Transcript:
Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger.
Erin Phillips: And filling in for Daniella Gibbs Léger, I’m lead producer Erin Phillips. Colin, how are you holding up on your wonderful vacation this week?
Seeberger: Well, I can’t say that I am sad to not be in Washington, D.C., right now. I hear that there are some important meetings happening this week, but I have one meeting on my calendar, and that is sitting at the pool and listening to the ocean waves, Pacific Ocean, just help me get my zen on, and it is doing just the trick that I hoped it would.
Phillips: Well, I love that for you. Thank you for taking a tiny break to talk with us and our listeners this week on “The Tent.” We always appreciate your presence, and we’ll let you get back to your adventures shortly. But, I did hear you had a really important conversation this week.
Seeberger: That’s right. I talked to Mike Sozan, senior fellow for Democracy Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. We talked about Donald Trump’s aims to subvert the congressional confirmation process, what Democrats should be doing with their remaining few weeks in power, and what democratic threats we should be on guard for over the course of the next few years.
Phillips: Really important topics. And Mike always has great insights, so I can’t wait to hear it. But first, let’s get to some news.
Seeberger: Let’s do it. Our listeners may have heard that House Republicans have officially won the majority this week, which means we’re looking at a Republican trifecta in government come next year. We should expect that Republicans are going to use their power to achieve as many far-right policy aims as possible.
It also means that state governments and the nonprofit sector are going to be more important than ever in fighting back against MAGA extremism, even as right-wing radicals in the Oval Office and on Capitol Hill do the bidding of the powerful and well connected and work to rip away our rights and freedoms.
Luckily, there’s some good news on the state front. In 2016, Democrats ended up with just 16 governorships across the United States, but heading into 2025, they’ll hold 23 governorships, including in purple states like Arizona and North Carolina. There are also 15 Democratic state government trifectas–well more than in 2017—and some of them are already mobilizing.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced a special legislative session before the end of the year to codify protections for Californians. He was in D.C. this week to meet with administration officials to ensure that his state gets the federal funding it was promised in the next several weeks before Trump takes office—things like COVID relief reimbursements and funding for infrastructure projects. Gov. JB Pritzker (D) of Illinois is also gearing up to protect the rights of his constituents. This week, he announced a number of measures to protect women’s health care, building on the state’s successful abortion ballot measure. He’s also looking to codify a number of important environmental regulations. And in New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) is collaborating with the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, on a strategy to challenge Trump administration policies that put New Yorkers at risk.
Phillips: Yeah, these are all really great examples, Colin, and I’m sure we’ll see many more from states with progressive leaders as we really get into the thick of the Trump administration.
Not only will they be working, though, to protect their own residents from harmful new federal rules and political turmoil, they can also help challenge the legality of Trump administration policies as they come out, much like we saw red states do during the course of the Biden administration. And civil society will also have a role to play here as well.
The ACLU and other advocacy organizations have already begun generating important resources to help other organizations, as well as state and local government leaders, to push back on some of Project 2025’s most extreme proposals. So the next four years will no doubt be a tense struggle between actors trying to protect and support the rights of Americans and the right-wing MAGA trifecta trying to rip those rights away.
Seeberger: Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, Erin. Now, we both mentioned climate a few times, and I want to dive into this policy area in particular. This week, leaders from around the world are meeting at COP29—which is a global climate conference taking place in Baku, Azerbaijan, this year—to discuss climate change solutions and goals.
And now, they’ll also be trying to get a sense for how a second Trump administration could inhibit progress toward achieving those goals. Well, spoiler alert, it’s not looking good. The U.S. has long been an important leader in global climate action. Last year at COP28, U.S. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry helped to secure a global commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. It was a real historic achievement.
But a second Trump administration may erase much of that progress. Trump plans to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement yet again, just like he did in 2017. But that’s not all. Now that members of the MAGA movement are admitting their intentions to fully carry out Project 2025, it’s likely Trump may withdraw the United States not just from the Paris Climate Agreement, but the UN group that convenes at COP each year—a group we’ve been a part of since 1992.
