共和党真正喜欢的民主党人：无滤镜的约翰·费特曼

David Friedberg (00:00:00): John Fetterman, thank you for joining us here on the All In podcast for this All In interview. Very excited to have you here today. I know you're in the middle of voting today. Sounds like the Save America Act might be starting its debate on the floor. Is that correct? John Fetterman (00:00:14): I don't know. I think what what I've heard recently that they don't have the votes, but we will find. But I I don't have any special insight. I mean, it's it's gonna be very close. I don't think it would. If they do hit it, I don't see it more beyond 51, but I I'm not I'm not really sure. It's a shame that they didn't make it more about just ID to vote. They they turned it into other things that they turned it into kind of a Christmas tree, and they're hanging all these things on it. But now that's that's where we are, but we'll know. And having someone follow that too, I'm just he's gonna let me know, in fact, because I'm really interested to see how it goes. Because if they do, then that's gonna turn into a really spectacle about what a talking filibuster is. David Friedberg (00:01:04): Yeah. Well, let's see what happens. I mean, it's a pretty dramatic week ahead. Let me just start. I wanna zoom out a little bit and talk about how you make policy decisions. And I wanna just start with party. You ran as a progressive in 2016, lost. You beat doctor Oz in '22, and now you have a 72% approval rating from Pennsylvania Republicans and only 22% from Democrats. Are you a Republican or are you a Democrat senator? And kind of what's the way that you think about your party affiliation? John Fetterman (00:01:34): Well, I actually, I I think the the more realistic the the realistic numbers was like earlier in the morning console, and that had me at basically fifty fifty with Dems. And I was I was in the the sixties for with Republicans. Without a doubt without a doubt that that I am more popular with with Republicans, and I I'm mystified by that. I mean, I'm honored to to have support from any Pennsylvanian, but what I will say that, you know, I'm just going to follow what I think is the moral clarity. And now in my very first race back in 2015, over a decade ago, what used to be a progressive is definitely not what a progressive started to turn into and what it be became and and even in my my race in 2122, I was announcing I am no longer I I'm just a Democrat. I'm not a progressive and now there's been that evolution away from like, those core principles that really weren't weren't controversial. And and now I've isolated myself by following and standing and proud to be on a unapologetically supporting Israel. And now if you've seen that that poll came out yesterday that the standing in the Democratic party continues to deteriorate, I've put that out on my social media, and I said, I don't follow. I don't care about the polls. You know, there's a moral clarity here, and that should be where the rest of us should should be. And now it's been really easy for me to to lean in on it, and that I created the only Democrat that's very supportive about epic fury. And I'm also the only Democrat that refuses to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Yes. As a Democrat, we would like to make some some reforms on ICE, But what I'm unwilling to do is shut it down. And after that horrific that attack in Michigan where where he was looking to kill a 150 toddlers, you know, and now there's more and more kinds of these these events. John Fetterman (00:03:48): Why would you vote to shut our government down? And the cybersecurity agency, you know, that must be incredible for the Chinese and the Iranians that that we've shut that government down. So that's that you know, I my core values haven't changed. If anything's changed, that's been kind of the core what what's required to be a democrat, and I'm gonna follow what I think is true, what is the country over party, whether that's the right side of history. David Friedberg (00:04:24): What do you think the democratic party used to stand for? What does it stand for today, and what do you think it should stand for? John Fetterman (00:04:31): I I honestly, I I I don't know. But what I will say, as I would refer to to your listeners, is, like, listen to what the people that are running for the senate as democrats. Watch what they're saying and doing, and that's becoming more and more anti Israel, openly hostile to to Israel. And now, that becomes part of the litmus litmus purity test to I'm not gonna take any of their money. I'm gonna denounce that, and I was the only democrat that's absolutely Netanyahu just done the right thing to to break the the that access there. Hezbollah and Hamas are now attacking also Houthis as well. So, I mean so do you know where what Democrats stand for? See who's running for the senate. And now play it Planner, the the Nazi tattoo guy, you know, on top of being an avowed communist, and now said incredibly offensive things about women and sexual assault, and now refers to rural people as stupid and racist. And I'll so and now is that what Democrats want? Or I guess we'll see that. But, you know, you see in all these different things also in Michigan too, A guy that really, as far I know, has refused to condemn Hamas, and he