All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - John Fetterman: The Rogue Democrat Who Broke Party Ranks

Episode Date: March 18, 2026

(0:00) David Friedberg welcomes Senator John Fetterman; SAVE Act thoughts (1:08) The broken Democratic Party: TDS, what he stands for, why the party changed, losing bipartisanship, popularity with Republicans (11:42) Iran exit strategy, NATO allies bail on the US (17:42) Israel's influence, AIPAC, growing anti-Israel sentiment (20:16) SAVE Act, why he supports voter ID but not this bill, election fraud (26:41) Government shutdown, red lines with ICE and immigration, birthright citizenship, why Biden opened the border (32:49) Debt death spiral, government fraud (37:38) Why he's still a Democrat, national wealth tax, anti-AI sentiment, state of agriculture Follow Sen. Fetterman: https://x.com/SenFettermanPA Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect

John Federman, thank you for joining us here on the All-In podcast for this All-In interview. Very excited to have me 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? I don't know. I think what I've heard recently that they don't have the votes, but we will find. But I don't have any special insight. I mean, it's going to be very close. I don't think if they do hit it, I don't see it more beyond 51. want, but I'm not really sure. It's a shame that they didn't make it more about just ID to vote.

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 where we are, but we'll know. And having someone follow that, too, he's going to let me know, in fact, because I'm really interested to see how it goes, because if they do, then that's going to turn into a really, a spectacle about what a talking filibuster is. Yeah, well, let's see what happens.

I mean, it's a pretty dramatic week ahead. Let me just start. I want to zoom out a little bit and talk about how you make policy decisions. And I want to just start with party. You ran as a progressive in 2016, lost. You beat Dr. 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? Well, I actually, I think the more realistic, the realistic numbers was like earlier in the morning console. And that hit me at basically 50, 50 with Dems. And I was in the 60s for with Republicans. Without a doubt, without a doubt that I am more popular with with Republicans. And I'm mystified by that. I mean, I'm honored to have support from any Pennsylvania, but what I will say, that, you know, I've 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 became.

And even in my race in 21, 22, I was announcing I am no longer a, 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 controversial. And now I've isolated myself by following and standing and proud to be unapologetically supporting Israel. And now if you've seen that that poll came out yesterday, that the standing and 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 be.

And now it's been really easy for me 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'd like to make some reforms on ice. But what I'm unwilling to do is shut it down. And after that horrific, that attack in Michigan, where he was looking to kill 150 toddlers, you know, and now there's more and more kinds of these events, 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 we've shut that government down. So that's that, you know, my core values haven't changed. If anything's changed, that's been kind of the core, what's required to be a Democrat, and I'm going to follow what I think is true, what is the country over party, whether that's the right side of history. 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?

Honestly, I don't know. But what I will say, as I would refer 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 Israel. And now that becomes part of the litmus purity test. I'm not going to take any of their money.

I'm going to denounce that. And I was the only Democrat that's absolutely Netanyahu, has done the right thing to break that access there, Hezbollah and Hamas. and 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 Planner, 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 now is that what Democrats want? 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 no, what was the no committed? It's like, forget what that stupid thing was called. But it was like, you know, No vote, no vote for uncommitted, uncommitted. But, you know, we're not going to vote for Kamala Harris. And now they help deliver Trump for Michigan. So that's like, look who's running and look who's being competitive. So that's, you want to know where Democrats are.

Look in those kinds of races. 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. 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? I don't know. Like, part of my parties become so inflexible. What I've discovered that, you know, you are not allowed to be a proud, unapologetic standing with Israel, but it's okay. It's not a big deal if you have a Nazi tattoo on your chest. And you have people now in my party now are trying to normalize that or to excuse that.

I mean, like it's that's kind of where we are. 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 always used to say, never, ever shut our government down. That's always wrong. You're going to punish union members. You're going to 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, anything supports. So, you know, if I'm more popular with Republicans, I don't really know. But I also that I treat everyone with respect and I don't refer to Republicans or members of MAGA. They're not Nazis. They're not fascist. They're not trying to destroy our country. No, I know and I love many, many people that voted for or support President Trump. I'm going to treat anybody with respect.

