John Fetterman on Trump’s “Raw Sewage,” and What the Democrats Get Wrong
34:35 Share

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Applying for Apple Card is quick and easy. Apply in the Wallet app today and see a credit limit offer in minutes. Subject to credit approval. Apple Card by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch, member FDIC. Terms and more at applecard.com. Listener supported, WNYC Studios. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker.

Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. John Fetterman has cut a unique figure in American politics since he came to national attention. He's from a well-to-do Republican family, and he emerged as a progressive Democrat, a fighter on issues affecting the working class.

He seemed a sort of Rust Belt Bernie Sanders, rocking a hoodie and cargo shorts. And he won the Senate race in 2022 against Dr. Mehmet Oz, who was endorsed by Donald Trump. And that was despite Fetterman suffering a stroke during the campaign. More recently, though, Fetterman has come to stand out in some very different ways. After the election, he went to Mar-a-Lago and met with Donald Trump. He joined Truth Social.

He voted to confirm Pam Bondi as Attorney General, the only Democrat to do so, and that was after Bondi gave every indication that she would use the Justice Department to pursue Trump's political opponents. Fetterman also gave his support to Trump's notion that the United States could one day take over Gaza and develop it as a real estate project.

Over time at the Radio Hour, we want to provide a deep as well as a rounded view of what's happening now in Washington. And Senator Fetterman, in both his ideas and his presentation, is an outlier among the Senate Democrats. So what is he doing and why? I spoke with John Fetterman last week. You went down to Mar-a-Lago to talk to Trump. So tell me about your conversation with him in Mar-a-Lago and Washington.

Just as much, what was the reaction among your colleagues? Well, there really wasn't any reaction. People here in the Senate, they're very, I don't know, very polite, right?

I mean, you know, even after like Medendez, Medendez was walking around and people be like, oh, what happened to you? They're not talking about the gold bar. No one's asking, hey, how many gold bars were in your mattress kind of thing. So people weren't now they weren't talking about it or anything. I don't think it was controversial. But for me, it was a decision where and and of course,

I never exactly knew how that was going to look going down there, but I had the opportunity to sit down and meet with the, with the president. I mean, to me, I thought that was I doing my job. And because for me, for me, um, I want to find things that we can work together. Uh, and there's going to be a lot that I'm going to disagree. Uh, so, uh,

they don't need my vote or any democratic vote for a lot of the things that they're going to want to do. And they're not going to have a lot of support for, for much of it. Anyway, I don't think it was controversial. I don't think anybody, I mean, some people may have found that controversial, but, but for me, it's just doing a job and having a conversation. Uh, and I would like to remind everybody, uh,

More Americans picked him to be president than my team. So that doesn't mean that half our nation are fascist or they're terrible or that. A lot of your colleagues and a lot of people think that this is an exceptional thing, that Donald Trump is not what used to be called a conventional Republican and that this is something different, threatening, and to visit him in Mar-a-Lago...

represented in, and I'm representing the view of many people, not necessarily my own, but represented an accommodation to that reality. No, I mean, we all work, we work together in the Senate by definition, meeting with the president, that's not capitulation. That's just as meeting with the president and you're in the Senate and

And the people that are saying that are ones that aren't tasked to try to get things done. It's easy to just, you know, for me, those are the kind of things. I mean, that's that's the cheap shots from the cheap seats, because for me, having a conversation doesn't change anything. It's it just means like, hey, maybe we can find out something that we can work together. Otherwise, you know, maybe not. Right.

Pam Bondi. Tell me about your vote on Pam Bondi as opposed to your other ones. Why did you vote for her? Well, I mean, you know, her vote wasn't really supposed to be controversial, but the whole vibe changed radically. And many of my colleagues weren't going to—it was going to try to find people that were more—

more conventional, uh, and qualified compared to people that were just, they just completely, uh, people. And there's no way they could possibly work with those things, trying to find those people. Like I voted for other ones like, uh, uh, Duffy, uh, and I worked for, for, uh,

you know, other ones that, you know, people that they're not my choices. And now, you know, I think all of us in the Senate, we voted for Rubio, too. You know, our politics are different. And now he are doing things that I don't necessarily agree on all those things. I mean, that's part of it. And it didn't used to be super controversial for people of the other party voting for people in their cabinet because that's the way the rules work.