led the, you know, no the the no what was the no committed. It's like forget what that stupid thing was called, but it was like, you you know, no vote no vote for uncommitted uncommitted. Yeah. Uncommitted. Yeah. But, you know, we're not gonna vote for Kamala Harris, and and now they helped deliver Trump for Michigan. So that's like, look who's running, and look who's being competitive. So that that's you wanna know where Democrats are? Look in those kinds of races. David Friedberg (00:06:32): You know, it's interesting. We used to have the ability to agree on some things and disagree on other things. It seems nowadays, whatever the other side is doing or saying, you have to take the opposing view. And in many cases, it seems like that might force folks to kind of contort into these weird positions that don't even make logical sense. Why did we get to this point? What happened that everything had to be polar? There was never the ability for us to There's no longer the ability for us to agree on some things while disagreeing on other things. What caused this change in this country, and can we get back from it? John Fetterman (00:07:10): I I don't know. Like, part of my party's become so inflexible. What what I've discovered that, you know, you are not allowed to be a proud, unapologetic standing, with Israel, but it's it's okay. It's not a big deal if you have a Nazi tattoo on your chest. And you have people in now in my party now who are trying to normalize that or to excuse that. I mean, like, it's that that's that's that's kinda where we are. And and now I know what's toxic as a Democrat to disagree with. But for me, those are, I think, our core values, you know, the kinds of values in Israel, kinds of the core value that we have always used to say, never ever shut our government down. That's always wrong. You're gonna punish union members. You're gonna punish, you know, everyday Americans. Now here, we're doing those same things. And now I think our border, for example, I think secure our border, deport all the criminals. But now never ever have the kind of tragedies like we had in Minneapolis. That's not what anyone really voted for or any of them supports. So, you know, if I'm more popular than Republicans, I don't really know. But but I also that I I treat everyone with respect, and I don't refer to Republicans or members of MAGA. They're not Nazis. They're not fascists. They're not trying to destroy our country. No. I know and I love many, many people that that voted for or support, president Trump. I'm gonna treat anybody with respect. I don't attack members of their families. I don't use and and those kinds of attacks. We have to find a better way forward, and and that's what I've been maintaining. David Friedberg (00:08:59): Who do you think leads the Democratic party today? John Fetterman (00:09:02): Oh, we don't we don't have one. I I think I think the the TDS, that I think that's the leader right now. You know, right now, our our party is is governed by the TDS, and now it's made it virtually impossible without being punished as a Democrat to agree something's good or I agree with the other side. And I I would define that by epic fury. I am the literally the only Democrat in America, in congress that I've come across that's saying, I think it's a great thing to break and destroy the Iranian regime. I think it's entirely appropriate to hold them accountable. And what's strange to me that every single Democrat that's run for president, and anyone that I know in congress says we must never allow them to acquire a nuclear bomb. When that happens, why not celebrate that and or acknowledge that? I have only witnessed just criticism and these kinds of these kinds of attack. Like, yeah, you don't have to agree on every single thing. But when a good thing happens just because it comes from the different party, that that tells me that you're choosing the demand of the the base of the party over country or what what's really, I think, appropriate in that circumstances. Now, I I would say now, you know, to any country, any country, do you consume oil? Yes. Of course, we do. Well, then that makes it your problem too. That makes you part of your responsibility. I don't know why. You know? Like, Israel and and our nation did the heavy leaving excuse me. The the heavy the heavy work to to to destroy the Iranian military apparatus. You know? Now why not wouldn't you not, you know, help us to reopen the straits? Because you consume oil. You all could be the ability to why not participate that? That's that's strange to me. So I think everyone, why can't you get behind? The only ones that aren't are China and Russia. Those are the same kinds of especially in Europe. You know what they're doing to Ukraine for over four years, and we all know what the goals of China is So to say it's not our war, it's like, yeah. Well, it's our cause. John Fetterman (00:11:34): And if you consume oil and you all do, you know, that effectively makes us all part of this responsibility. David Friedberg (00:11:42): Right. Do you think, there's a clear path to getting out of Iran for The United States at this stage? How do you view this exit happening? It seems like the president, to some degree, is declaring victory, but on the other hand, there seems to be