I don't attack members of their families. I don't use those kinds of attacks. We have to find a better way forward. And that's what I've been maintaining. Who do you think leads the Democratic Party today? Oh, we don't have one. I think the TDS, I think that's the leader right now. You know, right now our party is governed by the TDS.

And now it's made it virtually impossible without being punished as a Democrat to agree something's good. I agree with the other side. And I would define that by Epic Fury. I am literally the only Democrat in America in Congress that I've come across that thing. 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 or acknowledge that? I have only witnessed just criticism and this kinds of, this 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 tells me that you're choosing the demand of the base or the party over country or what's really, I think, appropriate in that circumstances. Now, 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 our nation did the heavy leaving, excuse me, the heavy work 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 strange to me. So I think everyone, why can't you get behind?

The only ones that aren't are, 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. And if you consume oil and you all do, you know, that effectively makes us all part of this responsibility. 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 push forward here. What's our exit path? I don't 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 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 Iranians are doing kind of like weekend at Italians. You know, like they're just trying to pretend this guy is functional in any way. And now just today, you know, they just eliminated, you know, who was effectively 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 fire off a drone at civilians, at civilians. The Iranians have never done anything other than just attacking civilians. Absolutely. That's a fact. You know, they can't engage in traditional kinds 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 proxy. 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 want to call it, whatever the semantics, it's three weeks. This is not like a Ukraine in war. You know, this is three weeks. It's not, you know, neat and it's not absolutely quick to this demantle the entire Iranian apparatus.

for the thing, holding them accountable is entirely appropriate. And every single president since the last 40-some years wanted to do something about Iran. Finally, that's happened. It's a good thing. And now... To your point about the straight and America looking for assistance to support the activities, 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 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? I'm proud to be an American, and I believe, you know, we are a force of good in the world. And I truly don't understand why they don't want to join us to reopen the strait. But if you consume oil, that makes it part of 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 10-7 was born by the Israelis too. Now, they've done the appropriate thing to destroy the proxies

and to hold them fully accountable. And 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 that's been three weeks. And now for a nation that's 90 million, 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 even fight with honor. You know, they attack civilians. millions. They've massacred their own, you know, there would be more uprising because they're terrified because they've had to witnesses. They've killed up to 35,000 of them last time. So they've been held accountable. As an American, hold them accountable. And that's a good thing. Yeah, I think the question a lot of people are asking, again, is what does success look like? What's it defined us? 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. 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, you know, like if you would have disarmed the German Nazi regime. before 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 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 the thing. 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? 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. You know, 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 kind of global actions? Well, that plays into the, to the anti-Semitism 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 Fuentes and 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 individuals and their opinions on Israel or anything at that point. Same parts of my party as well, too.

Now, if you want to normalize that a Nazi tattoo is kind of like a one-off, it's no, not a big deal. Or if you think Israel engaged in a genocide, you know, how ignorant that is to the, actually what defines a genocide is the exact opposite. They were in a just war, you know, and now remember where it started and remember what Hamas continued to do. everybody home and there would be the end of this. So that's that's part of this and how anti-Semitism out of control, out of control, you know, in our college campuses and as well in in the world, even in 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 a 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 where we are. And I don't listen to parts of whether it's my party or the extremin and they're right. You know, I never turn to someone like Tucker Carlson for wisdom or their views on this or anything, you know, honestly. 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? Well, the Republicans have never had any outreach or to engage. You know, they never said, hey, well, can we rework it? You know, what can we offer? Yeah. And I'll make it, you know, real ID, real ID to vote. Keep it simple, you know?

So, like, yeah, why not? Why not? You know, like, it's like that, that would, 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, interested to really have that conversation. Another thing that they continue to do, they try to smear 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 estate is, they really use that too. So they've made it this Christmas tree of hanging all 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 in its current, current forum. And do you think there has been election fraud and to what extent?