And when you have to work with people,

And if you are able to develop a relationship, you know, otherwise they don't need any of these votes. They could just tell us to sit it in the corner because, you know, we have 50, 51, 52 or even 53 votes here. So this person is definitely going to have the job. If I get your views right, you were open to hearing about waste and fraud and abuse. But over the past few days, maybe you've been talking a lot about, for example, Musk's access to IRS data.

as a violation of privacy. Are you changing on Musk and his role in government?

I'm not, I'm not, I, I'm changing is, is that it is like the second you become an a, a chaos agent or the party now is perceived publicly that they are the party of, of chaos. Uh, then that means you're, you're ultimately going to lose the next election, uh, because, uh, no one wants to vote for chaos anymore.

Uh, you know, we all voted for, Hey, we want to make our government more efficient. We want to save our money. We want to, I mean, remember we have about $36 trillion of debt. I mean, it's reasonable to say, Hey, now let's, let's remake our government. The second you become chaos, uh,

and then that makes it much more difficult and it makes it virtually impossible to, to, to defend those kinds of things. And I, you know, when you're able to penetrate, even to people, and when I'm walking around in Costco and I'm like, Hey, I'm freaking out about this. I'm really converted about that and stopping, you know, if they're here to buy a chicken or to buy toilet paper and the

front and center is, is like, hey, this is really freaking out. That really penetrated. But I didn't have that kind of energy on the ground in Pennsylvania when he announced he was going to be involved in the campaign. In fact, for a lot of people, that was the feature of the Trump campaign. And that started to turn into more of chaos. And that's why I'm saying it's like folks, folks were voting and believed in the dog vision, right?

And I'm not sure what you're getting out for the chaos. So I think two things should be true, that if you want to save money, we want to find ways to make us more efficient, but not do it in a way that is a chaos bomb and makes it virtually impossible for people to find allies when you're involved in this process. I think some people would say that chaos is exactly...

what Donald Trump wants Elon Musk to take care of. That's possible too. They, they, they just want chaos. Absolutely. That's the campaign he did sign up on that. And I would remind everybody like this is, uh, Trump's last term. So he's, he's not, he's not ever going to be accountable to voters more. And he ran on that idea. Like we are going to shake things up. We are about revenge. We are about making sure that view, uh,

is made front and center. And that's, that is happening. Yeah. And, and if chaos is the entire point, then that's, I don't think a lot of people voted for that. I think that they wanted, uh, corrected chaos, not just chaos for chaos. There's a lot of worry out there, um, maybe even among your voters as well about the creation of a kind of oligarchy, uh,

in which the president, together with Elon Musk and others like him, are creating a kind of oligarchic structure that's outsized, that's far more than ever before.

Do you share that concern? Oh, well, I mean, I'm not sure a lot of people, average people know what an oligarch is. I mean, that's kind of like the weird kind of terms that get thrown around and people not really sure what that really means. Or it's like populism. Like if you could show up in a Walmart parking lot, it's like, what's an oligarch? For me, it's like I've described that money, the money is the real cancer there.

And now Musk discovered now that he has the ability to move the needle in helping with—now Trump has the kind of unlimited resources that now can keep his senators and other House members in line, that if they don't follow that, well, you can dump $20, $30, or $40 million into a primary, and we can punish people that—

that may not happen to agree with him or are willing to vote for his nominees. You've seen that happen as well. Unlimited money has turned all of us in some way into all OnlyFans models in some way. We're all just online hustling for money. And with the more lug that we show, that makes more money.

And, you know, it's not a lot of dignity in that racket either as well, too. You feel it yourself as a senator that you're a member of the kind of only fans culture?