continued activity and and push forward here. What's our exit path? John Fetterman (00:12:02): I I I know. But what I will say, what's undeniably been happened. Now first, why aren't all of the media outlets demanding proof of life for from the Ayatollah? You know, ever since that first strike back in last month, not a peep not a peep out of them. I mean, the the Iranians are doing kinda like weekend at Italia's. Yeah. You know? Like, they're just trying to pretend this guy is functional in any in any way. And now just today today, you know, they just they just eliminated, you know, who was effectively the the de facto leader. You know? I think that's fantastic. Keep doing it for that. So and without a doubt, they have no capabilities at this point otherwise than to to fire off a a drone at civilians at civilians. The Iranians have never done anything other than just attacking civilians. Abs absolutely. That's a fact. You know, they can't engage in traditional kinds of of combat. So those cowards, what they do is fire drones to create chaos. You know, they've been effectively neutered, and that's a wonderful thing. And that's also effectively broken the the proxies, And that's also made the world undeniably more secure. So and this is not this is not an I mean, this war is only three weeks into it. This whatever you wanna call it, whatever the semantics, it's three weeks. This is not like a Ukraine in war. You know? This is three weeks. It it's not, you know, neat, and it's not absolutely quick to to just dismantle the entire Iranian apparatus for the thing. Holding them accountable is entirely appropriate. And every single president since the last forty some years wanted to do something about Iran. Finally, that's happened. It's a good thing. And now David Friedberg (00:14:05): To your point about the Strait and, America looking for assistance to support the activities, the the commercial oil activities through the Strait, NATO allies have largely said no. Do you think that we're looking at the end of the NATO alliance? What does this speak to for the future of both America's leadership with the in the West and this alliance that has kind of created a great power center that's created balance in the world. I mean, is NATO at risk? John Fetterman (00:14:34): I'm proud to be an American. And and I believe, you know, we are a force of good in the world. And I don't truly don't understand why they don't wanna join us to to reopen the straits. But if you consume oil, that makes it part of your your problem, and that makes you part of your responsibility to join us. So we've done the hard work at this point, and the horror of ten seven was born by the Israelis too. Now they've done the appropriate thing to to destroy the proxies and to hold them fully accountable. And now why the world can't rally around this to just do that. Now I do believe we will be successful with or without their help. But remind people it's been three weeks. And now for a nation that's 90,000,000 that used to be this fearsome force of military in the entire region, just been pulverized into irrelevance other than just creating kinds of chaos firing a drone there. And now they can't they can't even in fight with with honor. You know, they they attack civilians. They've massacred their own you know, there there would be more uprising because they're terrified because they've had the witnesses. They've killed up to 35,000 of them last time. So they've been held accountable. We're as an American, hold them accountable, and that's a good thing. David Friedberg (00:16:07): Yeah. I think the question a lot of people are asking again is what does success look like? What's it defined as? How do we get out of this and when do we walk away? And that uncertainty I think is what has a lot of folks saying, I don't know if this is going to become another Iraq war or Afghanistan type situation. That's what makes sense. John Fetterman (00:16:26): Abs absolutely absurd. This is not a nation building thing. This is a destroying a terrible regime. Disarmament. Disarmament. You know? Like, if you live in Europe, remember what the and, you know, like, if you would have disarmed the the German Nazi regime before it it really started. I mean, like, have you forgot the lessons of history? When you have a regime that is committed to destroying, you know, the nations in the region and now, like, why is it wrong to hold them accountable? And now Right. David Friedberg (00:17:04): I critics John Fetterman (00:17:07): critics critics are attacking. Well, it costs us a billion dollars. It's like, well, you know, not stopping Iran would be a hell of a lot more expensive in lives and economic impact. So that's that's the thing. You know? Clearly, if you even consider of the lessons from history of disarming a dangerous toxic regime the way they've done that, why can't you be open to really participate, but at least not just acknowledge that the world's made safer as a result? David Friedberg (00:17:41): There's a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle that perhaps The United States, president Trump were unduly influenced by Netanyahu and by the Israeli lobbyists in The United States. Maybe you can address that point. You've taken money from APAC, and I know that you've kind of