Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m your host, Colin Seeberger.
As our regular listeners know, Daniella Gibbs Léger departed the Center for American Progress Action Fund last week. And while we miss her dearly here on “The Tent,” we remain committed to providing you, our listeners, with honest, engaging, and compelling conversations with the people who are shaping politics, policy, and progress in this country. I know we’re going to have a lot of fun, and I hope you’ll join us.
Now, on to today’s episode. The Epstein files have been dominating the news over the last few weeks, as more and more information comes to light about President Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This story represents a rare opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to unite in shared criticism of the president.
But we also wanted to figure out how communicators should juggle talking about the revelations about the president’s proximity to Jeffrey Epstein while also hammering home the devastating harms of his agenda—everything from his reckless trade war that’s jacking up prices to his recent One Big Beautiful Bill Act being signed into law that’s going to take health care away from millions and millions of people.
So as the clock ticks down on the 2026 midterms, we wanted to bring someone on to discuss how folks should walk this tightrope. To help me figure it out, I’ve invited an old colleague, Jesse Lee, to talk us all through it. And stick around for a moment of joy after the interview because we could all use some levity in these dark times.
Jesse Lee is a political communications expert with experience at just about every level of government. He’s worked in the White House, the House of Representatives, at the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], and even served as the vice president of Communications here at CAP Action. Heck, Jesse is even an old host of “The Tent” podcast, so we are thrilled to welcome him back.
Jesse, it’s good to have you.
Jesse Lee: Good to be here. Always a pleasure.
Seeberger: So with so much going on in the world, it’s really easy to have some really important headlines slip under the radar, but one that has gotten the attention of the American people for many weeks now is this scandal surrounding the Epstein files and the Trump administration’s efforts to conceal them from the public.
I am sure you know, the House of Representatives’ Mike Johnson (R-LA), actually ended up sending members home on vacation for August recess early, shutting down the chamber in order to prevent votes on releasing the Epstein files. I am curious: What do you make of this whole situation? And how do you think that Democrats should be talking about this?
Lee: Yeah. Well it really has been a fascinating thing to watch on so many levels. But really, the thing that goes to the heart of it for me is, well, it’s just corruption. I mean, he is the most corrupt president that we have ever had. And Democrats kind of talked themselves out of attacking him on that early in his first term, I think on the assumption that, “Well, everybody knew he was corrupt and he got elected anyway, so we might as well not bother.”
But I think that was a big mistake. When I was at Center for American Progress, we helped spearhead the culture of corruption narrative in the 2018 midterms, and it was extremely effective. And what we’re seeing now is that culture of corruption, that Republican culture of corruption, is back, and it’s far worse than it ever was before.
Lee: To me, this is something where—that’s not a sideshow, when you start talking about it that way. That connects to everything else.
You look at the reconciliation bill, and Democrats have landed, I think, on the right message in terms of the fact that this raises health care costs, raises energy costs, hurts working people to benefit billionaires and political donors. There’s a word for that. It’s called corruption, right?
Lee: And so this is all part of the same story. To me, this is the opportunity for Democrats to really start making this case in a way where the news of the day, the scandals of the day, the pull your hair out, how did that happen, news of the day starts to accumulate into a coherent critique of what’s happening here.
Even when we talk about oligarchy or fascism or democracy being on the line, really what you’re talking about there is corruption. That’s what dictatorship is about. That’s what Putin is about. This is about corruption. Me, me, me, more for me, more for my friends. And there’s a reason Trump sees those as his models. Because that is just unadulterated corruption. That’s what he’s trying to instill here. And the Jeffrey Epstein thing just happens to be an example of it where it’s really horrific to even look at.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, you’re totally right. It’s like all of these daily news events really build up into something that is too big to ignore, right? I mean, we saw earlier this week, I’m sure you saw the reporting from Punchbowl News that the White House has actually been aggressively lobbying Republican senators to oppose a ban on congressional stock trading that would also apply to the president and the vice president. And this coming from the same guy who ran on a drain-the-swamp platform. It is breathtaking, the kind of corruption that we are seeing.