Well, I'm not because I'm not the guy that's – I all know what helps pay the bills and brings money in and going on MSNBC and yelling and saying a lot of provocative things. And I have colleagues that are doing those things. And I think if you look back on their first quarter, it's probably going to be pretty strong. And a lot of the things that are being said by those things that are very provocative to generate –

a lot of coverage, I guarantee you that ended up in a fundraising email or in other kinds of fundraising. You're in close touch with your voters. You go to Pennsylvania all the time. The president's approval rating by the standards of recent times is pretty high. And what is it that he's doing that

voters in Pennsylvania like and what are they more anxious about after a month of this presidency? I think the people that voted for him largely love what they've seen. But the second the chaos touches their lives,

If they're farmers, now that they're not able to sell their goods, or if the steel workers lose their jobs, or if the chaos touches their lives, then that's going to change that. Or if you destroy the Department of Education, again, you know, going after education, that's a loser. We've witnessed that same kind of moves in with Tom Corbett. That was the first term Republican governor. Governor of Pennsylvania. Yep.

And that used to be a layup for a second term of governor. But my governor, Tom Wolf, beat him. And he pushed back and he beat an incumbent, which that's ever the first time that ever happened in Pennsylvania, going against education. You know, red kids, blue kids, every kid needs to need they have to read. And, oh, average person.

voters, they are like, hey, you know, like that's one of those bipartisan things, education. And if you go against education, that's going to become part of the chaos. And maybe they just want to make it just for chaos on for chaos. But that's going to be part of you're not going to have people buying in a majority of getting involved on on that. You've always been a huge advocate

of the trans community, despite being kind of generally anti-woke, as a lot of people put it. I'd like to hear you talk about the human and political impact of what Trump's various trans bans have been in the military and sports and cutting off gender-affirming care. How do you feel about that?

For me, it's not about what's woke. And like, just for me, it's about, it's that I'm never going to pick on anyone. And I'm never going to turn that into a punching bag.

I mean, I'm never going to derive some kind of political capital off of degrading a fellow human being, is that. And that, for me, that's what's personal. Like, in that video that I stood up for the trans community, like, I know it's not popular politically, but that's exactly the time I wanted to lean on that.

This is Senator John Fetterman. I'm standing in front of my office and two flags that are two core values of mine. I am an unapologetically pro-military, also very pro for the LGBTQ communities, and I would like to

And for me, I'd like to remind everybody, it was really controversial to desegregate our military. And it was very controversial. You know, our gay Americans were not able to serve. And now women weren't going to be involved to serve in combat roles. And now all of that, that's not controversial anymore. And that's part of the, that's what's understood to be making a stronger military. So I think the trans thing, for me, it's about the dignity

of the soldier. And I'm never going to support degrading somebody's dignity. Some Americans have been kind of, they thought that became too woke or that, you know, the Democratic Party became too preoccupied with that. You know, the Harris is for they, them, Trump is for you kind of a thing. But for me, it's not about woke. What is too woke in your mind? An example.

No, but I think the Democratic Party increasingly get it more and more difficult for men, specifically white men, to make that choice.

I think it's incredibly difficult sometimes. And as long as the party makes it more and more difficult for men, then ultimately they're going to. But that's what I'm asking you. What is it that the Democratic Party does or supports that makes it especially difficult for white men? Is it these cultural issues, economic issues? What are the specifics that you hear from your voters and that you agree with?

I think one of the Republican superpowers is they're immune to cancel culture. And it's just much more, it's just, it's much more, people are more free to not have to, they don't have to have a very strict kind of orthodox that if you don't agree with that, that must make you a bad person. That might make you a racist. That might make you homophobic or those kinds of things.

I'm speaking with Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Our conversation continues in a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. It might be enticing to try and sleep through the next four years, but if you're wondering how to survive a second Trump term while staying fully conscious, Pod Save America is here to help you process what's happening now and what comes next. I'm Jon Favreau and Tommy Vitor, Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer and I wade hip deep into the week's political news and fish out some political analysis you can trust.