been that's been brought up before. But how do you react to the argument that many are making that Israel has undue influence on our politics and our our kind of global actions. John Fetterman (00:18:09): Well, that that that plays into the to the antisemitism and the tropes, and it's like pulling all the strings and they're behind. It's just that's just part of the growth. It's become more and more acceptable as a Democrat to say these things. You know? And it's like like Tucker Carlson and and Fuentes and these these people, you know, like, no one claims them. No one claims them. You know, I promise you, no one at least I sit around wondering what those are the kind of vigils and their opinions on Israel or anything at that point. Same parts of my party as well too. Now if you if you wanna normalize that a Nazi tattoo is kinda like a one off, it's no not a big deal. Or if you think Israel engaged in a genocide, you know, that how ignorant that is to the actually, what defines a genocide is is the exact opposite. They were in a just war, you know, and I remember where it started and remember what Hamas continued to do. Send everybody home, and there they would be the end of this. So so that's that's part of this, you know, how antisemitism out of control out of control, you know, in our college campuses and as well in in the world. Even in San San Jose, you know, a Jew was beaten just having dinner. You know, you have people driving, crashing into synagogue, kind of like tree of life. But, thankfully, he was immediately killed by the security. They had security because they had to provide those because they knew that's always an ever present kinds of risk there. Thank god. Thank god what that could have made possible without them. So that's that's where we are. And I don't listen to parts of whether it's my party or the extreme and the right. You know, I never turn to someone like Tucker Carlson for wisdom or their views on on this or anything, you know, honestly. David Friedberg (00:20:16): Well, so let's talk about another controversial topic, which we just hit on for a moment at the start of the show, which is the SAVE Act. 83% of Americans support voter ID for elections. The Senate scheduled to take up the SAVE Act supposedly or potentially this week. You've said you don't support the SAVE Act in its current form. What do you think needs to be changed? Do you generally agree with the idea of using voter ID for elections? John Fetterman (00:20:40): Well, the Republicans have never had any outreach or to engage. You know, they never said, hey. Well, can we rework it? Or, you know, what can we we offer? You know? And I'll make it, you know, real ID. Real real ID to vote. Keep it simple. You know? So, like, yeah, why not? Why not? You know? Like, it's like that that that would I I am not outraged by providing ID to vote. 71% of Democrats are okay with that. 83 of Americans are okay with it. Make it that, then, yeah, you know, I'm I'm interested to really to have that conversation. Another thing that they continue to do, they try to smear voting voting by mail. That's absolutely safe. And the red states in America like Florida, Ohio, and others, they rely on it. The more rural a state is, though, they really use that too. So they've made it this Christmas tree of hanging all these these kinds of boutique and other issues. Now if you are serious and like, hey. ID to vote, you know, you might bring some actual Democrats on that. I'm not you know, I refuse the kind of extreme rhetoric about it's not Jim Crow. It is not trying to suppress Americans from voting. It's making it perhaps more secure, and have a serious conversation. And that's why, you know, said I'm unwilling, to support it in its current current form. David Friedberg (00:22:18): And do you think there has been election fraud and to what extent? John Fetterman (00:22:23): Well, I mean, in my experience as lieutenant governor in 2020, there was a lot of allegation that there was that and not one single remind people, roughly 57 out of Pennsylvania, 67 counties are all deep deep red. Not one single one, there was no fraud. There was no fraud. And now they we identified, I think, believe it was six, six or seven. In fact, and now coincidentally, they all happen to be Republicans that were voting for president Trump, and mostly they used a dead relative to try to to to vote that, and they were caught. So voter fraud, you know, in Pennsylvania, it is absolutely secure. I can actually you know, I've witnessed that. And now in Pennsylvania, the Republicans drove that train of of voting by mail. That was their ID. That was what they demanded. And in return, we dropped the straight party voting by just push a button to vote straight down the entire ticket ticket, voting. And now they had to turn their views because at that time, the president decided that that's a terrible thing. So, I mean, you know, two things must be true. It's not outrageous to show ID to vote, but voting by mail is an honorable, safe, and secure way that Republicans across our nation have been doing it and doing it some in the most secure ways as examples. David Friedberg (00:23:48): Do you think there's noncitizen voting going on? One of the arguments that's made is that the Democrats opened the border, brought in a lot of noncitizens, gave them access to vote in some way, either mailing ballots without showing proof of citizenship or whatnot, and that really boosted democrat votes across blue states. Is that fair or is that unfounded and just John Fetterman (00:24:09): That's that's a great that's a great point. And I am concerned about that. You know? Hey. Is there an issue? So I just ran this. That is the heritage the heritage founded. David Friedberg (00:24:21): Yeah. Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation. John Fetterman (00:24:23): You know, they said that at their database between 1999 to 2023, they identified 77 instances of noncitizens voting between 1999 and 2023. That's the Heritage Foundation. You know, that's the, you know, there. So so for me, that that would identify that it doesn't seem that, you know, the the Heritage Heritage Foundation doesn't claim that 70 that there's more than 77. So that's why I'm saying if you're really serious and you wanna have that, let's make it about ID, not all these other kinds of parts that this that it dilutes the core mission of, like, showing ID or making it more secure. David Friedberg (00:25:04): So why have Democrats been so opposed not just to this act, but generally to the idea of showing ID for voting? Many of the interviews and arguments that have been made by Democrat politicians in media have brought in ideas that will not everyone have access to an idea. I am not one of John Fetterman (00:25:20): those democrats. I am not one of those democrats that they say that that's terrible. That's evil. David Friedberg (00:25:25): Why are they saying that? Because if it's such a an obvious common sense, action, 83% of voters support it, Why are so many in the party? And this is where a lot of people have conspiracy theories that they're using it to harvest votes and and so on. Why are they opposing it? What is actually going on? John Fetterman (00:25:41): I I I I I can't speak for them, but what I'm saying is, like, I refuse to. I'll never tell 83% of Americans that it's awful and terrible to show ID to vote. David Friedberg (00:25:53): Mhmm. John Fetterman (00:25:53): You know? Yeah. And and I'm I've said that publicly again and again and again. 71% of our democrats have no problem with it. And you wanna know what really backed that up? Wisconsin. In April 2025, they had a ballot initiative to show ID to vote. That passed nearly two to one. They also elected one of the most liberal members of now the Supreme Court in that same election. It's not controversial to vast majority of Americans. I'm never gonna be in the business to tell 80 some percent of Americans that you're you're Jim Crow or you're trying to suppress votes. David Friedberg (00:26:35): Fair enough. Well, let's come back to the DHS point you made earlier. You were one of the, you were the only Democrat actually to vote to fund DHS. But you did say that agents in Minnesota lost the plot. What's your red line on immigration enforcement? So what should ICE be doing and what should ICE not be doing? John Fetterman (00:26:57): There should never be a red line. Never shut the government down. Just don't do that. We used to be the party that refused to do those things. We were outraged outraged when Tuberville was jamming up some of the military promotions. Freak out. Freak out. You know? And now here, we're we shut the whole damn government down. I was one of only two Democrats to push back on that last year, and now I'm on the only one. If it's wrong for them, then it should be wrong for us as as well too. David Friedberg (00:27:32): But just to focus on ICE. I mean, ICE's actions in Minnesota, where do you think ICE should be doing immigration enforcement and how versus what do you think they shouldn't have been doing? John Fetterman (00:27:42): Yeah. I for me, you know, hey. I was I was the democratic lead on Lake and Riley bill because that was a serious bill. They you know, Katie Britt called me up and saying, hey. What do you think? And I'm like, yeah. A 100%. Yeah. Let's let's work together on it. That that's a serious that's a serious effort. And now I led that, and enough Democrats broke cloture on that. That's why it's a law in America right now. You know, I'd like to think that my credentials on border security as a Democrat is platinum. You know? And I even I voted for Noam, one of the few Democrats than her. I met with her, treated her with respect, you know, refused to use the kind of sexist and gross terms like ice Barbie and those kinds of thing, refused to do that. She absolutely lost the plot. I called for her to resign. She became a Mayorkas. I was a Democrat calling out that Mayorkas was a disaster without a doubt. You know, we cannot this is unsustainable, and this is, damaging our nation and making it impossible to deliver an American dream for any migrants at that point. David Friedberg (00:28:51): Do you think that ICE's mandate should be to remove every illegal immigrant from this country, or do you think that they should be going after just one group and leave others and we have to legislate? What's the right way for ICE to operate? John Fetterman (00:29:05): No. You know, you have the vast majority of Americans secure our border. They've done that without a doubt. And deport