Project 2025 would also have Trump withdraw the United States from the World Bank, which is, of course, the world’s largest provider of climate finance in developing countries. And it would be a move that would have disastrous impacts on the climate-vulnerable nations that rely on World Bank funding in order to be able to recover from disasters.
It would also end U.S. foreign aid for climate resiliency programs, including things like the extreme weather early warning system that the U.S. helped build in Malawi, which saved upwards of $40 million in damages, as well as countless lives in 2022.
Phillips: Yeah, it’s a really troubling set of policies, and it really will undermine the international community’s ability to trust the United States to make good on its promises as we withdraw from so many of these organizations.
And you know that they’re actually planning to carry out these elements of Project 2025 because we’ve seen them totally change their tune from the campaign when they were trying to push it away. And now all of a sudden, in the days since the election, we hear folks coming out and saying Project 2025 is the agenda. So, we’ve got to believe them.
On top of the policies you mentioned, Colin, I’d add that their plan to replace career civil servants with political loyalists is a plan we’ve talked about many times here on “The Tent.” If implemented, it will completely gut the government of climate, environmental, and scientific expertise in particular, leaving huge gaps in our ability to engage with the international community on these issues.
They may also try to use a process called impoundment to withhold congressionally appropriated funding from agencies here at home that run programs they don’t like—like the environmental agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that impoundment is unconstitutional, but with the new MAGA majority on the Supreme Court showing a brazen willingness to ignore precedent, we shouldn’t assume that they’ll continue to do so.
Trump’s campaign also, of course, promised to dismantle the historic climate law that passed during the Biden administration, the Inflation Reduction Act, as well. On the national security front, Project 2025 encourages Trump and his administration to disregard climate change as a potential threat or a threat multiplier in national security discussions, even though experts recognize that climate has and will continue to amplify many threats abroad.
So, all of these disastrous domestic policies combined with the global actions you spoke to would really affect the world’s ability to limit warming overall. The U.S. is the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter on Earth and the biggest oil and gas producer in history. If we withdraw from global climate discussions and counteract our own progress, like Project 2025 suggests we do, we’ll be directly hindering the ability of the entire global community to limit the disastrous impacts of climate change.
Seeberger: And that is a really troubling reality to think about. But that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod. And stick around for my interview with Mike Sozan in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: Mike Sozan is a senior fellow for Democracy Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He previously served as chief of staff to former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), legislative director for former Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), and counsel for former Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). He has also worked as an attorney for the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.
Mike Sozan, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Michael Sozan: Thanks Colin, happy to be back.
Seeberger: So, you’re a Senate man, Mike, and I’m curious. We have some breaking news. Sen. John Thune (R) of South Dakota was just elected by the Senate Republican Conference to be the incoming Senate majority leader in the new Senate.
I’d be curious to get your thoughts on this election by the Senate Republican Conference, what you think it means, and what Americans should expect from Sen. Thune in his service as majority leader.
Sozan: That’s right, Colin. It is a changing of the guard. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader for many years through multiple presidents, and he’s quite famous. Everybody knows him for his obstruction techniques, but it’s really his mastery of the Senate. And so, this is a new era.
John Thune—I would say of all the three finalists, he’s the one who’s the most institutionalist, perhaps the one who is least close personally with Donald Trump. He was running against [Sens.] John Cornyn (R) of Texas and Rick Scott (R) of Florida. And there was a big push in recent days from Trump’s allies to get Rick Scott to be the next majority leader. But Scott actually lost in the first round, and then it came down to Thune versus Cornyn. Thune won.
And, I have worked in the Senate, as you said. I saw Thune for many years up close. He really comes from the more moderate school of the Republican wing of the party. I mean, he’s a rock-ribbed conservative, but I say moderate in the sense that he really worked to protect the institution in the past and did not always go along with what Trump has said and done.