Yes, Tommy's shoes get ruined. Yes, he'll do it again tomorrow because the endeavor is worth it. And so is your sanity. Tune into Pods of America wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and I'm speaking today with John Fetterman, senator from Pennsylvania. Since the election, Fetterman has been highly critical of his own party, the Democrats, at certain times. Earlier, he told me that the Democratic Party has managed to discourage male voters, particularly white men.

And Fetterman has really bucked his party in his fervent, nearly unqualified support of the Israeli government in its war in Gaza. In fact, some people have speculated that he might even switch parties, something that Fetterman denies, and we'll get to that. But he went so far as to embrace Donald Trump's suggestion that the United States might even take control of the Gaza Strip. One issue where I think I disagree with you, and I really want to hear you out on this, is that Donald Trump got up at

a press conference standing next to Benjamin Netanyahu and talked about the possibility of the United States, and he used the word own, the United States owning Gaza and for the people of Gaza to be sent elsewhere, Jordan, Egypt, wherever, and that this be made into a, and this was his term, not mine, the Riviera of the Middle East. You seem much more sympathetic to this possibility than

Certainly than any major Democrat that I've heard. No, I mean, I don't ever think that I never thought that was serious. I think that was was designed to be very provocative, very provocative. And they wanted to kind of shock the nations in the region where it's like either either if we can get this right.

I mean, especially after it happened, what, 10-7? I mean, they've been unable to just deliver a stable society and prosperity for the Palestinians. Well, then, hey, we have to have and drop these kinds of radical, shocking kinds of ideas. Is that what a president should do, just to provoke and not be serious on that kind of stage? That's...

No, I think there's a lot of experts that have been really wrong about the situation here after 10-7. And I think it was always right to follow. I followed Netanyahu through that because to me that was following Israel first.

And I think the smart thing was we have to break and seriously degrade Hamas, but they've done that. And they did that same with Hezbollah as well, too. And Hezbollah, everybody thought that Hezbollah was the ultimate badass in the Middle East. And it turned out that they really didn't have those kind of capabilities. And then they also discovered that Iran never had these kinds of capabilities, too, and not able to protect and project those kind of values.

to create and fund that kind of access of evil there in the Middle East now, too. And now that same thing happened in Syria as well, too. Everybody, all the so-called experts were wrong, and Israel did those kinds of very difficult things to develop, and that's the first opportunity to have

actual real peace in that region. What do you think is the desirable outcome in Gaza? The desirable outcome is a state, a nation, whatever, is that they are now, they're going to turn their back on this idea. A Palestinian state? I mean, whatever, but just...

state of some kind. The final outcome, the ideal outcome is that Palestinians would have a state or Gaza or whatever that their government is not front and center and they're committed to destroying Israel and they could focus on building their nation instead of trying to destroy Israel. One other foreign policy question. The

United States has just held meetings with Russian representatives in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia. And presumably this is going to lead to, the hope is that it will lead to peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Pete Hex has already said that NATO membership for Ukraine is out of the question. And the Ukrainians are deeply, deeply worried that they will be left with losing 20% of their territory.

and that they will remain vulnerable to Russian attack again. Who do you sympathize with in this situation?

horrific situation. Oh, well, I'll never understand the way the Trump administration seems to have this weird kind of dynamic relationship with Putin. I'll never understand or respect that. When I was growing up, I mean, hey, Russia was the bad guy. And it's like I grew up maybe Red Dawn and used to cheer for Wolverines. And I mean, it was all understood. I'll never understand that.

To me, what Ukraine, their struggle with Ukraine was no different than in Israel or what's going on in Taiwan. For me, it's a war on democracy. And now we're always going to stand for democracies. The Trump administration appears to be violating some court orders and they've been shuttering government agencies without congressional approval. You've said, though, that this is not a constitutional crisis.

If it's not a constitutional crisis, what is it? Where are we on this really vital issue? Well,

By definition, if they openly defy court ruling or from the Supreme Court, then that, by definition, that is a constitutional crisis. Do you think we're headed there? It's absolutely possible. That's possible. But you're not going to see me on MSNBC or on The Nation yelling and screaming that we are in constitutional crisis. But when we arrive at that one, I'll be the first person to describe that to people, that we are in a constitutional crisis.