every criminal. They're they're they're gone. And now, you know, Pennsylvania, that's our top industry is is farming agriculture. And constantly, that's their issue. Labor, labor, labor, it's it's really problematic. You know, targeting otherwise lawful migrants, I don't think that's what America really wants. And honestly, that's not what America needs. You know? You know, we they are an important part of our economy and finding a better way to address that. I'm I'm hey. I'm here for that conversation. My wife was a dreamer. You know, I I would love to work with the other side. You know? I shouldn't punish a two year old that was brought here, had no idea, at that age. You know. So I think they've made some, you know, important contributions to our nation. I'm a I'm a pro Democrat. I'm a excuse me. I'm pro immigration Democrat, but I'm the also the only Democrat that views to shut our government down the way that's where at. And and now I'm becoming the only very proud supporter of Israel, and I'm the only Democrat that's saying destroying a regime, you know, that like, Iran is a good thing. So David Friedberg (00:30:31): Do you think that that creates a bad incentive with the what people call anchor babies, where an immigrant comes to The United States, has a baby, and then stays, and the baby has citizenship? That seems to be one of the the the kind of big debate points right now. John Fetterman (00:30:45): Well, I mean, for me, what I will say is like if you secure a border that makes those kinds of things more and more difficult or unlikely to happen. Now I you know, back in 2023, you saw the numbers. 300,000 people showing up at the border. You know, that's the side of Pittsburgh. I described that in terms of Pennsylvania. If the size of Pittsburgh is showing up at the border, that's unsustainable. You know, we have to do something about it. You know? Mayorkas had to go. He's been a liability. That's why I described Noam, and I called her to to go. David Friedberg (00:31:23): What was why did why did president Biden open the border? What was the motivation? What have you heard from the Democratic leadership? John Fetterman (00:31:29): I'll tell you that the the truth is I was shocked when when they dropped, article 42. You know? And my primary, it's like, all ran on that. That wasn't controversial. I was stunned when they dropped that, and you could see this, you know, right up after that. David Friedberg (00:31:46): Was it to reduce labor cost or to bring in democratic voters? Or what was the motivation, do you think, from the party? And you must speak to party leadership that tells you why they're justified or were justified for doing that when they did it. Not sure. John Fetterman (00:32:00): I don't know, but I was I was alarmed and I was honest. It's like, you know, for me, like for any politician, if you were telling the people their eyes that you're crazy or not right, you lose. You know? And we were punished. We were punished at 24. The border was a serious, serious failure as as Democrats. So it's like holding us accountable, and now that's part of responsibility to learn from from that situation. Now and I do hope and I do hope that our Republicans learn from Minneapolis doesn't help anybody. That that doesn't, you know, doesn't help your cause, you know, and it and then people that absolutely Yeah. The optics, whether that's the optics or the kinds of tactics, any of that, you're not winning anybody over. David Friedberg (00:32:48): Right. So I wanna switch gears to my favorite topic, which is the fiscal condition of the United States government. We have $40,000,000,000,000 of debt, and we're gonna have a $2,000,000,000,000 deficit this year. A trillion dollars of that is just interest on the existing debt. That number is getting bigger and bigger every year. And a bunch of programs are gonna run out of money, including social security, which is projected to run out of money sometime between, call it five and ten years from now. This is a classic debt depth spiral problem. How much does Congress pay attention to this problem? Is it something that's talked about? Because a lot of the conversations seem to be about what the polls say so that people can get elected again the next cycle versus looking at this big looming debt problem we're facing and how we're going to address it? John Fetterman (00:33:34): Yeah, debt's a huge concern for me. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when a billion dollars meant something or that was a lot of money. And now the trillions are becoming more kinds of it's not kind of like social security. Social security, for example, now they just need to make some small, small adjustments for actual on the actuarial kinds of things. And that could extend it well into the twenty to 2070s to the February. Just small, small kinds of things that would require real leadership, and that would require them to just put down the partisan guns and just stop attacking each other and find a real solution for all of Americans. And now you'll never address debt until you both sides agree. We're gonna stop tearing each other apart. We're gonna find a way forward. You know, I hope I hope more Americans want my views of why just turn it into just professional wrestling, or do you really