Jesse, I’m curious to get your take on—this Epstein story is interesting in that there are so few issues that we have seen Republican voters really break from the president on, ever since he entered the political scene. And yet, some polls have shown that upwards of about 40 percent of Republican voters have said that they disapprove of how this administration is handling the whole Epstein files release—or non-release.
I am curious to get your sense for, are there other issues that Democrats should be trying to lean into as points of friction within the Republican Party that you think right now they have not been doing, or they should be doubling down and doing a lot more of?
Lee: Right. Well it’s interesting. I talked about driving that culture of corruption narrative in 2018, and a big part of that was aiming at Trump’s cabinet. Because, just like now, it was made up of these elite billionaires who were enriching themselves, who thought they were above the law, who were enjoying perks that nobody else possibly would.
Andlo ok at Pam Bondi, right? That’s one of the big cracks here where they started to revolt. And sure enough, all you have to do is look under the hood. Public Citizen just put out a report about how Pam Bondi’s former lobbying firm is just raking it in hand over fist, getting the administration to do whatever they want.
You can look across the board, and the entire cabinet is made up of these people that are just pigs at the trough, as the old saying goes. And these are not people that are generally beloved by Laura Loomer or whatever. These are—the cabinet is basically serving the role that ambassadors traditionally have—for both parties, where it doesn’t really matter, has it—in most countries, and so you give it to somebody who’s connected or you give it to a donor or something. And that’s not a great practice, but it certainly shouldn’t be elevated to the cabinet.
Seeberger: Sure. The treasury secretary or—
Lee: Right, exactly. The energy secretary is just some fossil fuel billionaire who’s trying to put the competition out of business and issuing fake climate reports with handpicked climate denialists. It’s just absurd. And this is stuff that is costing people money.
So I think there’s a big wedge to drive there, where picking off these people where there is an antitrust streak in some of the MAGA movement. And the cabinet’s not doing that. The cabinet’s doing the opposite. The people who do antitrust in Department of Justice are getting fired.
Lee: So I do think that’s one of the places where you can start to make poster children out of people.
Seeberger: Speaking of this administration increasing costs, you mentioned the cost of health care, the cost of utilities. Of course, this is not just in reference to the president’s big marquee Beautiful Bill Act, right? But also, you look at the tariffs: They’re up to nearly a 20 percent average tariff raise, the highest in over a century.
All of these things together paint a real clear picture. What do Democrats need to do in order to make sure that that message sticks?
Lee: I mean, I do think that is the right question. And, like I say, I think the message is right that they’re making the cost-of-living crisis worse in order to benefit the wealthy. I think the tariffs is a good example, where increasingly you have the treasury secretary waving around, “Oh, this is all the tariff revenue we brought in over the first six months.”
And it’s like, “Yeah, but that’s middle-class people paying that. And meanwhile, you’re spitting it right out the other end in these giant billionaire tax cuts.” But, I think—and I saw [Treasury Secretary Scott] Bessent talk today about how the Trump bonds are actually, quote, “a backdoor way” to privatize Social Security. It is like, what’s going on here?
But I do think you’re asking the right question, that we are in this attention economy where we’ve got this circus conductor as president, and if you don’t have something that packs a punch to carry your message—people talking about prioritizing middle-class families, etc.—like I said, it’s the right message, but it’s very forgettable. It’s tough to compete with that message when you’ve got all these other fireworks going off. And that’s part of why I do think—especially at this moment, especially with the Epstein stuff cracking things open—embracing that corruption narrative as part of it is a big part of where Democrats should go. And they need to make the connection between, this is an example of Trump protecting his billionaire friends over the most innocent of victims, right?
Lee: And this is just this massive cover up across his government at the highest levels. And that’s just how he operates. It’s always going to be him and his billionaire friends ahead of you. And you need to look at his one signature bill, and you can see it written all over it. It is all about benefiting his billionaire friends and donors at your expense.
