence is not sufficient to bring criminal charges, we are going to name these people and shame them because that’s what it’s all about in society today.”
That is a complete aberration. It is just completely at odds with the principles of federal prosecution that DOJ promulgates, which says that prosecutors should never even confirm or deny the existence of an investigation lest a person fall under a cloud of suspicion without ever being charged with proof sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And now what he’s saying is, “Even if we don’t get enough evidence, we’re still going to just smear these people and tell everybody what we find when we comb through their phone records and their tax records and their email records. Even if it’s just embarrassing or even if it’s just personal, we’re going to share all that, even if it doesn’t amount to criminal charges.”
That’s a violation of ethical duties, DOJ policy, and I really worry just taints the entire organization in a way that is going to be hard to turn around in the next administration.
Seeberger: Other issues that I’m worried about being difficult to turn around in future administrations: We have seen under Trump’s direction ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is actually arresting people they suspect of immigration violations and deporting them without any sort of due process, with no trial.
The most high-profile case is obviously that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but there have been thousands of people deported without due process. How are they still allowed to do this, Barb? Does this not undermine a fundamental right in the Fifth Amendment?
McQuade: Yes, absolutely. The only question is what are you going to do about it? Traditionally, what we would do about it is if a president were violating his legal responsibilities, Congress would step in and draft articles of impeachment and say, “You can’t do this.” But we have a Congress that is at best complicit, and at worse part of the problem. We already have some saying, “When is the constitutional crisis coming?” I think it’s here.
The Supreme Court said that the Trump administration must do everything in its power to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they haven’t brought him back yet. Originally, they told the district court, “Well facilitate: That just means that if he should find him himself at our border, we agree we have to let him in, but we don’t have to do any more than that.” And we’ve seen judges now talk about how this is a proactive effort to do everything in your power to bring them back, and they still haven’t done that.
So how can they get away with it? It’s because courts have not held the administration in contempt, which they have the power to do, and Congress has not conducted oversight or pushed back to use its power as a check on this administration, on this abuse of power.
And so until we get our other branches of government on board, I think Donald Trump has shown he is going to do everything he can to expand his executive power. I don’t want to suggest that they’ve done nothing. We have seen the rejection of a couple of Trump nominees by Congress. We have seen some court orders. Certainly, all of these TROs are helpful, but—
McQuade: I think contempt order is something that we need to see to really start holding this administration’s feet to the fire.
Seeberger: No doubt. And it’s not just the federal courts. It is not just members of Congress. You are a Detroit native, you went to school for both undergrad and law school in Michigan, you served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and you now teach at Michigan Law School. I am very curious: What can states like Michigan do more of to be pushing back against this administration in pursuit of upholding the rule of law?
McQuade: One of the things we’ve seen is state action. We’ve seen attorneys general around the country filing lawsuits against some of these executive orders that affect the people in their states. Things like redefining birthright citizenship—that’s something that affects the citizens of every state, and we have seen some states file lawsuits that have been successful to date with temporary restraining orders because that impacts the people of a state.
Other things that are going to affect the Medicaid program, executive orders that might have an impact on the immigration status of some of the citizens, executive orders that will have an impact on state universities in a state—those are things an attorney general can file lawsuits in an effort to stop. So that’s one thing.
I also think in the absence of congressional legislation, we are starting to see some states take up legislation in certain areas that probably ultimately will end up being precluded through the federal supremacy clause. But in the meantime, I know we have states that are passing laws about data privacy, passing laws about deepfake nudes, and other things like that online. And so we do see some legislatures stepping into the void.
But the federal government is a big player in so many things—federal grants, federal aid, so much action. Many areas are exclusively the province of the federal government. And when you have an executive who is pushing his executive power, as Donald Trump is, it’s really a time when we need the other two branches to stand up. It’s a big game of rock, paper, scissors, and right now we’ve got rock flying around without any paper or scissors doing much.
Seeberger: That’s a great point. Along those same lines, in this moment of democratic backsliding, what would you say to big law firms and other institutions under attack, like NPR? Why is it important for them to stand up against the Trump administration’s attacks and not cower in silence?
McQuade: Yes. I think it’s really important that they get out there and tell their story, talk about the good things they do for society, and talk about the harms that will befall all of us if the Trump administration gets its way. I think especially with regard to law firms, it’s very easy to blame the victims here.
These law firms, no doubt, have a lot of financial resources and could be pushing back against the Trump administration. In fact, I think four law firms have, and they have obtained very favorable rulings in court. And we see others who are agreeing to settlements to provide pro bono legal services to the Trump administration.
