Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, they say that April showers bring May flowers, but here we are halfway through the month and it’s still pouring.
Gibbs Léger: I mean, it’s so gray. It’s so rainy. And look, I know we’re in a drought situation here, but the constant rain is really gloomy and depressing. I don’t love it, Colin.
Seeberger: No. I mean, it was all right there for a few weeks where it felt like all the showers were happening overnight.
Seeberger: And then the days were going okay. But yeah, I mean, every day I’m waking up and it’s just gray. And it’s just a little shower but gross all day long. I can’t take it anymore.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. We need some sunshine.
Seeberger: I certainly do.
Gibbs Léger: And speaking of rays of sunshine, I heard you had a really great interview this week with a former CAP [Center for American Progress] Action staffer.
Seeberger: I did indeed, Daniella. I spoke with Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of Programs and Strategy at Interfaith Alliance. We talked about the new pope, Leo XIV; the Trump administration’s unprecedented embrace of Christian nationalism; and the role religion plays in our current political climate.
Gibbs Léger: Well I can’t wait to give it a listen. But first, we have to get to some news.
Seeberger: We certainly do, Daniella. Because while it may already be pouring here in D.C., there’s another storm brewing in Congress that could wreak havoc on the whole country.
This week, House Republicans are holding markups on their partisan tax and budget bill, something they were supposed to do last week before some members got some cold feet, and they had to delay. And while I, for one, was hoping that they might find some common sense or, I don’t know, talk to a constituent before coming back to the table, I should have known that that was never going to happen.
Gibbs Léger: You really should have known that, Colin.
Seeberger: It certainly was not. Because based on analysis from the Congressional Budget Office—an independent nonpartisan agency—under House Republicans’ proposals, 13.7 million more people would be denied health insurance. Let me say that again: Nearly 14 million more people in the United States will be forced to live without health insurance if Republicans get what they want. Shocking, right? Yeah.
Seeberger: Déjà vu from 2017 or, I don’t know, any year.
Gibbs Léger: Any other year.
Seeberger: Yeah. To put that in context, we’re talking about seeing a roughly 50 percent increase in the number of uninsured people in the United States under these House Republican plans.
It’s really no wonder why leaders of major hospital systems, including rural health providers, are dunking on these cuts to Medicaid. Let’s not forget: Many rural hospitals are some of the biggest employers in their area, which means if these hospitals closed, not only could people lose access to health care, their employees lose their jobs too—all because of MAGA Republicans.
But these plans wouldn’t just lead to hospitals having to shut their doors and millions of hardworking Americans losing their health care. The plan also includes new, never-before-seen out-of-pocket costs for people on Medicaid. Republicans are also proposing to let enhanced premium tax credits expire, which will cause health insurance premiums for millions of Americans to skyrocket next year.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, their cuts to food assistance programs would kick millions of Americans, many of them kids, off SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and be forced to go hungry. We’d see 27,000 grocery stores in this country at risk of closure because of these cuts. And we know that these are going to exacerbate food deserts in rural and urban communities alike.
To add insult to injury, they’re gutting these services so that they can pay for tax cuts for the ultrawealthy. We’re talking about $1 trillion in tax cuts going to the richest Americans if House Republicans get their way. This is the single largest transfer of wealth from the working class to the ultrarich in American history.
Gibbs Léger: And look, there are so many problems with this plan that you didn’t even mention. They’re also going after the tax credits that incentivize companies to invest in clean energy projects. So we’re talking about incentives that have helped spur two of the fastest growing industries in America: wind power and electric vehicles. So much for all the Republican lip service about wanting America to be energy independent.
Seeberger: Oh, I know. How could I forget it, Daniella?
Gibbs Léger: You know, for all of his talk about lowering costs and bringing manufacturing back to the United States, Trump’s, quote, unquote, “big, beautiful bill” seems to be more about a big, bad betrayal of the working class.
Gibbs Léger: I’m not even sure who he thinks this will actually benefit, unless maybe it has something to do with the oil companies who essentially handed him a wish list after donating to his election campaign.
Seeberger: Yeah. Gee, imagine that.
Gibbs Léger: I know, fancy that. All of this is wildly unpopular with Americans. And you don’t have to take my word on how bad it is, you can take the word of Tony Fabrizio, Trump’s own campaign pollster, who found that Trump’s own supporters oppose cutting Medicaid to pay for the president’s tax giveaways. Even Republican senators have acknowledged that gutting energy tax credits will cost thousands of jobs in their home states. Or, speaking of Republican senators, you can listen to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), somebody who I rarely find myself agreeing with, if ever.