Seeberger: Well you talked about it being the right message, and I think that you and I are certainly in agreement on that. I also think—and you sure know this as a communications expert—we are in an attention economy, and we’re in an attention economy that is driven by personalities, right? Obviously, Trump is the perfect manifestation of that.
I want to get your thoughts on—so Rebecca Katz, who’s a fellow political communications expert, she wrote an op-ed immediately following Zohran Mamdani’s New York City mayoral primary win, where she really pushed the party to be embracing candidates who may seem risky or may aggravate some people because they challenge the status quo. She said, quote, “Sometimes we have to try new things, and when we do find candidates who resonate, we should welcome them into the tent and try to figure out how to do that.”
So I’m curious for your reaction. Do you think that that’s right? Are there certain personality qualities that you think better position the party to command that limited supply of attention that’s still left to be gotten? And if so, how should the party think about that?
Lee: Yeah, I mean, it’s interesting, to some extent. There’s no amount of analysis that I could do that would compete with, the proof is in the pudding. When I look at Democratic figures who have broken through that, I hear their voices, that sticks with me.
Tim Walz has done it. Honestly, Kamala Harris at the beginning of her campaign did it. And I think she was cast an impossible task. But part of where her campaign fell off at all is when she stopped embracing that attention-grabbing energy and tried to be more reassuring and feel more of just a normal candidate.
But I think she’s capable of it. I think that is always going to be difficult for a party leader, whether that’s Jeffries (D-NY) or Schumer (D-NY), because you’re just representing too much. So I don’t expect that out of them. I have seen flashes of that from Wes Moore (D-MD), but I don’t think anybody would identify him as the person who has broken through.
I think Gretchen Whitmer (D) has done that in Michigan. I’m not sure she’s done that outside of Michigan as much. If you just knew Gretchen Whitmer from seeing an occasional national speech at the Democratic Convention or something, you wouldn’t know that back in Michigan, she’s Big Gretch and that she has Michigan rappers doing videos about her. Like, she’s kind of a phenom.
Pete Buttigieg is out there every day engaging the tough audiences, going to podcasts that are not softball interviews. And there’s no question, he gets credit for that, and that is a big part of what Democrats need to learn how to do. I mean, we’ll see. He’s got to get the rest of the Democratic base on board too, right? So yeah, we’ll see. I think it is going to be hard for anybody to really break out of the pack before the midterms, but people are going to be looking for it not too long after that.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, you even see some of the folks who are floated out there—people like Andy Beshear (D-KY) has been front and center battling Republicans—whether it’s on Fox News or in his local paper, right, or on Meidas Touch or other podcasts—taking Republicans to task for making these historic cuts to Medicaid and, I think, meeting the moment of the challenge that America finds itself in.
And I think it is somewhat for the broader center left to lean into the fights when they come our way, not shirk from them or say. “We really want to talk about these three issues and don’t really want to talk about these three issues.” And instead, really get in the ring, duke it out, and show that you’re strong enough to compete and go toe to toe.
Seeberger: Jesse, to totally pivot directions here, I am super excited to talk to you this week in particular because I know that you’ve done some work with Climate Power. And this administration just left me breathless earlier this week.
I was reading about the EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, is revoking an endangerment finding regulation, which basically affirms that greenhouse gases do pose a public health threat. What does this actually mean for people? Why should they care? And who stands to benefit from this?
Lee: Right, yeah. I mean, it is breathtaking, literally and figuratively. Climate denial is now the law of the land. All of the scientists have been fired, and they’ve been replaced by, apparently, five handpicked climate kooks that Secretary [Chris] Wright picked to write a fake report.
And as a result, the federal government just doesn’t recognize climate change or the fact that it poses any threat whatsoever. And what it means for people is that the floodgates are open for endless toxins in your air. I mean, polluters now have absolute freedom all over the country to pollute the air as much as they want, pollute the water as much as they want.
