Transcript:
[soundbite begins]
Jon Tester: I mean, we’re talking about older men taking advantage of little girls. And I don’t give a damn if you say they’re over 15 years old or 17 years old or whatever. This is just flat disgusting. It is ridiculous. And I don’t give a damn if you’re the president of the United States or if you’re a gutter alcoholic—it’s disgusting.
[soundbite ends]
Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m your host, Colin Seeberger. That was former Democratic senator from Montana, Jon Tester.
Cost of living continues to squeeze Americans, and the president’s economic approval rating? It’s in the tank. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be top of mind for the president. He spent much of the last week focused on wining and dining with business executives and trying to block the release of the Epstein files.
Jon and I discussed how voters in his state are responding to this second Trump term. We also chatted about the Epstein saga and what Democrats should keep in mind as they face voters in next year’s midterm elections.
And stick around after the interview for a moment of joy because folks, it’s finally “Wicked.”
Jon Tester is a former Democratic senator from Montana. Prior to that, he served in the Montana Senate and served as its president. Sen. Tester is a third-generation Montana farmer, a former school teacher, and a proud grandfather. He currently hosts the “Grounded” podcast.
Sen. Tester, welcome to the pod.
Tester: It is great to be with you.
Seeberger: So I want to talk about an issue that’s front of mind for all Americans, and that’s the economy. We have seen the president’s economic approval rating has really taken a battering over the course of the past few months. He’s down now more than 20 points underwater. And we see a lot of that as being driven by folks’ frustration with the high cost of living.
How have the people of Montana been responding to the start of this Trump presidency? This is obviously his second term up at bat. And are folks feeling more pessimistic about the second shot? Or are they still hopeful?
Tester: Well, I think they still want to be hopeful because that’s basically your tendencies. But the truth is, is rural America’s getting pounded.
Let’s take a look at health care, for example. That Big Beautiful Bill did some pretty bad things to rural hospitals—did bad things to hospitals across the board, but rural hospitals in particular because they are so close to going under before all this stuff happened. Then you do what they did with Medicaid and Medicare, and what they’re continuing to do with not putting the subsidies in for insurance, which is just going to cause more uninsured, more charity care, and it’s going to put these hospitals at an incredible position where they’re going to be faced with closure, quite frankly.
And I think we’re going to see more and more of that moving forward. I hope not, because in my small town where we have a hospital that was built 50 years after my grandfather came out and homesteaded that area. And now 60 years afterwards, they’re in tough shape, quite frankly.
So from a health care standpoint, rural America, it’s a big, big problem. And as I tell folks, which is a fact, if you’re over the age of 50 and you don’t have access for health care, you cannot live in those communities, period. And in Montana, where we’re fairly old anyway, and in agriculture, where we’re even older, it really does literally drive a nail in the coffin to rural America.
And then we’ll talk about the tariffs.
Seeberger: That’s right, yeah.
Tester: Because quite frankly, health care is just one portion that’s really important. What the tariffs have done in effect, in rural America, has taken away our markets. And we raise more food in this country than we eat, so we have to have foreign markets. But it’s taken away our markets, and it’s increased—even worse—increased our input costs through the roof.
Now, I’m talking about fertilizer. I’m talking about herbicides. I’m talking about the cost of equipment. Everything. Everything except the cost of energy, fuel. Gasoline and diesel fuel’s down some. All the other forms of energy are up, though. And our input costs are through the roof.
And so what’s this do? Well farmers aren’t a hell of a lot different than the medical community I talked to you about. Their margins aren’t extremely wide. In fact, if we didn’t get subsidies, you’d see a lot of folks going broke. A lot of folks planned their business model off of federal subsidies—which, by the way, is incredibly dangerous and a necessity, but an unfortunate necessity.
And so you’ve got a situation where input costs go up. Cost of production has been driven up. The price we get at the marketplace is down. Charlotte and I, my wife and I, have been farming since 1978. We saw what happened in the 80s. It was not pretty. This is going to make the 80s look like child’s play. It’s not good.