So, out of the three that were running, I think that it’s notable that he won. And I will also say that it was by secret ballot. And I think that if this race had not been done by secret ballot, you may have seen someone like Rick Scott win. But because the senators could vote privately without anybody knowing, Thune won.
And I think that might be an indication that maybe some senators secretly wished that they were able to break with Trump more often. They were able to do it here by secretly voting for John Thune.
Seeberger: So if there is going to be any bulwark against Donald Trump’s worst excesses or some of the Republican extremists in Congress, Sen. John Thune may play an important role.
Mike, speaking of the Senate, we know that Donald Trump has already started announcing some incoming personnel decisions for his new administration. The Senate, of course, plays an important role in confirming many nominees for critical positions in the federal government.
Can you talk about the importance of the confirmation process, as well as how Trump has in recent days tried to suggest that he may try to go around that process, and what is he really getting at, and do you think he could be successful?
Sozan: Sure thing. So, the Senate plays the role in advising and consenting and approving nominations of a president. That’s written into the Constitution. Most of your listeners know the House doesn’t have a role here. It’s on the Senate to do it. And the Senate traditionally has really enjoyed this role, has found it to be very important. It puts nominees through hearings, and they debate the nominee on the floor, and then the nominee comes for a vote before the full Senate.
Now, most of the time, a president gets pretty broadly away from the Senate on his nominees, especially when the president’s party is the party that’s controlling the Senate, as will be here, I think.
As we’re speaking, it looks like the Republicans are going to have 53 seats in the Senate. They’re going to have a clear majority, and they’re going to have a little bit of margin of error. Even if a couple of their more reasonable members may disagree with and not want to confirm a nominee, that nominee will probably get through.
And as we were saying, John Thune is going to be overseeing this process. I know that he wants the Senate to be able to weigh in and go through this important process where they can really examine nominees, see what their conflicts of interest are, see if they have the qualifications to do the role.
But we also know that Donald Trump is a big fan of placing in acting nominees who don’t go through the full confirmation process. He did that in his first term. I know he wants to do it again here. And he also wants to appoint what is known as recess appointments, recess nominees. And he has said that publicly. He actually asked all of the three men who were running for majority leader to commit to doing recess appointments.
And that essentially means that while the Senate is out on recess, presidents have the ability to appoint somebody to a position and they can stay there for a very long time. And that means that that nominee can escape the normal examination process. And I think this is Trump’s way of saying in advance, he knows that some of his nominees are going to be and are already very controversial, maybe not even qualified. And this is a way for those nominees to be put into their positions and be loyal to Trump.
Seeberger: Well, that’s terrifying. Republicans are obviously very excited to have a majority after Democrats having taken the majority starting back in 2021. But, Democrats still have the Senate majority for another seven or so weeks.
If you were advising current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Democrats, about how they should be using these last few weeks of power that they have in order to protect the government from an incoming extreme administration and unified Republican control of government, what would you advise them?
Sozan: Well, if I were still an aide up on Capitol Hill, I would be advising them to act as aggressively as they can within these last several weeks. We know we have an authoritarian leader coming in. There’s no reason that the Democrats should be timid in any way about using every single day that’s left to try to set up some guardrails for democracy.
Now, of course, we know that they barely have a majority. They’ve got to rely on people like [Sens.] Joe Manchin (D-WV), who’s still in office right now for these last many weeks, and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) the most conservative members in the Democratic caucus. And those two members don’t always support what the rest of the Democrats want to do.
But that being said, I would hope and expect that Leader Schumer is going to try to confirm as many judicial nominees as possible. There’s still a lot waiting to be confirmed. These are judges for the federal district courts and the circuit courts. That’s one thing.
Another thing that Schumer could do is to try to confirm as many nominees to agencies, for example, commissioners to agencies who cannot be fired by Donald Trump. So for example, the Federal Trade Commission, which looks out for consumers in so many ways, Schumer could confirm Lena Khan to another term there. And she could really help shore up the FTC for several years.