And this is all after the EPA has basically been completely gutted, right? And all of this is—The New York Times just published a story basically taking this all back to, like I said, the basement of Mar-a-Lago, where Trump brought in all of the oil executive billionaires and said, “Hey. I’ve got a deal for you”—he called it a deal—and, “I think you should raise $1 billion for my campaign, and I will give you everything you want. I will let you pollute as much as you want. I will kill off the clean energy competition so that you can have your monopoly back and be able to gouge people as much as you want. It’s going to be quite a deal for you.”
And he’s followed through. The reconciliation bill was a huge part of it. He did a lot of executive actions before that, going back to day one. And this official climate denial, which really just brings the whole structure of regulating pollution—and especially carbon pollution, but not just carbon pollution—crashing down, that’s just beyond anything that these oil executives could have fought for.
And I can’t emphasize enough on all of this stuff from the Cabinet to the reconciliation bill to this. This is so much more extreme than even the first Trump term.
Lee: I mean, you look at some of the Cabinet members—RFK Jr, Kash Patel even, Tulsi Gabbard—these are people that Trump wouldn’t have even bothered trying to nominate in his first term because the Senate Republicans would’ve said, “No, I’m afraid not.” And that’s just not there anymore.
What you have is really a fundamentally authoritarian party. And one of the big drivers behind the wheel of that authoritarianism is the oil and gas lobby. And they are doing everything in their power to use the government as a tool to pollute as much as they can, to rack up the profits as much as they can.
You’re going to see your utility bills going through the roof, not just this year, not just next year, for the next 10 years, because we don’t have enough power. We don’t have enough energy because the oil and gas lobby got them to kill wind and solar as much as they possibly could.
Seeberger: Well speaking of radical figures, who—many of them are even more extreme than the first term. But one of them is a retread from 2020 and is, I think most people would agree, easily one of the most extreme figures, is Project 2025 architect and current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought, who has really been at the tip of the spear for the administration in executing some of its most lawless, post-constitutional approach to governing, flat out ignoring laws that are passed by Congress to decide, “Hey, those afterschool programs that Congress funded? We’re not going to give the money out to.” Or, “Hey, those scientific research grants that the NIH funds so we can find cures for cancer or Alzheimer’s? Actually, those are frozen.”
So we’re talking about real world impacts here, right? And I raise Russ Vought because the federal government is about to run out of money. Basically, we fund the government until the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. And as we look beyond this August recess period for Congress, but look to what’s really going to be a big topic of conversation in September, maybe throughout the fall, is this government funding fight.
And I think there’s a lot of people who think, “Eh, that didn’t go too well for Democrats back in March of this year.” How should Democrats be thinking about approaching that fight, and what should they be keeping in mind in order to show the American people that they’re tough enough to go to bat for them and can actually make a real tangible difference in their lives?
Lee: Yeah. It’s funny you start with Russ Vought because I brought in by Speaker Pelosi (D) to help run and stand up the first impeachment war room against Trump over the withheld Ukraine military funding, right? And of course, there’s a full circle on that, too. But the person who pulled the levers and made that happen inside OMB was Russ Vought. And as soon as Project 2025 started emerging and I saw his name on it, I was like, “OK, so what they’re going to do is take the approach that Trump got impeached for, quite rightly, and they’re going to apply that across government.” And that’s exactly what we’ve seen, right?
Lee: They’ve looked at the United States Treasury basically as one giant opportunity to extort everybody else in the country. This is their money to withhold until Trump personally gets some benefit from the person receiving it. And all the examples you mentioned are perfect examples. But one of the witnesses that we called, the expert witnesses we called during that impeachment gave an analogy of, imagine, just imagine, if you had a president who, there was a natural disaster somewhere in the country, and he told a governor, “Unless you come out and do what I say, I’m not giving you the disaster aid. I’m not giving you that FEMA support.”