wanna find a better way to cover? And and it's like, effectively, if you turn Washington DC as the Jerry Springer show, You know, you asked me earlier what's the leader of the Democratic party right now. I would say it's TDS. That that is that's driving the conversation. If he supports, you know, he could come out for ice cream and lazy sundaes and now suddenly democrats would hate it, we would wanna vote it down. David Friedberg (00:35:05): Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's there's also a lot of discussion right now about fraud in the government. I don't know if you've seen these videos out of Minnesota and this guy, Nick Shirley, doing them out of California. Yeah. Let me let me say that. John Fetterman (00:35:15): Let me say that. David Friedberg (00:35:16): Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. John Fetterman (00:35:17): Yeah. Like, I absolutely. Like, why can't you celebrate any journalist or any, you know, activist doing that? And what you you know, governor Newsom put out a disgusting video implying that he's, you know, a pedophile or he's that that. Like, why? You know, like, I mean, like, that's, like, kind of a smear. You know? Like, you can you may you wanna disagree or but but to imply that someone someone in one of the most gross kinds of terms like that. Well, it's like, hey, shouldn't we agree? You know, eliminate all the waste. If it exists under under my perfume, let's eliminate it. Let's call that what it is. You know, I'm not going to call someone or imply that you're you're a pedophile or you're, you know, going after kids in the gross ways. David Friedberg (00:36:09): But what's crazy to me and so many other people that have seen these videos is to then see reactions from leaders in the Democratic Party saying, we don't have a problem. This is racist. This is whatever. And and denouncing the the reports of this. Exactly. But when you see this fraud, it angers everyone. You're spending money as a taxpayer, and then you're giving the money away to fraudsters. It's it's John Fetterman (00:36:29): it's It should. It should. It should. It should. You should be angry. And, you know, like, fraud can happen on both sides, but when it's identified, I don't care if it's in a democratic state. Like, we should all just acknowledge maybe there is a problem here. This is part of the thing. If you tell voters that you're wrong or, you know, hey. It's no problem. There's nothing here, then you lose. And now that you you wanna turn that into if you wanna turn that into, like, the border, you know, with Democrats is in 2023. You know, we do that at our own peril. David Friedberg (00:37:03): You're you're so rightly critical of so many of these points, John. Why are you still a Democrat? John Fetterman (00:37:09): It passed. Yeah. And so save just passed. My staffer just handed me 51 David Friedberg (00:37:14): Oh, you're kidding. Wow. They they went forward. Yeah. John Fetterman (00:37:19): It's going it's going forward. The debate. Yeah. Yeah. It goes to debate. David Friedberg (00:37:24): Yeah. And so what do you think will happen there? Will this last a couple days, a week? I mean, how's this process gonna go? John Fetterman (00:37:32): I have no idea. I I I am not going to pretend to know exactly how the next couple days are gonna look. David Friedberg (00:37:38): The question I asked just before that was, you know, you're rightly critical of so many of these positions that the Democratic Party leadership takes. Why are you still a Democrat? Have you thought about switching parties? John Fetterman (00:37:48): Because I am a Democrat, and it's not because I've changed. It's because because, you know, parts of my party has changed right now, and that's that's where where I'm at. I'm gonna continue to be an independent voice. I'm gonna call balls and strikes. I'm always gonna pick country over, part of my base or what they demand. David Friedberg (00:38:15): One of the one of the clear rising themes right now in this country going into the midterms and probably going into twenty eighth for the presidential election cycle is the massive wealth inequality in this country. Do you think we have massive wealth inequality? And is it, you know, can you identify the origin? Where is this coming from? John Fetterman (00:38:34): I don't really know. But I don't hate billionaires. I don't make them the problem. And now that with Democrats, we love billionaires if we're supporting our causes or there's they're underwriting, you know, things that are near and dear to us. In fact, we actually have a a billionaire as a Democratic governor. You know? That doesn't mean he's an oligarch and trying to destroy America. You know? So, like, it's about trying to be more honest and stop attacking each other and find what we can agree on now. But we live in the kinds of attention economy and just, you know, saying outlandish thing and making, you know, crazy statements. You know? Yeah. That drives the clicks, but that's not governments. That's not David Friedberg (00:39:20): Well, it's it's on the ballot now in California to pass a wealth tax, And it starts as a one time 5% tax for billionaires, but it gives the legislature in California the ability to lower the threshold and make it every year if they wanted to