And the other problem is this: The president’s solution to this is cutting checks. I’ve got to tell you, I don’t know many farmers, if any, that want their check from Big Brother. They want a check from the marketplace. This is not a solution. It’s socialism, by the way. And we ought to be working on expanding markets and driving an economy where we have competition into marketplace and prices are fair.
Seeberger: Well, we saw the administration last week move to roll back some of the tariffs that they had put in place, which to me was really just an admission—
Tester: Of guilt.
Seeberger: —that they had been raising prices on Americans—
Tester: That’s right. Taxing Americans.
Seeberger: —for certain food items, coffee, tea, just some of the basics, right?
Tester: Yep.
Seeberger: And to me, I mean, that’s an admission of increasing the cost of living on folks. Does that track with your thinking as well?
Tester: No, absolutely. And I think that was a good thing to do, except for one thing: He also took the tariffs off of beef. We raise a lot of really good beef in this country. We don’t have country of origin labeling, which I wish we did, mandatory country of origin labeling. And so now we could well get inundated with Argentinian and Brazilian beef—by the way, which is what this president wants—which is going to raise hell with our cow calf producers, which is one of the only places where there is some profit margin—right now. Not always, but right now it is. So you’re right, it is an admission of guilt that other people, other countries, don’t pay these tariffs; that the American taxpayer, the American consumer, pays these tariffs.
And the facts of this—this is what’s really ironic about this. I don’t know if you remember when he first was sworn in, he says, “We’re going to hold China accountable.” Well, I don’t know many people that don’t believe we should be holding China accountable. And then in the end, the only country that really gets to benefit from these tariffs is China. We’ve pushed away all our trading partners. We’ve treated them horribly. They’ve went other places to get their products, and it’s going to be harder than hell to get those consumers, those buyers, back now.
Seeberger: For sure, for sure. Donald Trump, of course, famously came into power talking about putting America first.
Tester: Yeah.
Seeberger: You raised Argentina. They’re quadrupling beef imports from Argentina. They are handing out $40 billion of taxpayer money to Argentina.
Tester: While we can’t feed our kids, by the way, in a SNAP program. Keep going.
Seeberger: Can’t feed our kids with SNAP. Can’t lower the cost of health care by making sure we can extend these premium tax credits. To me, that seems like he’s been selling a false bill of goods.
Tester: Well, continually—and I say this as somebody who wants him to be successful, and I do—but continually, he says one thing and does another. It happens time, after time, after time again.
Where I live, I’ve got about two neighbors that didn’t vote for him. I don’t have a lot of neighbors, but only two that didn’t vote for him. And quite frankly, those folks are getting hammered. I mean, this is rural America. This is frontier America. This is a place where broadband’s really, really important, and he is even screwing that up. Because with the infrastructure bill, broadband was going to be in every household, no matter where you lived. And it doesn’t appear like that’s going to happen either.
And so, I have started to ask myself, and we’ll get to the Epstein stuff later, but with the Epstein stuff, with the economic stuff, with the health care stuff: When is enough going to be enough? And I don’t mean by the president’s standards; by the American people’s standards. When is enough going to be enough?
Because quite frankly, we are heading in the wrong direction in this country, major league. We’ve got companies that are being held hostage by the federal government, being required to come to the table. Look at Nvidia. Give up some of the stocks so the federal government can own them? I mean, what the hell is going on?
Seeberger: Sounds like socialism to me.
Tester: What’s going on with the Republican party? Why aren’t the Republicans in Congress standing up and going, “What are you guys doing?” This isn’t the party of free markets, of family values, of a strong defense.
I mean, I’m telling you, they don’t stand for anything. The party of conservatism, of the party that I grew up with. And so that’s the other part—the checks and balances. The people that have wrapped themselves in the Constitution, that serve in our Congress, that have never read the Constitution. I mean, it sounded good: “We believe in a constitution. This is what it says. Our forefathers were brilliant.” Well, read the thing.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Tester: And see what Article 1, Article 2, and Article 3 says. And do the right thing. I don’t care if you get taken out in the damn primary. If you do the right thing, at least you’d be able to sleep at night.