Seeberger: I was gonna say.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. I’m pretty sure, like, never.
Seeberger: Well I can get behind that gospel.
Gibbs Léger: I know he’s 100 percent correct. I can’t believe I’m saying this about Josh Hawley. In a New York Timesop-ed he authored earlier this week, Hawley described receiving a letter from one of his constituents, a married mother of five, who wrote to him about why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter who relies on a feeding tube to survive, and private insurance doesn’t cover the expenses.
Her exact words were, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything—our home, our vehicles and, eventually, our daughter.” The stakes don’t get any higher than that.
Seeberger: Yeah, the stories are outrageous, Daniella. Fundamentally what Republicans are proposing is to really rip away the programs that help Americans meet their basic needs—things like feeding themselves, things like getting health care, things like just being able to have the money that you need to survive when you’re raising kids in the United States. So we all need to speak up now about the devastating plans that Republicans have put forward before it’s too late.
Now, I wish these cruel budget cuts from MAGA Republicans were all we had to talk about this week, but I need to get some stuff off my chest about Trump’s reckless trade wars.
Gibbs Léger: All right. Let’s hear it.
Seeberger: So, over the weekend, the United States and China agreed to a temporary 90-day pause in a manufactured crisis that Donald Trump created.
The U.S. lowered its 145 percent tariffs on most Chinese imports down to 30 percent, and China reduced its 125 percent reciprocal tariffs down to 10 percent. The press has fallen yet again for Donald Trump’s narrative spin.
But let’s be clear: Donald Trump blinked. It was a cave. And Americans are going to be the ones paying the price for his economic arson. Thirty percent tariffs are still incredibly high. And an analysis shows that if Trump sticks to them, we’re talking about cost going up for the typical American household by $2,800 a year. Unemployment is going to rise. The economy is going to slow. Businesses are not going to be able to make investments, all because of Donald Trump’s tariff regime.
Gibbs Léger: It’s so infuriating, Colin. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said it at a Center for American Progress event earlier this week—that there’s still a 50/50 chance that the U.S. could be forced into a recession thanks to Trump’s tariffs and the Republicans’ rush to rubber stamp him.
It’s no wonder Americans are starting to have buyer’s remorse from this past November. Trump’s approval rating is at some of its lowest levels since he took office again. He’s lost ground on all of the major issues including immigration, along with the economy, trade, and inflation. The TL;DR, Colin, is Donald Trump’s policies show that he is betraying the middle class. Trump does not give a damn about anyone but himself and his billionaire buddies.
Seeberger: Well I know that’s right, Daniella. I mean, you really have to look no further than Donald Trump wanting to accept a $400 million luxury plane from the Qataris and keep it when he leaves office as proof of this point.
Gibbs Léger: It is. So that’s all the time 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 Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons in just a beat.
Seeberger: Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons is the vice president of Programs and Strategy at Interfaith Alliance. He’s one of the country’s top experts working at the intersection of religion, politics, and policy. He recently worked the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and is a former fellow at the Center for American Progress. He’s also the author of Just Faith: Reclaiming Progressive Christianity, a book about how liberals can make the moral and spiritual case for pluralism, human dignity, and the common good
Guthrie, welcome back to CAP Action, and thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons: It’s wonderful to see you, Colin, and to be back at CAP Action.
Seeberger: Well it’s a big month, so lots to talk about. Happy to have you, and let’s dive right in.
So I want to talk about the new pope, Leo XIV. He’s taken the internet by storm. I saw the Vatican earlier this week actually confirmed that he will stay on social media like our previous two popes.
But besides him being both an American and having some noteworthy activism on some hot-button political issues, what do you think his leadership could mean in this time when religion is shaping so much of the political discourse, both here in the United States as well as abroad?
Graves-Fitzsimmons: I think, first, we have to start with the legacy of Pope Francis and his amazing papacy that really transformed the Catholic Church but really was going back to the founding. Pope Francis reminded people of Jesus, and he practiced the faith in a humble way, in a way that centered people on the margins, the displaced, refugees, migrants. His outreach to LGBTQ people transformed how people view the church.
And by all accounts, Pope Leo XIV is going to continue that legacy of reform. He started in his first Sunday address talking about peace. In his first words, he said, “Peace be upon you” to the crowds at the Vatican. And he has modeled this same kind of humble and Christ-like approach to being the pope—which is maybe somewhat shocking because in the United States, we’re used to Christian leaders not sounding like Jesus and maybe not living Christ-like lives, and you see so much Christian hypocrisy.