Absolutely. Absolutely. The Trump administration is going to test and push the boundaries. And the second he defies a court ruling, then by definition, that is a constitutional crisis.

Let's talk about politics ahead. What kind of politician is required by the Democrats to be more successful in the road ahead, whether it's 2026 or 2028? Because certainly something was missing. I think I want to be the I want to be the honest one.

And I'm punished in terms of fundraising or that I'm not the one yelling and screaming and jumping on and saying the things. I'm not dumb. I know what I know what's selling right now, but I'm committed to being I'm never going to lie to you and I'm not going to tell you everything's awesome.

So I think for me, I'm going to move against my own political interest and try to say the things that people may not agree or whatever. But like the border, that's another one. I mean, I tried to explain that there is rage on the ground over border and the chaos and the Democrats. We got the.

the border wrong and we're gonna pay for that. And then I paid for that to have those views. I think the Democratic Party was wrong on Israel and I followed Israel through that. And I was trying to warn that Trump's coming in hard and we really gotta watch out.

And that's turned out the case as well, too. And now I'm trying to describe where we're at right now. And perhaps maybe that's not what's necessary or what's wanted. Do you feel that you have very few allies in the Senate? Yeah, I do feel I do not have a lot. Are there any allies?

I don't know. I mean, it's not saying that they won't sit next to me or anything, but it's been difficult. But remember, a lot of my colleagues come from much different kinds of backgrounds or they have a much different kinds of situation in their own states. But

The presidency is determined on the kinds of states like my own. You know, I don't know. Will a critical mass of people will appreciate being a Democrat that's trying to be honest and describe things, what happened and why it was going to happen and why? And remembering that, you know, the polling has this almost at six minutes.

out of 10 view us as a seriously damaged brand. It's not criticizing Democrats that sell there right now, but I'm trying to describe what happened. My concern is,

In the Pennsylvania State Senate, you know, we've been in an effective minority position, permanent minority. And I'm concerned about that here in the United States Senate. Regardless, whoever is going to be the next president, if they hold the Senate, you're never going to pass any kind of legislation. Where do you connect with Bernie Sanders? It seems in some ways you do.

No, no, we don't really have a lot. I think we kind of, I mean, I respect Bernie, but I don't think there's a lot of connection for me. But I'd like to remind everybody where we are right now. It could have been, you know, we got very fortunate in some of those seats as well.

Now, if we're in a permanent minority, and then we have the Supreme Court as well, too, it's an incredibly precarious position for Democrats. And for me, I want to find a way forward.

And right now, it's difficult to find a way forward when now the Trump and their plan for chaos, they pumped in three feet of raw sewage into here, and we have a Dixie cup to bail out with a lot of that. And the ongoing chaos...

The ongoing chaos. I mean, it's like you have 15 or 20 things you have to respond to. And that velocity, you know, with social media and in like the New York Times and other kinds of media, they're all dropping here. What about here? What about here? What about here? What about here? And all those things. And it makes it even more difficult and discrimination of like what really should matter? What really is just more about chaos?

So that that's it's a it's a it's an incredibly difficult situation in terms of what really matters where because, you know, we have we have a minority position and that may not be satisfying. But I'm trying to describe where we are. You describe it as a rushing broken pipe of raw sewage and you've got just a Dixie cup to deal with it.

Yeah. I mean, it's a pretty vivid metaphor. I can't I can't. I mean, the K are the ongoing chaos. And that's the thing. It's like, well, and then I don't want our party to turn into just about performative kinds of things. I mean, that's the thing. And if those things worked, you know, they they impeached him twice. They put him as he was on civil trial. He was on criminal trial.