And of course, that’s standard fare now. Maryland and Wes Moore, who I mentioned before, they’re not getting their money. No good reason. And so yes, what you’re talking about is the approach that’s been applied across government. And I think the way Democrats should be looking at this next funding fight, and probably the way they should have looked at the last funding fight, is that you have to break that, fundamentally. And to some extent, breaking that approach is more important even than one specific policy win.
So to be concrete about it, what I might do in their shoes is to say, “We are not voting to help you with any funding legislation and to keep the government open until you restore your unilateral cuts to Social Security and the Veterans Affairs. And if you don’t do that, there’s no point in us negotiating here because you’re just going to keep sacrificing working people unilaterally no matter what we negotiate. And so, if we see you restore those cuts as we’re demanding, then we can negotiate. We can start having a serious budget process again.”
And in that scenario, the shutdown is not the leverage. It’s not that the government’s shut down and now you get to make Trump look bad because you know this thing isn’t working or that thing’s not working. The leverage is these horrific cuts to Social Security and the Veterans Affairs Administration that are hurting real people, and them having to defend that every day and insist that, “No, no, we are going to keep those cuts. We are going to make it so that seniors can’t get their phone calls answered to get their checks, and field offices are closing, and they’ve got some rogue AI, and they’re doing ridiculous things.” And by the way, where are they now? What happened to Big Boss? Big Boss is the Social Security Administration playing God with your personal information.
And so I think if Democrats can stand together on that, they can win that argument because Republicans are not going to want to be in the position of defending those cuts. There’s a reason those cuts are not in those rescission packages that get sent down to Congress. Because Republicans don’t want anything to do with them. And Democrats can win an argument that says, “This government would be open right now if Republicans in the Trump administration would agree to just reverse their cuts that are hurting our seniors and hurting our veterans.”
And if you win that fight, then you’ve broken that extra constitutional hold that you were talking about, where you’ve started to restore the power of the purse to Congress from Russ Vought and from Trump himself. And once you’ve broken that spell a little bit, you can start trench warfare, go after the next pot and the next pot and the next pot. National Parks can be next.
Seeberger: Obviously these are very trying times. That said, I think that, at least from my perspective, the last few weeks offer some opportunity for hope. We’ve seen Democrats put Republicans on defense over this Jeffrey Epstein scandal. But are there other things that stand out to you as reasons to get fired up or reasons to have some optimism? And, for folks who want to get involved, what should they be doing in this moment?
Lee: Yeah, I mean, listen. I think as for what people should be doing right now, we’re going into congressional recess, and a big part of what is going to determine the midterms and the future of the country is going to be whether Republicans feel the heat on the votes that they just took to gut Medicaid, to kill clean energy, all to benefit their billionaire donors.
And if they don’t feel heat, I think our country’s going to be in trouble a little bit because it’s going to be a permission structure for them to just keep going, and to have every Republican presidency be like this for forever and ever, and for Republicans to do whatever they can to interfere with the elections going forward.
We’re seeing the Texas redistricting—
Lee: —with this absurd situation happening right now. But the American people have the power to stop all of this. And the fact that Republicans are going to be home, they left, as you said, running for their life on the Epstein scandal.
But if it can become clear over the next month that they’re going to pay a price for what they did, then, it’s going to be a very different vibe for the next year going into the midterms. And they’re going to start to feel like they’re on the defensive, and they have to find ways to distance themselves from Trump and find ways to tone and make themselves look moderate.
And I don’t think it’s likely to be very successful, but it will have a ripple effect where it starts to constrain Trump, who desperately wants to avoid losing the House. So that is my biggest —that’s not exactly the chipper, good news Instagram story maybe you were asking for.
But in terms of, what am I hoping for? I know people are outraged. I’ve seen it. I’ve talked to them. I just know that they need to take this next month and make sure that they spend one day making sure that a Republican in power somewhere hears about it.
Seeberger: It’s an opportunity. It’s got to go get seized. And with that, everybody has their homework. Jesse Lee, professor, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Lee: Hey, my pleasure. Thanks so much.