But really, this is a return to what we should expect of our Christian leaders, which is that they will speak out for the environment, for peace, for immigrants, for all of these social justice concerns.
And I love that you brought up that he’s going to continue on social media. His last tweet that we have recorded before he was elected pope was tweeting out an article criticizing Vice President JD Vance in National Catholic Reporter. And so this is an amazing dynamic, that there is no ability to skirt around papal condemnation of this Trump-Vance administration.
He is an American. He knows the American politics. He understands how important it is for Catholics in particular to speak out at this moment, and he’s going to continue doing it. There is less distance than there was before between the Vatican and U.S. politics. And I think we, from all the evidence we have—of course people change when they become pope—but from all the evidence we have, there is going to be a huge supporter, especially around immigration and climate change and peace, that is going to be very intimately linked to U.S. politics.
Seeberger: Well talking about the role of the church in our lives today, I do want to pivot to the Trump administration. They’ve made a lot of headlines talking about religious freedom, citing it as a reason for some of their more egregious attacks. Recently, they’ve launched unprecedented attacks on American universities’ independence in the name of fighting antisemitism.
I have to note that even the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has been one of the more outspoken opponents of antisemitism, has said that the administration’s actions really go too far and are not targeted and will have real devastating consequences on many, many people.
So I’m curious to get your perspective. How do you see the attacks impacting students and their right to free speech? And is this really about religious freedom?
Graves-Fitzsimmons: The short answer is no, it’s not about religious freedom. It’s about a religious justification for authoritarianism. And as we see the Trump administration target anyone that disagrees with it, we especially see it targeting students and targeting free speech and targeting colleges and universities that won’t align themselves with the administration.
Antisemitism is a problem, and the federal government should be committed to addressing antisemitism. In fact, the Biden administration issued the first ever national strategy to counter antisemitism. So this is a real problem that is not aided by what the Trump administration is doing.
I’m glad you referenced ADL. There was another statement that came out from a broad range of Jewish organizations that was organized by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and I wanted to just read from some of it, which is:
“In recent weeks, escalating federal actions have used the guise of fighting antisemitism to justify stripping students of due process rights when they faced arrests and/or deportation, as well as to threaten billions in academic research and education funding. […] These actions do not make Jews—or any community—safer. Rather, they only make us less safe.”
So we should be listening to these prominent, mainstream Jewish organizations that are saying these actions don’t help us, don’t make us safer. In fact, they exacerbate antisemitism.
I think as we see the Trump administration marching us every week closer toward authoritarianism, we know that this outreach to religious communities and saying that they’re fighting for religion is the way they justify their actions and say that is the cause that then people should surrender their other freedoms for. And that actually hurts religious freedom.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Religious freedom is guaranteed in our First Amendment. It’s, in fact, the first words of the First Amendment are the twin guarantees of religious freedom and the free exercise and no establishment clause. But those are upheld alongside free speech, alongside free assembly, alongside all of our First Amendment beliefs. You can’t take out religion as you try to squash all descent and say you’re doing it for religion. That means the only religion that’s left is the state-approved, Trump-friendly religion.
Seeberger: Well that’s a perfect segue. Speaking of this state-approved approach to religion, we have seen this administration, like you suggest, really leaning in and promoting Christian nationalism, even within the government itself. I mean, just a week after releasing the antisemitism order that we were talking about earlier, Trump released another one calling for the creation of an anti-Christian bias task force within the [U.S.] Department of Justice.
Can you talk a little bit about what is Christian nationalism, and how the administration is embracing it, and what we can do to stop it?
Graves-Fitzsimmons: We need to call this what it is, which is religious hypocrisy and gaslighting. Talking about religious freedom advocates, while not just misusing and weaponizing antisemitism but then attacking Christian leaders from the very beginning of the administration.
I’m sure your listeners will remember that Bishop Mariann Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington—
Graves-Fitzsimmons: —gave a very nice, humble address and plea for mercy for LGBTQ people and for immigrants, and immediately the president attacked her, and his allies in Congress drafted a resolution to go after her and condemn her, using the force of government to single out a specific religious leader.
Then they went after the Catholic bishops. JD Vance implied that the bishops were after their bottom line rather than serving migrants. And then Elon Musk went after the Lutheran Social Services in part of his DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] crackdown.