And then again, after the assassination and through all of those things, it's like maybe that's not the way we should be going. Maybe we shouldn't become the party of scolding and shaming and trying to tell people, hey, you're too dumb. Hey, we know more than you do on those issues. And I'm not exactly sure what the exact answer is. You know, we've been talking for a while and I can't tell

generally what you're recommending. On the one hand, you're very critical of all the various strands of the Trump administration. And then at the same time, you say we can't yell and scream about everything here because it's politically, you know, useless because Trump has done so well in elections. What I don't get is what the, what one should do, you know, how to stand up for your principles and yet at the same time be successful politically. Yeah.

I feel like that's my version on that and really talking about and describing this and remaining a committed Democrat.

And reminding people we've lost Bob Casey. That's Senator Bob Casey. Here in Pennsylvania. And we've just lost two, possibly three of my colleagues that they don't want to be in the 26 cycle as well, too. Can I ask you a question? Is it depressing to work in the Senate? Yeah, 100%. It is. 100% it is. Tell me about that.

Yeah. It just like right now I described it as like the plan was to pump three feet of raw sewage into, you know, and do you hate the job? No, no. It's an honor. It's an honor. And and to me, I think my honor and my duty is that as a committed Democrat, you

I mean, in all of the kind of silly kind of narratives that I'm going to move my party or become a Republican, I would be a lousy Republican. Why would you be a lousy Republican? Because I'm unapologetically pro-choice. I'm unapologetically pro-LGBTQ.

I can't ever understand why people wouldn't be front and center in opposing Putin and Russia. I mean, there's a lot of things that I just can't possibly carry that. That'd be a terrible Republican. But I'd like to say, I know and I love a lot of Republicans, too.

And that's why I don't call Trump a fascist, because I know those people in my life aren't fascists. They're not terrible people. They're not bad Americans or anything. I don't think it was helpful to use those kinds of extreme kinds of terms. And when you unload the clip of the extreme kinds of terms possible and it doesn't have any impact, then what's left?

And then, you know, how many for how many years and how many cycles can you jump on cable and yell and scream and the world's on fire? And that actually hasn't happened at this point. Remember, this started in 2015. And here we are 10 years later and everything that's been said and done. Remember, you know, grabbing the used to be the end of his political career.

And here we are in what's happened. And it hasn't worked. And that's why I'm saying let's figure out a way to turn our party into a more effective machine to address that rather than using the same kinds of tactics that in many ways it's actually made them more stronger and popular. You know, like...

Do people realize he hung his mugshot in the Oval Office? He signed that. I mean, like it's the ultimate own. It's like he's raised millions off of that picture. You know, it's made him more popular. And now he's hanging it in the Oval Office.

And we, you know, Democrats were gleefully like, hey, he's a convicted felon. He's a convicted felon. Well, that's off band for us, for one. But two, if that's only done was made him more popular, I think that captures the futility on a lot of these things that just never worked. Do you think the Trump-Musk relationship is doomed to crack up? Yeah.

Anything's possible. I mean, I have to believe somebody could even bet on that online. If they want to, they can go right in. I'm not betting on that. But for me, I would like to remind everybody...

It's been a remarkable kinds of outcome. That was a lot of people were disappointing, including myself, but trying to find a way forward and doing it in an honest way and saying things that it's not so much about criticizing. It's about describing and trying to explain to some people that maybe haven't experienced this.

especially that kind of moments like the assassination or the kind of energy and the kinds of devotion that exists in states just like in Pennsylvania. Senator, I really appreciate your time. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. He took office in 2023. I'm David Remnick, and that's our program for today. Hope you'll join us next week.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of TuneArts, with additional music by Louis Mitchell and Jared Paul. This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Sommer.

with guidance from Emily Botin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Guan, and Alejandra Decat. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Tarina Endowment Fund.

NYC Now delivers the most up-to-date local news from WNYC and Gothamist every morning, midday, and evening. With three updates a day, listeners get breaking news, top headlines, and in-depth coverage from across New York City. By sponsoring programming like NYC Now, you'll reach our community of dedicated listeners with premium messaging and an uncluttered audio experience. Visit sponsorship.wnyc.org to get in touch and find out more.