Seeberger: Well, I think that’s a perfect segue to another topic that I wanted to broach with you, and that’s the Epstein files. We know last week, the House of Representatives ended up getting 218 signatures on a discharge petition, which means that a vote to release the Epstein files is going to take place this week in the House of Representatives. It sounds like there may be a successful vote. It sounds like a lot of Republicans may end up voting for this in the House.
How do you think John Thune (R-SD), the Senate majority leader, is going to handle this over in the Senate? And do you think if this were to get a vote in the Senate, it would pass overwhelmingly? Because to me, it seems to me that the White House’ hope here is that the Senate’s new “Big John” is going to come in and protect the president from this vote ending up seeing the light of day.
Tester: And I didn’t come out of the House. I came out of the Senate. I spent 18 years in the U.S. Senate. So the House is their own body. But I bet you they get a big vote on this, on this Epstein file. My guess, they might get 100 Republicans to vote for it. That’s just a guess. My crystal ball’s always a little bit cloudy, so I may be wrong on that, but I will not be surprised if it isn’t a big vote.
Seeberger: Well, Trump came out and said he supports House Republicans voting for it, which to me was the president trying to get out in front of what will be a failed vote for him in the House.
Tester: Well, that’s a fair point. But you also bring up an interesting question, in that then it goes to the Senate. And John Thune, somebody that I served with, somebody that I have a lot of respect for, somebody who comes from a neighboring state, by the way, South Dakota, to Montana, is either going to do the right thing here and have a vote on it.
I mean, we’re talking about older men taking advantage of little girls. And I don’t give a damn if you say they’re over 15 years old or 17 years old or whatever. This is just flat disgusting. It is ridiculous. And I don’t give a damn if you’re the president of the United States or if you’re a gutter alcoholic—it’s disgusting.
And so there will be a lot of pressure for the Senate to take a vote on this. And if these folks that I served with don’t think this is serious business, that it is really a sign of where this country’s going from a moral standpoint, then they’re doing something that’s illegal, because their mind has been altered.
This is not a good thing for this country. It is not a good look. And if you’re going to put a stamp of approval by not voting on this Epstein stuff, to release the information—just release the information. That’s all we’re talking about. We’re talking about letting people know what’s going on—what is wrong with that? And holding people accountable for their actions.
So there will be a lot of pressure on John Thune. There will be a lot of pressure on Republicans and Democrats in this body to be able to vote on this. And I hope they do do the right thing. I haven’t seen a lot of right things been done since about 20 of January on inauguration.
I mean, we’ve seen the president apply tariffs, which is the job of Congress. They haven’t said a word. In fact, they’ve made excuses for him, looked for loopholes. We’ve seen all sorts of things going on with the economy. And we’ve seen the SNAP benefits be saved. Well, we’re not going to feed kids. Where’s Congress at? They’ve been AWOL. They’ve been AWOL now for months.
So if they take this up, and if in fact they vote on it, and if in fact they pass it, which is the right thing to do, then the question will become: Will the president veto it? And will there be enough votes to override a veto? That jury is still out. I would hope there would be.
Like I said, how do you justify old men taking advantage of young girls? There is no justification there. Or let’s reword that: How do you justify adults, adult men, taking advantage of little girls? I mean, it makes you want to go in the bathroom and barf, because it is so repulsive.
Seeberger: You can’t. You can’t. Well, to make a hard pivot here, I also wanted to talk to you about a really exciting initiative that’s taking place in Montana right now.
We have been working quite closely. My colleague Tom Moore at the Center for American Progress has been working with the state on a plan to help states fight back against Citizens United, using their long-standing authority to regulate corporations in individual states to prevent them from taking corporate and dark money in politics.
In Montana, organizers have drafted a constitutional initiative that folks in your state are going to vote on in 2026. I am curious for your thoughts on this initiative. Do you support it? And what you think may be the outcome—not just next year, but if it succeeds, what kind of impact do you think it would have on politics?