And so across these early actions of the Trump administration 2.0, we see repeated animus towards any Christian that steps out of line with their agenda. And yet they do this while they simultaneously tap Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an anti-Christian bias task force.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: The first place Pam Bondi should be looking for anti-Christian bias is in the West Wing. She is tasked with bringing together an interagency panel—and they had their first meeting a few weeks ago—to expose anti-Christian bias. They’re creating hotlines—so far we’ve heard about the [U.S.] Department of Veterans Affairs and [U.S.] Department of State—where employees in the federal government are supposed to report on each other when they see attacks on Christians.
There is no widespread problem of Christians being attacked for their faith in the United States. My organization, Interfaith Alliance, put out a letter from 26 Christian leaders denouncing this effort. Because one, it minimizes actual anti-Christian persecution. All around the world, our siblings in Christ are persecuted for their faith, can be killed for their faith, are hiding, and are trying to flee countries where they’re persecuted for their faith.
The Trump administration has shut the door on people fleeing those countries—
Graves-Fitzsimmons: —for actual Christian persecution. And then it creates and manufactures this problem of anti-Christian bias in the United States, which doesn’t exist. And so that’s a long prologue into getting back to your question about what is Christian nationalism?
Christian nationalism is an ideology that conflates American and Christian identity, and privileges Christians in law and policy. But it’s a very specific form of Christian. It alludes back to our founding of the United States as a Christian nation, a nation for Christians. But in doing that, it says only the Christians who held power at the founding—that’s the history we’re trying to go back to and return America to, was the Christians, the white male Christians, Protestants. There’s a long history of anti-Catholic bias in the United States, so it’s the white male Protestants at the founding. And those are the rightful rulers of the United States.
And it’s a deeply insidious ideology, and it’s one that’s rejected by most Christians in the United States. So as much as we call out Christian nationalism, it’s important to nuance that with it’s a small segment that are fervent believers in this, and that most Christians do not want an authoritarian, theocratic state bringing Handmaid’s Tale to life.
Seeberger: Much less all Americans, right? I mean, this isn’t just unpopular within the Christian community, this is across the board deeply unpopular. But we are kind of being forced to come to terms with some of the foundational questions that our nation had to answer at the time of its founding.
And all of this could be moot if the separation of church and state was a settled question. But unfortunately, for all of us, right now we’ve got not one but two cases before the Supreme Court that are testing the boundaries of both public education and religious liberty—one related to religious charter schools and another about the rule role of LGBTQI+ inclusive storybooks in public schools.
Could you give our listeners the lowdown on these cases and how they’re related to this broader conversation about the separation between church and state? And where do you think the justices are gonna land on some of these questions? Do you think that their decisions could really put the separation of church and state in greater peril moving forward?
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Sure. There’s a popular perception that the Roberts Court is favorable to religion, has been siding with religion in a series of cases. Your listeners might remember Masterpiece Cakeshop, the baker that didn’t want to bake cakes for gay couples at their weddings.
There’s been a series of cases since the Roberts Court started that have tilted the separation of church and state away from a consensus that existed for many decades that allowed religious freedom to flourish when the government stays out of religion, and has started to put more and more religion into public spaces, and then allowed anyone that claims a religious objection to something to have greater leeway to exercise their faith.
So, at the same time, they’re weakening the no establishment clause, part of the First Amendment, while supercharging the free exercise clause. But—
Seeberger: Suppressing people’s ability to live and engage in public spaces where they may not share the same religious traditions.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Nondiscrimination protections, pandemic-era health care protections, reproductive health—all of our essential rights and freedoms can’t be limited by someone saying, “My religion says I don’t have to obey the law.”
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Or, “My religion gives me”—
Graves-Fitzsimmons: —a free pass”—yes—”out of any sort of nondiscrimination protection or need to enforce health care protections.” And so these two cases are deeply troubling. And I brought the briefs—for everyone watching on YouTube—I brought the briefs, the friend-of-the-court briefs the Interfaith Alliance filed at the Supreme Court.
And the first case is out of Oklahoma, where they’re trying to establish the first-ever religious charter school. This would be a school run by the Catholic Church in Oklahoma and fully funded by taxpayers. Why is that bad? Well, there’s obviously implications for students that are not Catholic and that want to maintain secular education.
But what we argue in the brief, which was signed by a number of religious groups, is that it also entangles religion in with government. And when you start taking taxpayer money, you get deeper and deeper into government regulation and you really become a government agent, which is not the role of religious institutions, and it invites the kind of oversight of religion that could inhibit religious freedom. And so we’re making the pro-religious freedom case against creating a religious charter school.