and change the percentage. Roe Conner and Bernie Sanders have talked about passing a national wealth tax. Do you think we are gonna find ourselves in that conversation in 2028 and we're gonna have a national wealth tax where eventually, just like we started with a 1% income tax, eventually everyone will pay a significant percentage of their net worth every year to support government services. John Fetterman (00:39:57): I mean, Senator Sanders has never represented more than a very small state. Like win win a competitive state so you have your own ideas and, you know, like, we'll see what really is required to to to win. You know? David Friedberg (00:40:21): Yeah. Yeah. Well, so let me ask. He's also recently called for a moratorium on building AI data centers. I work in Silicon Valley as do my co host. China China loves it. China loves it. China loves it. John Fetterman (00:40:33): Yeah. Let's hand AI that race over to the Chinese. David Friedberg (00:40:38): Why do you think leaders in the party are supporting this idea? It's so obvious what's gonna happen if we do this. But, you know, do you think AI is gonna increase wealth disparity in this country? John Fetterman (00:40:48): Win a real competitive election. Win one. Then you can lecture me. Or you can tell me, hey, what's the right direction? Otherwise, it's it's like they are the they are the part of the party that's so hypercritical, you know, and those kinds of excesses, like, to fund the polite and and abolish ICE and these outlandish kind of thing. You know? They're the same part of the party now that loves the dude with the Nazi tattoo on his chest. David Friedberg (00:41:21): Right. And then I I just wanna cover agriculture real quick. I I've heard reports that the vast majority of US farms lost money. You're on the senate ag committee, which is why I'm asking this. And this is becoming, I think, a big national issue that the majority of US farmers lost money last year, if not for the federal government providing support payments, crop insurance, and would have been one time bailouts. Do think we have a path to fixing agriculture in this country? And how do we get farmers back on track where they can earn a living without requiring checks from the government? John Fetterman (00:41:50): Farming is such a hard job. I absolutely revere American farms, especially in Pennsylvania ones. Their job quite literally feeds us. I fully support all of their efforts. I was deeply troubled by many of those tariffs. And also, the ones that I talked to, labor, labor, labor has made that very, very difficult. I you know, we should celebrate and support farmers because I know because I've visited enough farms to see how hard back breaking labor it is to just deliver food to your table. So that's part that's part of it and that's kind of connected to things. Thankfully, we have the kinds of abundance in our nation for our food, and now why that's why that's part of the immigration conversation. That's part of the tariffs and that wherever like that. So so the kinds of things that are hurting a lot of the people that are just almost form uniformly red parts of of my state. David Friedberg (00:43:00): Yeah. And and and just to wrap up, I mean, you you've said you wanna save the Democratic party, not abandon it, which, you know, you repeated here today, you're a Democrat. But, you know, with only a 22% approval rating among Pennsylvania Democrats, I mean, how do you carry this forward? And what's the way to kind of bring this party out of the doldrums, if you will, that there's a lack of leadership and a lack of moral clarity, as you call it? John Fetterman (00:43:27): Well, as I said earlier, there was a poll out that was current to that. And it has me around fifty-fifty. That's way more accurate. So I'm not worried about 28. We have Iran. We have a lot of other things right now. So, like, I'm just I'm not I'm not, you know, the parlor games about something, you know, like, I've never felt better of just voting my conscience, voting country over party, and just following the moral clarities in really, really important kinds of of of things like destroying Iran, securing Israel, and standing with the Jewish community and Israel after everything that they've been through and how close how much more optimism of of real peace. You know? Yes. That's there's a lot of warfare now, but then I think that's a path for for more enduring peace. David Friedberg (00:44:29): There's been a lot of genuine speculation that you might run for president in '28. Is that on the table? John Fetterman (00:44:35): I you know, it's like about '28. You know, I I I don't know what what what America wants or the direction. You know, I'm following what I've just said. That's the moral clarities. And David Friedberg (00:44:48): Well, thanks for speaking your voice. Senator John Fetterman, I appreciate you being with us on All In today. This has been great. John Fetterman (00:44:55): Thank you. I I love conversations with anyone. That's just a real conversation. Yeah. Calling people names and saying outlandish thing, that doesn't make anyone I don't know. Like, I refuse to engage in. So thanks for David Friedberg (00:45:11): having It's it's a breath of fresh air, honestly, and I really appreciate it. Thank you, Chuck.