So I think that ideally, if Republicans wanted to cooperate in any way, I’m sure Schumer would want to pass legislation on things like making it clear that the military cannot be used against U.S. citizens, for example. But I, I think that the chances of Republicans cooperating on any legislation are close to zero. So I think therefore, Schumer probably should focus a lot on getting these last nominees through the process. And I would say, keep the Senate in as long as possible, as long as is needed to clear the decks.
Seeberger: Lots to do, for sure. Mike, I’m curious, you’re a democracy expert. The exit polls in the recent elections seem to indicate that democracy was the, if not among, a top set of issues for voters. And yet we saw a candidate with a long history of both anti-democratic rhetoric as well as anti-democratic actions, when they had power, ultimately win.
Where’s this disconnect between Americans cherishing our democratic systems and their willingness to elect a strongman with authoritarian plans and tendencies? Is there a way that Democrats should better be connecting the dots for voters on this issue? And what does it portend for our democratic system if many Americans feel that it’s not actually delivering for them?
Sozan: Yeah, Colin, this is such an important question. And for myself and all the many others who work in the democracy reform space, this is a question we’re going to be studying for many months to come.
I mean, on the one hand, we were very heartened. It’s good that democracy continues to be the No. 1 or No. 2 issue on voters’ minds. But what we also know, there’s a few things: We know that the word “democracy” means different things to different voters. So for some subset of voters, especially ones who are Republican or voted for Trump, they think of democracy in a different way, and they actually were voting to have Trump protect democracy. They think Biden and the Democrats are the challenge to democracy, and we’re overreaching and trying to change the fabric of our society.
And so that term “democracy” can mean different things to different people. But for the people who were really using that term as a way to protect against authoritarianism, people who want to build a stronger, more inclusive, pluralistic democracy and who were upset that Donald Trump, for example, tried to overthrow the last presidential election—I shouldn’t say “the last one” at this point; it’s really now the 2020 presidential election—many of them really did vote to protect democracy, but some of them ultimately still voted for Trump.
And again, this is going to be part of our homework to see why it would appear at initial blush that a lot of people were willing to put aside their fears about democracy for the sake of voting for a stronger economy. These were people who were worried about inflation and worried about the cost of living and for some reason were willing to trust Donald Trump for the next four years to make the inflation situation and the economy situation better.
I mean, there are interviews with voters who said, “Yes, we’re really afraid of Donald Trump and what he will do for democracy. We think he’s extreme, but we’re willing to overlook that.” And we especially see that, Colin, in younger voters and voters of color, people who grew up in this age of Trump and they’ve seen the system that’s become roiled with partisanship, et cetera. And so some of them think, and I can understand this inclination, “Well, democracy’s not working too well for us, so why not try something else?” or, “Why not take a chance on authoritarianism, for example, because democracy just isn’t working?”
And I think part of the work of a lot of us in the democracy space is to try to give people an affirmative vision for how to build a strong democracy that will actually be responsive to people. It’s out there. We can reach it. I know right now it doesn’t feel like it, but there are pathways to reaching and building a strong democracy.
Seeberger: Now, Mike, we know that Donald Trump has lots of authoritarian plans. We see them laid out in Project 2025, of course. But we also know that a unified Republican Congress could try to do a lot in this space.
Are there particular proposals that you anticipate the new Republican majorities in Congress to move on and what’s the viability there? Do you think they’re going to happen? And what can Democrats do to potentially try to make some changes to those proposals or stop them, where they are really dangerous, in their tracks?
Sozan: Right. Well, I think that Donald Trump, of course, is going to have the Senate and the House under his control. I mean, as we speak right now, we already know that the Senate looks like it’s going to be around 53 out of 100 seats for the Republicans. In the House, it looks like the Republicans are going to have their majority, but it might be a really narrow one.