And then the other case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, where a group of parents are trying to opt their students out of elementary school storybooks that include LGBTQ characters. And these are amazing books. I actually purchased them because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: And it has nothing to do with sex education, which is what the justices were obsessed about in the hours of oral arguments that I listened to. These were sweet books for kids that had just had LGBTQ characters in them as part of a larger diversity curriculum that the Montgomery County public schools had enacted.
And it’s a beautiful thing. Montgomery County is one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country, and they do so much to make people of all faiths feel welcome there. And yet this group of parents backed by a right-wing, conservative legal group manufactured this case to say, “We don’t want our children exposed to these books, and it’s our religious freedom right to opt out of having these storybooks.”
And that would create chaos. Because any parent could object to anything in the school, and then you would have just total free-for-all with people objecting to science curriculum, objecting to other religions being taught. That’s what we talked about in our brief, that you’ll then have [people] saying even teaching about another religion could be seen as infringing on the religious freedom beliefs of those students.
And so it is a nightmare situation when you have religious freedom weaponized in this way. And in no way are the books trying to indoctrinate students or teach them anything or change their beliefs. All it is is exposing them to the diversity that is present—
Seeberger: In their communities.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: —in their community—
Graves-Fitzsimmons: —and that the Supreme Court has said same-sex couples have a right to be married. And now the question is they’re going to say that we don’t want to expose that reality that the Supreme Court created to children.
Seeberger: It’s ridiculous. It is also—I think you make a great point, thinking about what’s the slippery slope here that the Supreme Court could be unleashing if they were to side against Montgomery County here. So it is something that we’re going to be watching quite closely as we head into the end of term next month now.
Now one last thing: At a time of such deep division in America, it’s more important than ever for us to be finding ways to support one another. And we’ve seen a lot of heartfelt action from faith leaders—you mentioned some of them recently, at the beginning of our discussion—who are standing up to Trump’s inhumane deportations, for example, but there’s so many other policies. Look at what Republicans are doing on Capitol Hill this week, trying to take health care away from millions and millions of Americans, the most vulnerable people in our society.
How should progressives continue this momentum with the faith community and really think about broadening the tent to be more inclusive of their voices and perspectives, while also mobilizing folks as we move forward and try to chart a better direction for the country?
Graves-Fitzsimmons: There has never been a movement for progressive change, for social justice, that has not included people of faith in American history. And so the question is not whether or not people of faith are active and involved, and whether it’s the fight for reproductive freedom, LGBTQ freedom, economic justice, health care—whatever the issue is, there are people of faith doing advocacy. The question is whether or not we acknowledge it, and whether or not the progressive movement as a whole acknowledges the role of faith in these social change movements.
And so I’m grateful for the history the Center of American Progress has done in having a faith and progressive policy initiative and has played a large role in uplifting the role of faith. And I would love to see that more across the board. We recently had a faith mobilization call with Move On and Indivisible ahead of the Hands Off! day rallies, seeing faith communities present all around the country. My husband and I have been worshiping at Friends Meeting of Washington, a Quaker community here in D.C. And we had a group that went to the Hands Off! rally.
And a few weeks prior to that, in our meeting house, we were talking about how the Quakers have taken on the Trump administration because the Trump administration, one of its first actions was to rescind a policy that prevented ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Patrol] from going into houses of worship without prior authorization. And Trump lifted that policy so that, then, immigration arrests and officers could just storm into houses of worship and desecrate them. And Quakers, Baptists, and Six, this coalition working with Democracy Forward, sued the administration and got a temporary restraining order from ICE enforcement in houses of worship—a huge win for religious freedom and a huge win for holding the administration accountable.
I find hope in so many faith leaders are having courage right now. We see different pillars of civic society, whether it’s businesses or law firms or universities.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Newspapers, bending or trying to not get on the wrong side—
Seeberger: Oh, just call it capitulate.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Capitulating.
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Great. Thank you. Capitulating.
And yet, for faith communities, the well is so much deeper of where our advocacy and public witness is coming from. I talked about Bishop Budde earlier, but so many faith leaders are speaking out, and I think that that is one of the most critical pillars of our societal infrastructure. And if we lose that, if the only faith leaders that are willing to speak out are the Trump sycophants and the people that—he always gathers a bunch of people around him and lays hands on him—if those are the only faith leaders we see and we lose that faith voice, that would be a hugely alarming development for our resistance to authoritarianism. But thankfully, so many faith leaders are speaking out right now.
Seeberger: Well, on that positive note, I think that’s a great place for us to end. Guthrie, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Graves-Fitzsimmons: Thank you, Colin.