I learned in my work as a prosecutor that when someone is the victim of extortion, it’s very easy to judge them, but until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes, I think it’s hard to understand what they’re going through. I’ve seen companies agree to pay bribes despite trying to push back and not wanting to do it, but fearing that they will lose their employees, their families will suffer, and other consequences that are difficult for them to bear. And so people blame them.
And I guess it’s—they find themselves in a tough situation. But let’s not forget who the real wrongdoer here is: It’s the Trump administration that is putting these law firms in these untenable positions, where they either have to agree or they have to fight, and fighting could mean losing all kinds of opportunities with their own clients or adverse consequences for their clients to whom they owe a duty of loyalty.
So it’s a very difficult situation there. But I do think they will ultimately regret agreeing to provide these pro bono legal services. We’re already hearing that President Trump wants to use them to participate in protecting the coal industry or police officers who’ve been accused of misconduct.
I think they’re going to find themselves in situations where they are being asked to do things they don’t want to do because one rule of extortion is if you pay the extortionist, they’re never satisfied, they keep coming back for more. And so I think that the better strategy is to resist, call out, and educate the public about what’s happening.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, we certainly saw that in the case of Columbia University, who—
Seeberger: —initially indicated they were going to roll over and, the administration came right back for more after they had initially shown their cards on that.
So, Barb, I know that you follow the Supreme Court closely. We are coming up on the end of term. Can you give us a preview of perhaps some upcoming decisions or rulings in particular cases, and what you see as the big takeaway for the American people as this term comes to a conclusion?
McQuade: Yeah. Well first, we’ll probably continue to have these emergency orders and stays in immigration cases as that hot potato continues to fly around. But I think there are three big cases that I’m looking for as the term nears its end. Usually, we get these big decisions that come out in June.
And the three biggest ones I guess I’m looking for is, number one, there was a case challenging a law in Tennessee that bans transgender medical care. I think we’re going to get a decision on that. I don’t know what it might be. If I were to guess, I would say they’re going to uphold that Tennessee law.
And it’s interesting because we think if we care about liberty and we care about freedom, we would expect that parents get to have a say in their children’s health care. And yet, we may see this ban upheld in the state of Tennessee, and if that is successful, we’ll probably see more bans around the country. So kids who are struggling with their gender identity are going to have an even harder time resolving that going forward.
There’s another case that I also think is interesting, and this is the one where a group of parents in Maryland filed a lawsuit saying that kids ought to be able to opt out when there are classes where they are reading books that might address the LGBTQ community.
It’s a case that, again, I think it may be that this—I don’t know, I guess I don’t want to call it ban, but—the opt-out may be upheld. Some of the justices seemed appalled at the idea of being forced to listen to a story about a kid with two moms. But it’s that kind of exposure that helps people understand differences and live together in unity in society. When you think about the First Amendment ought to be part of our freedom of free academic inquiry, and yet it seems like we may see that opt-out upheld.
And then finally, there is an interesting case—I guess some people are referring to it as a reverse discrimination case—a case where a woman who is cisgender, heterosexual, is challenging a discrimination case in employment over what standards should be used in such a case on the theory that we now live in a world where cisgender people are more discriminated against than gender-nonconforming individuals.
So all three of these cases together speak to this idea of where we are at the moment, that rather than trying to build a more inclusive society, we are seeing efforts to restrict our society, to erase members of our society. And it strikes me as a step backwards in terms of moving toward a more perfect union. But I suppose there are members of the court who would say that this is just about protecting people’s religious freedom or parents’ rights. But we’ll see how those cases come out. Maybe I am wrong in my prediction.
Seeberger: Well we will hope so. Barb, I am curious, despite the fact that we have this far-right majority on the Court, are there any cases you may be more optimistic about?
McQuade: Well there was this case that came out just last week that—
McQuade: —I was surprised. But I think mostly it was because of a recusal by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But we had a 4-4 decision that, because it was a tie, upheld the lower court’s decision. It was the Oklahoma State Supreme Court that said that religious schools may not participate in Oklahoma’s charter school program. And so these are publicly funded schools.
McQuade: And they have charter schools that can be developed, but they had carved out religious schools because of the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing any official religion. It was framed by the plaintiffs as religious discrimination”
“You’re saying everybody else gets to have a school, but we don’t.” Well, yeah, you can have your school; you just can’t have state funds pay for it.
And so it ended up as a 4-4 tie because perhaps Justice Barrett would’ve been the fifth vote in favor of the religious schools. But it does suggest—we don’t know the breakdown because it was a per curiam order that wasn’t signed—but it seems likely that it was Chief Justice Roberts who sided with the four progressive members of the court to say that there is a separation between church and state.
Because if that line goes, it really does suggest that we will have not a public school system as we once knew it, open to everyone; we will have all kinds of government-funded religious schools and everything else that I think will sap the funds of the public schools that we ordinarily think of.