And so, part of the answer to your question is how aggressive Republicans in the House want to be. I think they’re going to be very aggressive under [House Speaker] Mike Johnson [R-LA]. They’ve already been that way, but they may have a very slim margin. And we saw before in Trump’s first term that there were times where some remaining moderate Republicans did not want to go along with the MAGA agenda and sometimes threw a monkey wrench in there.
And we’ve even seen that in the past couple of years under Johnson’s leadership, of course. So, part of the answer to your question will be how aggressive both the new Senate Majority Leader Thune and the House Speaker Mike Johnson are going to want to be.
I think Trump’s really going to have them in his back pocket. And I think he’s really going to be pushing them to do things like make it harder for people to vote, perhaps require a voter ID for federal elections. I think of course they’re going to try to weaken the Affordable Care Act. They’re going to try to build the border wall. They’re going to try to do a lot of things, not just in the democracy space, but outside the democracy space.
I think they’re going to also try to weaken any sort of climate legislation and requirements right now. I continue to think that climate change is perhaps the biggest democracy issue out there, because if we don’t have a world that we can live in, then democracy really doesn’t matter anymore. So I think part of that remains to be seen. But I think there is going to be an all-out assault of fundamental rights and this sort of anti-voting legislation, et cetera, as well as, of course, judges, a lot of conservative judges.
And I think that the bulwark from the Democrats, it’s got to be there. Democrats have got to stand up. They’ve got to make their voices heard. But we all have to be realistic. There’s not going to be that much that Democrats can do, if anything, in the House and in the Senate. Sure, there’s the filibuster that can be used for some things. I’m sure Democrats will do that on behalf of the people, on behalf of democracy.
But man, Trump really does have the Senate and House to go along with him. And I think we have to brace ourselves for a fair amount of bad legislation, of anti-democracy legislation, to be passed.
Seeberger: Well, given that backdrop, we know that state and local governments are going to play a real essential role in trying to shore up some of the rights and freedoms that may be under assault from Republicans in Washington, D.C., and Donald Trump. I’m curious if you can speak to the reforms that can be made at that state and local level over the course of the next few years to try to protect against those destructive policies?
Sozan: Yeah, I’m glad you brought this up. This is another bright spot. I know we’re all looking for whatever bright spots we can find these days.
Seeberger: We sure are, Mike.
Sozan: Yes, yes, indeed. And state and local governments are providing some measure of positivity these days, especially in states where there are pro-democracy governors and legislatures where Democrats are in control. We’ve seen a lot of progress in those states, especially expanding and protecting the right to vote, even passing some state-level voting rights acts since Republicans have blocked that on the federal level.
There are lots of steps that state and local governments have been taking and that we need to continue to encourage them to take, especially at a time where we know that federal legislation is going to be so tough. So, what are some of the other areas that state and local governments have been acting or could act on behalf of the people?
Well, No. 1, several of them continue to try to ban gerrymandering. That’s the unfair drawing of districts that are stacked in favor of one political party or another. And when you do fair redistricting reform and you draw maps in fair ways, it really gives voice back to the people and makes it much easier for people to elect the representatives they want. So I’m really encouraged by what we continue to see on gerrymandering reform.
Another area as well is states and localities continue to pass legislation to ban political spending by foreign-influenced U.S. corporations. This is a way of making sure that corporate money is not swaying our elections, and especially corporate money that’s controlled in large part by foreign investors. Because of course, Americans want to have the say in their own elections without foreign influence.
And, also I could mention that more and more states and localities are moving toward public financing of campaigns. So this really makes it more possible for more diverse candidates to be able to run for office, candidates who don’t have deep-pocketed networks and instead can use taxpayer-funded campaign monies to be able to run for office, which really helps make representatives more fair and representative of actual people.
And so I think that those are reforms that we have seen, we will continue to see. There are a lot of other ones out there. I’ll say this last note on that: When people see these reforms come into effect and they see how democracies are protected at their state and local levels, it helps to build more of a national demand, so that next time there is a pro-democracy governing trifecta on the federal level and federal legislation can actually move again, people can demand that of the House and the Senate and the next president. And that’s really good for the longer-term strengthening of our democracy.