Gibbs Léger: Well, folks, that’s going to do it for us this week. Please be sure to go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go, Colin, we’ve got to talk about Chicago pope.
Seeberger: Chicago pope. Oh my gosh, it’s been so fun. I think some of my favorite highlights so far are—people have been talking about like, “Oh, is the Vatican going to get deep dish pizza now?” I mean, new things are coming if you live in Rome.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, exactly. The first papal college basketball bracket, perhaps?
Seeberger: Perhaps, yeah.
Gibbs Léger: Yes? He is a Villanova alum. Yeah, it’s been wild. Now he hasn’t lived in the states for, like, 20 years, I believe.
Seeberger: I think that’s right.
Gibbs Léger: He speaks four or five different languages?
Seeberger: I’ve lost track.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I know. But he’s still an American. And when you hear him speak English, it is so bizarre—
Gibbs Léger: —to have a pope speak in an American accent. I still can’t believe it. I’ve been loving all the memes. The internet, they remain undefeated when it comes to creativity.
Seeberger: Giving the goods.
Gibbs Léger: It’s so amazing.
Gibbs Léger: But also, I have to take a little bit of joy in some of the meltdown among the MAGA folks who are like, “Ah, we got a woke pope again!”
Seeberger: Bless their hearts. I guess this is the first time that “America first” has been a thumbs down for folks on the far right. But yeah, I mean, it’s exciting. And I’ve got to say, I was pretty caught off guard and surprised when the news dropped.
Gibbs Léger: I really thought that my friends were wrong when they said it’s an American. I was like, “No way. That’s not possible.”
Gibbs Léger: Like, they would never do that. And lo and behold, here we are. I think that Pope Francis is probably pretty pleased with the outcome.
Seeberger: I would say so. I would say so.
Seeberger: Well speaking of other things that may have caught you by surprise, we are in the thick of both baseball and hockey playoffs.
Gibbs Léger: Baseball? Basketball!
Seeberger: Sorry, did I say baseball?
Seeberger: I’m sorry. Okay. It has been a week.
Gibbs Léger: It has. It has, in all fairness.
Seeberger: We are in the thick of basketball—
Seeberger: —and hockey playoffs.
Seeberger: And the New York Knicks—
Gibbs Léger: Look at that!
Seeberger: —are one game away from going to the conference championships.
Gibbs Léger: The New York Knickerbockers, who, I might remind folks, have I believe three players from Villanova on the squad? So I’m not saying that they’re divinely blessed by the pope, but I’m not saying that they’re not.
Seeberger: Anything’s possible.
Gibbs Léger: Anything is possible. Look, I obviously have been a Knicks fan since birth. I also like the Wizards because I live in D.C. But like, I’m a Knicks girly, which means that I’ve had my heart and spirit crushed consistently by this team—and usually by the likes of the Chicago Bulls and the team that, if we win against the Celtics, we will be facing, which are the Indiana Pacers.
So we got one more game. We’ve got to see it out. We’ve got to close out Boston. And also hate the Celtics. But it’s pretty exciting to see this team playing really well. And we’ll see.
Seeberger: Well I am looking forward to next season. I don’t know whether you saw, but the Mavs look like they have a phenom coming to—
Gibbs Léger: Make it make sense, Colin.
Seeberger: I mean, after getting rid of Luka Dončić, we had to be blessed with some—
Seeberger: —some new recruit.
Gibbs Léger: I’m sorry. They need to redo the NBA draft. Throw it in the trash. How does a team like the Mavs get the number one pick? And you have the Wizards who are like, “We’ve stunk all year.”
Seeberger: Sorry, I’m not sorry.
Gibbs Léger: Oh, it’s terrible. I’m sorry.
Seeberger: But speaking of Dallas sports.
Seeberger: The Dallas Stars are up three games to one over Winnipeg in the second round. And if they win, much like the Knicks, they will also advance to the conference championships. So super stoked. I have been staying up way too late because these games are on the West Coast. And oh my God, I can’t do it anymore. We have to get to the next round because I’m just exhausted.
Gibbs Léger: I know. Come on. Do it for Colin’s sleep schedule.
Seeberger: Please, please do.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, it looks like the Caps are about to be out if they aren’t already. So they had a good run. So maybe I’ll throw my support behind your team just because I don’t really care about the rest of the games.
Seeberger: Welcome aboard.
Gibbs Léger: Sure. On that note, we are out of here. Everybody please 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, Daniella 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.