Tester: Well, I 100 percent support it. I mean, the United decision back in 2010, which your listeners probably are really familiar with, was one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the Supreme Court, where they made a determination that corporations were people. I mean, I’ve got to tell you, that’s a hell of a leap.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Tester: And then we’ve seen elections, the amount of money coming into these elections, oh man, I mean, it’s just never-ending. And you’ve got all this money coming in. By the way, since money’s fungible, and since many of these corporations are multinational, you don’t know if it is not even money that should be in these elections because it’s illegal for foreign dollars to come in to influence our elections.
Seeberger: That’s right.
Tester: But nonetheless, we are where we are. So a fellow that I served with in the state legislature by the name of Jeff Mangan, who was my seatmate when I was president of the Montana Senate, is working to get this initiative on the ballot.
And what it basically says is if you’re a corporation that has worked through the secretary of state and is licensed in Montana, you cannot give to elections. I think it’s a great start. I think Montana’s been here before when the Copper Kings were doing their thing around the turn of the century and basically trying to buy elections, which is exactly the thing that’s going on right now by the uber rich in this country.
The people of Montana said, “Enough of this BS,” and by voter initiative put in some of the best campaign finance reform laws in the country. And they were basically there for 100 years until the Supreme Court threw them out with Citizens United and some other decisions.
And so this is an issue that should be bipartisan. This is an issue that I don’t think Democrats or Republicans get advantage by it. I think both parties lose. And I think the democracy really loses. And I think it’s one of the reasons we are where we are in the country today. And so hopefully this is successful, because I think if Montana can lead the way, other states will follow.
When I’m on the ground talking to folks, I don’t care if they’re Democrats, Republicans, independents, libertarians—it doesn’t matter. They are sick of the money that’s going into these campaigns. And in essence, what has happened is candidates don’t have to go out and meet the people anymore. They can do it digitally or on TV or on radio. They can buy their image.
And especially in a state like Montana where it’s a small state—big geography, but small people-wise; a million, two probably on a good day—they expect their representatives to get out and visit with you. See eyeball to eyeball. Be able to ask you questions about important issues.
Town hall meetings don’t exist anymore. They have these silly telephone town hall meetings, which are as phony as a $3 bill. But the truth is, they don’t go out and talk to the people. They don’t want to be interviewed by the press. Only certain segments of the press that have their perspective will they get interviewed by. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work.
And it all starts with the unlimited money that’s in these campaigns. And the initiative in Montana is a giant step forward. If we can get a pass, and I think if we can—this is kind of odd, but if the money doesn’t pour in by the millions, tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars into the state to try to defeat it, I think people left to their own values will say, “This is a good idea, and we’resick of the money that’s going into elections.”
I’ll just give you a couple proof points. I ran the first time in 2006. I had a primary. I ran against the three-term incumbent. That entire race cost $28 million. Now $28 million is a lot of money.
Seeberger: Lot of money.
Tester: Both sides, $28 million. A lot of money. The race in 2024, 18 years later—Citizens Uniteddecision was in 2010, so it came after I was elected the first time—was over a quarter of a billion dollars.
Seeberger: Wow.
Tester: Tenfold. And it didn’t end up with a better-informed electorate going to the polls, I guarantee you. In fact, I would claim—I lost, so I can claim this—but I would claim they weren’t as well informed as they should be.
But the truth is, is when you have ads—I can’t remember when they first came on, but they were at least a year out, maybe a year and a half out. Ads started going on TV. And quite honestly, they were so prevalent, so dominant before the election, especially the last six months, that it was painful to watch TV. It was just painful.
And it’s painful for everybody. Really painful for the candidates, but it was painful for regular citizens, too. Because all you saw was ad, after ad, after ad, after ad, after ad.
Seeberger: Hope you’re not a college football fan, right?
Tester: Exactly. Exactly, right? And so what I hope happens here is I hope people put some reins on this because I think it’ll help our democracy. I think it’ll drive our candidates out to talking to people. And the constituents will get better representation at the local, state, and federal level if we’re able to get this passed.
Seeberger: That’s great. That’s really exciting.
I also wanted to dive in—we had some elections a couple of weeks back. Those worked out really wellfor Democrats. Seems like folks may be sending a strong signal of rebuke against this administration. But some of these candidates didn’t just eke out a win.