Seeberger: All right, folks, that’s going to do it for us this week. Please go back and check out previous episodes. I do have Muggs here with us.
Muggs Leone: Hello, hello.
Seeberger: Yes, here to break down this week’s most important pop culture moments.
Leone: Oh, so important because I’m so in the know on pop culture, specifically when it comes to movie musicals.
Seeberger: Oh, movie musicals. We will get to that in just a second. But none of us have been having as much fun this past week as one former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who folks may have seen hit “The Mayhem Ball” for Lady Gaga’s new tour in San Francisco. She was just having the time of her life.
Leone: As she should. I mean, there’s a lot going on in the world, and as we always say on this podcast, people need a break. And I love that she got a break, even if it was in what I would call an unconventional location for a member of Congress. But listen, do what you will, and I love that for her.
The only Mayhem fun knowledge that I’m bringing, rumors that I’m spreading, is I have heard through the podcast grapevine that in the “Mayhem” deluxe album that may or may not be coming out in the near future, we might be getting an unreleased “Princess Die,” spelled D-I-E, which is an unreleased song that Gaga recorded with Lana Del Rey several years ago before they had beef. And now that they finally resolved their issues, it’s coming out.
Leone: This is my “Mayhem” tea that I’m spilling here on “The Tent” pod. You heard it here first. Cannot confirm if it’s true or not, but I stand by the rumors and the online gossip.
Seeberger: Well we love to spill the tea. We love to spread gossip here on “The Tent.” But in addition to Nancy Pelosi going to “The Mayhem Ball,” I have been getting by over the course of the last week solely, basically, from the clips that have been making the rounds online of Meryl Streep, Stanley Tucci, Anne Hathaway, who are now shooting “The Devil Wears Prada 2.”
And Muggs, these clips have stopped me dead in my tracks. And I haven’t been able to stop watching them on loop over and over and over again.
Leone: I feel that, Colin. It’s back.
Leone: The era of “The Devil Wears Prada” is back. I am so excited. I will say, when I first got my job here at CAP, I was afraid that I would have a—
Seeberger: Miranda Priestly?
Leone: —a Miranda Priestly experience as an executive assistant. I’m happy to report that is not the case, but that was my fear as the only pop culture reference of executive assistant. And I’m very excited to see what we get in this next chapter of “The Devil Wears Prada.”
Seeberger: I mean, it’s going to be hard to top the original. To be sure, it is probably one of the most fun movies I have enjoyed in my redacted years on this earth. But Meryl Streep is just, to me, one of the very best.
Leone: Oh, for sure. A hundred percent.
Seeberger: And I know oftentimes there are questions about, “OK, does the sequel actually live up to the original?” If there is anybody who I have faith in who can do it, Meryl Streep is going to get the job done.
Leone: A hundred percent. I mean, the one thing that I am hoping to see is more quippy one-liners because as we know, “Devils Wears Prada” has many a great quote. Something that I’m also excited to see, though, is those quotes be taken into a potential musical that is in the works of “The Devil Wears Prada.”
Leone: Again, cannot confirm or deny, but there’s rumors that I’ve heard that it’s in the works, in the process. And as we all know, I am a musical stan, and so I’ll be looking forward to that.
But speaking of movie musicals, speaking of sequels, speaking of part twos, I’m still thinking about “Wicked Part 2” coming out. Like if we’re talking about movies and sequels and doing them justice, “Wicked Part 2” is what’s getting me to next year, Colin. That is what’s fueling me.
Seeberger: Well, we are less than four months away. I am also very excited about it. I have promised my daughter to take her as soon as it comes out.
Leone: Such great parenting.
Seeberger: I’m not going to let her down.
Leone: Yes. Good for you.
Seeberger: Well, that’s going to do it for us, folks. Please stay cool. It has been a scorcher out there in D.C.. And we’ll talk to you next week.
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Colin Seeberger. Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer. Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Hai Phan, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.