Seeberger: Well, Mike Sozan, I think you’re the perfect person for us to be chatting with this week. I really appreciate your time. And thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Sozan: Thanks, Colin. Always happy to be here.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: Well, that’s all the time this week. Please go back and check out previous episodes. Erin, we do have to talk about one thing that is bringing me joy in these dark days, and that is the premiere of the upcoming “Wicked” movie which, I don’t know about you, but I have been waiting decades for ever since it was initially promised.
Phillips: So excited, yeah.
Seeberger: Yes. So they actually just had the premiere out in L.A. a few days back. And I don’t know whether you caught the red carpet, but the costumes were fab.
Phillips: Amazing!
Seeberger: Yeah, Ariana Grande showed up in this kind of Wendy, “Wizard of Oz”-inspired, kind of looked a little Bo Peep to me. But she also had these glass slippers that were covered in 4,000 crystals.
Cynthia Erivo just always looking fierce, and her nails game was amazing. And then finally, I’ve just got to say, Jonathan Bailey. We love Jonathan Bailey here on “The Tent.”
Phillips: Daniella would want us to talk about Jonathan Bailey and his ruby red slippers.
Seeberger: That she would. Those ruby red slippers I don’t think I could pull it off, but there’s nothing that Jonathan Bailey cannot pull off.
Phillips: Exactly.
Seeberger: He looked amazing and I’m just so, so excited to see this movie in a few weeks. Not even a few weeks. It’s like a week and a half.
Phillips: Around the corner.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Phillips: Just a week away. And I loved the pictures of both of them, Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, with Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenoweth. I mean, I feel like we all have listened to the soundtrack for a long time. I feel like that’s the thing you bring with you away from the show. Even if you’ve seen the show live, you listen to the soundtrack over and over again.
So, those are the OGs. We love to see that generation passing it on to the wonderful people playing them in the movie. So just, like, really excited. I saw the trailer in the movie theater the other day. Almost cried. Very stoked about this.
But speaking of costumes, Colin—these fabulous red carpet costumes—as people are putting away their Halloween costumes, I’ve been noticing a lot of other holiday decorations going up very early this year. And I know you have some thoughts on this.
Seeberger: So typically, I am a strict no holiday season lights and decorations until after Thanksgiving. But we’re going to make an exception this year. We’re all living through some crazy times right now. And so, I’m all about it. Put your trees up. Hang the lights out front. Do the whole thing, and just go to town and have fun.
And this year, usually I’m like, “OK, they need to come down shortly after the New Year.” This year, we are keeping them up until at least Inauguration Day, folks. You’ve been warned. And please go full bore this year.
Phillips: Listen, I love a holiday display. I will say, in my neighborhood, I think Halloween’s a little more popular. The Halloween decorations have not come down necessarily in my neighborhood yet. I know you find this controversial.
Seeberger: OK, there’s some strikes that your neighbors are putting on the board. It’s a good thing that you have a lenient HOA, because that would be a no-go in some neighborhoods.
Phillips: Well, it’s a quirky neighborhood. We do have one of the year-round 14-foot skeletons, the Home Depot 14-foot skeletons. Some people put them out year-round. We have one, he’s sort of hugging the side of a building, and he gets dressed up for different holidays.
So I am really hopeful for a Santa hat, a giant Santa hat on him, in the coming weeks. That is my one hope for maybe a blend of my love of Halloween decorations and your love of Christmas decorations.
Seeberger: I can get behind that. I can get behind that. Well, with that, that’s all we’ve got this week. Please do take some time to recharge, rest up, rejuvenate, connect with the people you love. We’re going to get through the next four years together and taking care of one another. So, you owe that call to a friend. I know I do. Make the time, make the call, catch up with folks, and we’ll talk to you next week.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Colin Seeberger, and co-hosted by Daniella Gibbs Léger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer and guest host for this episode. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests at “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.