They also, in the case of Governor-elect Spanberger (D-VA), Governor-elect Sherrill (D-NJ), they actually improved on the Democratic margin in certain geographies within their states relative to President Biden’s performance in 2020 against Donald Trump.
So I’m curious, what is it about those campaigns? Why do you see that they were successful? And what do you think the learnings are for Democrats as they look toward 2026, 2028 so that they can continue this momentum?
Tester: Just as a general statement, I think both in Spanberger and Sherrill’s case, they ran on unity. They ran on bringing people together. And I will tell you, I think that’s inherent to who human beings are. I mean, we love to fight, but the truth is we’d rather work together and make things better. And I think that’s true in every state. Certainly true in my state.
And I think that that message, especially with the division that the president has done up and down the line—whether it’s about redistricting or feeding kids, it doesn’t matter—it’s all about division. It’s all about, “This side’s evil. This side’s great. That side’s evil. This side’s marvelous.”
And I got news for you: Democrats ain’t right all the time, and Republicans ain’t wrong all the time, and vice versa. And so they ran on the unity. And I think it paid dividends. And by the way, I would tell you I’m not a political scientist, but I’ve never seen a win like this in my lifetime. I don’t remember ‘68 and the Vietnam War elections. I was alive and fully aware, but I don’t remember how they went. Or post-Watergate, there was a big election. But this, this was huge. I mean, it was huge. It was a huge rebuke, too, you’re right.
And I think if we’re able to have fair and free elections moving forward—and I say that truthfully—if we’re able to have free and fair elections moving forward, I don’t see this ending. Because I don’t think the president’s going to change what he’s doing. And I think it’s bad for the middle class. And it’s bad for regular people. It’s bad for small business. It’s probably bad for big business, too. And so I think this is going to continue.
Now, what do the Democrats have to do moving forward? It can’t be a message of just unity. And it can’t be a message of just, “They’re bad, we’re better, vote for us.” I think Democrats have a lot of places they can go to really get to the kitchen table issues and take the cultural issues off the table. Because I think it’s really important they do that if they’re going to win. And whether it’s talking about inflation or jobs or the economy or—did I mention jobs or the economy? I think that they need to do that and need to talk about it.
And I think they need to be supportive of business. I think it’s critically important for Democrats moving forward. Now, look, you can’t justify a CEO that’s making the kind of money some of these CEOs are. But overall, most businesses are out there trying to do a good job. And they’re trying to employ people. And they’re trying to make their communities better. Democrats need to get on board on that.
Seeberger: Well, there is a Senate seat that is open next year in Montana. I’m not sure if you’ve heard of this.
Tester: I have.
Seeberger: Are you at all interested, sir?
Tester: So I’m flattered you would ask.
Seeberger: Yes.
Tester: And my wife’s sitting beside me, and so I don’t want to catch a right hook or a left hook from her. So I will tell you my perspective.
Seeberger: OK.
Tester: My perspective is my generation has screwed this country up. I am a product of the greatest generation. My parents were part of that generation, and my generation has come out here, and we think we’ve hit a triple when in fact we were born on third base. And I don’t care what it is: Things haven’t gotten better. So I think it’s time for folks of your generation to take the reins and move forward.
I did a fellowship at the University of Chicago last spring, and I’m going to tell you what, these were all 18-, 19-, 20-, 21-, 25-, at the most, year-old adults, and they got it figured out. And I think the quicker we can get the next generation in there, I think the better off this country’s going to be, quite frankly. That’s just my view from 30,000 feet.
So that should tell you I’m not going to run. But the truth is, there’ll be good people running for that seat or other seats around this country that are going to talk about issues that are important to Americans. They’re going to talk about our democracy. They’re going to talk about freedom and privacy, things that we’re losing just so fast. I think we’re going to be fine.
You don’t need Jon Tester in the United States Senate. I’m going to continue to do my podcast, which is “Grounded” with Jon Tester and Maritsa Georgiou. I’m going to continue to consult where I can, to let folks get an advantage and hear my perspective, at least, on what’s going on in the country. And I think that’s really my role moving forward.