So I think that was a great decision because it keeps a level playing field for all kids who want to go to public schools.
Seeberger: Well we will take the wins when we can get them. Barb McQuade, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
McQuade: Thank you, Colin.
Gibbs Léger: All right, folks. That’s going to be it for us this week. Be sure to go back and check out previous episodes.
Colin, before we go, let’s just get it out of the way. Let’s talk about sports for a second.
Seeberger: You know what? It may not just be the end of our episode, it may also be the end of our hockey and basketball season.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, my hoop dreams may be coming to an end here. My beloved Knicks are down 3-1 to the Indiana Pacers, and I hate it.
Seeberger: I hate it so much.
Gibbs Léger: So, so much. Of all the teams, the Pacers and the Celtics are just, like, ugh. And I’m just mad. I mean, it’s not impossible for them to come back, but it’s pretty impossible for them to come back.
Seeberger: It looks pretty close to it. I mean, I totally forgot that Rick Carlisle, who used to be the coach for the Dallas Mavericks—I totally forgot that he is over at the Pacers.
Seeberger: So I saw him the other day when I was watching the game and I was like—
Gibbs Léger: “What are you doing there?”
Seeberger: “Rick? What you doing here?” But yeah, I also feel like the Stars may suffer the same fate. They’re down 2-1 against the Edmonton Oilers, and, I mean, it has just been very, very tough games the last couple. And they were actually down in the first game, too, and rallied back in an incredible third-period performance. But I’m pretty nervous.
Gibbs Léger: Well, you’re in better shape than I am, so.
Gibbs Léger: We’ll see, we’ll see. So since our sports teams are letting us down, we have to find joy in other places.
Seeberger: We do, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: And our listeners know that is usually going to be in reality TV.
Gibbs Léger: So I have been watching Bravo’s “Love Hotel”—yes—which follows four single Bravo-lebrities and their quest to find love. It’s like a mix of “Bachelor in Paradise”—
Seeberger: I was just going to say this is like a “Golden Bachelor,” “Golden Bachelorette.”
Gibbs Léger: Yes, very, very heavy on those vibes. They bring in a new crop of people.
Gibbs Léger: It’s very interesting. But, oh wow, I am liking Gizelle.
Seeberger: You like Gizelle?
Gibbs Léger: I like Gizelle. I know that she has her detractors. I do think that her and Robin together are a toxic mix. So I feel like when Robin’s not there, it’s a little bit better. But it’s been so fun.
Seeberger: Well I did see that Shannon Beador is on the show as well, and oh, Shannon.
Seeberger: She’s so much, but I have a soft spot in my heart for her.
Gibbs Léger: You should definitely watch.
Gibbs Léger: She’s had a little bit of a rough go for her first couple episodes.
Seeberger: You could say that.
Gibbs Léger: So I’m wishing her well, though. And Luann is a hoot.
Seeberger: As always. Well, I have been finding joy in—as our listeners will remember, I brought up last week—”The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.” I can’t stop watching it, Daniella. It is such good TV. These women cannot help but choose chaos at every chance they get.
Gibbs Léger: That makes for great TV.
Seeberger: Oh, one hundred percent. One of the castmates is in a group chat that doesn’t include other members of the group, right, who they are talking a bunch of stuff behind closed doors. Well one of the girls in the group chat then goes and—
Seeberger: —shows the chats to Taylor, right?
I just watched an episode last night, and they went to New Orleans for a cast trip. And there’s a woman on the show who struggles with infertility and has not been able to get pregnant for several years. And they play pregnancy roulette.
Gibbs Léger: What is that?
Seeberger: The women all take a pregnancy test, and they put it in a bowl or whatever and pick out, and they found out that two of the women are pregnant, right?
Gibbs Léger: Are you kidding me?
Seeberger: The chaos is overflowing.
Gibbs Léger: OK, that sounds really chaotic and toxic. So I should probably—
Seeberger: You could say that.
Gibbs Léger: —add that to my—
Seeberger: You have to add that. Yes.
Gibbs Léger: OK, OK. I know I’ve said this before, but I will. I will add it to the queue to watch, I promise.
Seeberger: And then I need to know: Are you Team Demi or are you Team Taylor?
Gibbs Léger: All right. I will let you know. I mean—
Seeberger: Daniella’s going to report back, folks.
Gibbs Léger: I will. It may be a while, but hey, I caught up on “White Lotus,” so.
Gibbs Léger: I can binge it. I have it in me.
Gibbs Léger: It is possible. All right, folks. That’s it for us this week. Continue to take care of yourselves, and we will talk to you next week.
Gibbs Léger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Danielle Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Jacob Jordan is our writer. 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.