Look, I’m 69 years old. Let’s back up a little bit. In 1960, I actually remember the Nixon-Kennedy presidential race. That was two 40-year-olds. Fast forward to 2020, we had two basically 80-year-olds. This country’s about our kids, and it’s about the next generation. It’s time we turn the reins over to the next generation.
Seeberger: Well, senator, we like to end our interviews here on an optimistic note when we can. I realize the times are heavy, are dark, but I’m curious, what is giving you hope these days?
Tester: Just what I talked about.
Seeberger: I thought you might say that.
Tester: The kids that are—and I call them kids, but I call my 40-year-old son a kid, too. They’re not kids. These folks are smart. They understand what’s important in our society. And quite honestly, they have access to information that I never had when I was their age. And they use it.
And I think that’s why it’s important podcasts like this exist, by the way, and I commend you guys on this. And it’s why I’m on it—because I think that information is really, really important, and good information is hard to come by.
And I think that if we’re able to listen—and I can’t believe all the people, of course, they said this when I was growing up, “These guys, these kids, they don’t get out of bed in the morning, and they don’t go to work. They got no work ethic,” and all this stuff. It might be true for some, but certainly not the majority. This next generation is pretty doggone impressive. And that gives me great hope.
Seeberger: Well, Sen. Jon Tester, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.” It was great to chat with you.
Tester: It’s been my pleasure. Thank you.
Seeberger: All right folks, that’s going to do it for us. Please go back and check out previous episodes.
But we do have to talk about, of course, some of the most important news of this week. I am, of course, chatting about the release of “Wicked: For Good,” the long-awaited sequel. So here to break it down with me, our senior producer, Kelly McCoy.
Kelly, are you excited?
Kelly McCoy: I’m trying to figure out a way to make a “For Good” joke here, but yes, ever since the last movie, last November, I have been counting down the 365 days until we are here, four days away from this recording. I don’t think my feet are touching the floor, Colin.
Seeberger: Well maybe they need to be in ruby red slippers, who knows? I had to. I, for one, am yes, excited to see the movie. I am also excited for all of the “Wicked” advertising and merchandising off of this movie to continue through the next few weeks and months as they hope to score a big run at the box office.
But it is incredible. I went to Target yesterday because I needed to buy a few things, and there’s “Wicked” cereal. There’s “Wicked” fruit snacks. There’s “Wicked” clothing and nightgowns and this, that. I mean, it is everywhere. The night before we were at a restaurant, my daughter’s like, “Look, Wicked! Wicked!” And it’s Jeff Goldblum in a car commercial. I mean like, they’re everywhere.
McCoy: Yeah. I made a mistake of not wearing green and pink this morning when I came into the office, unfortunately.
Seeberger: Kelly!
McCoy: Yeah, listen, I am here for it. Girly pop here loves a show tune. The musicality, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, oh my god, I don’t feel like I’ve heard two beautiful voices like this in such a long time. We were talking before we started recording—I think NBC understandably is trying to milk this thing for everything that it’s worth.
Seeberger: Everything.
McCoy: Literally everything. And so they did a special in advance of the film release, and I’m sure you’ve heard the duet with Cynthia and Ariana. And I have listened to that easily 200 times.
Seeberger: It’s so good.
McCoy: It’s incredible. So yeah, I am so excited for this movie.
Seeberger: Well, folks, make sure to go get your tickets. I’m sure it’s going to be a hot movie at the box office. So get your tickets now while you can. Buy all of the Wicked concession stand popcorn buckets and drinks with the little figurines on them. I have already promised, and so I must over-deliver for my daughter, who—we still have the “Wicked” bucket from last November’s trip to the movie. So be sure to go get those tickets. Get the concessions. Have a great time. And with that—
McCoy: Do you know when you’re seeing it?
Seeberger: I think this weekend.
McCoy: Are you seeing it this weekend? OK. Sorry, you’re trying to wrap up.
Seeberger: I think on Saturday, but—
McCoy: OK.
Seeberger: —have the best time, and enjoy it for good.
McCoy: [Singing] For good.
Seeberger: OK, that has to make the edit.
“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, and Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Hai Phan, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests of “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.