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 deep, deep red. Not one single one, there was no fraud. There was no fraud. And now we identified, I think, believe it was six, six or seven. In fact, and now coincidentally, they all happened to be Republicans that were voting for President Trump, and mostly they used a dead relative to try to devote 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 voting by mail. That was their ID. That was what they demanded. And in return, we dropped the straight party voting, but you just push a button to vote straight down the entire ticket voting. And now they had to turn their views because at that time, the president decided that that's the terrible thing.

So, I mean, you know, two things must be true. It's not outrageous the 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. Do you think there's non-citizen voting going on? One of the arguments that's made is that the Democrats opened the border, brought in a lot of non-citizens, 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? 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 Foundation. Yeah, Heritage Foundation. You know, they said that at their database between 1999 to 2023, they identified 77 instances of non-citizens voting between 1999 and 2023. That's the Heritage Foundation. You know, that's, you know, there. So for me, that that would identify that it doesn't

seem that, you know, the Heritage Foundation doesn't claim that there's more than 77. So that's why I'm saying, if you're really serious and you want to have that, let's make it about ID, not all these other kinds of parts that it dilutes the core mission of like showing ID or making it more secure. 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, well, not everyone has access to an idea. I am not one of those Democrats.

I am not one of those Democrats that they say that that's terrible. Why are they saying that? Because if it's such an obvious common sense action, 83% of voters supported, 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 so on. Why are they opposing it? What is actually going on?

I can't speak for them. But what I've saying is like, I refuse to, I'll never tell 83% of Americans that it's awful and terrible to show ID to vote. You know? Yeah. I've said that publicly again and again and again. 71% of other Democrats have no problem with it.

And you want to know what really backed that up, Wisconsin. In April of 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 vest majority of Americans. I'm never going to be in the business to tell 80 some percent of Americans that you're Jim Crow or you're trying to suppress votes. Fair enough. Well, let's come back to the DHS point you made earlier. 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? 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 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 well, too. But just to focus on ICE, I mean, ICE's actions in Minnesota, where do you think I think ICE should be doing immigration enforcement and how versus what do you think they shouldn't have been doing? Yeah. 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, 100%. Yeah, let's let's work together on it. 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 a gnome, one of the few Democrats that her. I met with her, treated her with respect and, 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

Mayarchus. I was a Democrat calling out that Mayarchus 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. 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? 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 gun. 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 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, they are an important part of our economy and finding a better way to address that. Hey, I'm here for that conversation. My wife was a dreamer. You know, 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 pro-democrat. I'm a pro-immigration Democrat, but I'm also the only Democrat that views to shut our government down the way that's where at. And 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 do you think that that creates a bad incentive with 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 kind of big debate points right now. Well, I mean, for me, I, I, what I will say is, is like if you secure a border that makes those kinds of things more and more. difficult or unlikely to happen. Now, back in 2023, you saw the numbers. 300,000 people showing up at the border. You know, that's the site of Pittsburgh. I describe 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, Mayarchus had to go. He's been a liability.

That's why I described Nome and I called her to go. Why did President Biden open the border? What was the motivation? What had you heard from Democratic legislation? I'll tell you that the truth is I was shocked when they dropped Article 42. You know, in my primary, it's like we all ran on that. That wasn't controversial. I was stunned when they dropped that.

And you could see this right up after that. 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. 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 are telling the people, their eyes that you're crazy or not, right, you lose, you know, and we were punished.

We were punished in 24. The border was a serious, serious failure as Democrats. So it's like holding us accountable. And now that's part of responsibility to learn from that situation. Now, and I do hope, and I do hope the Republicans learn from Minneapolis doesn't help anybody. That doesn't help your cause, you know, and people that absolutely the optics, whether that's the optics or the kinds of tactics, any of that you're not winning anybody over. Right. So I want to switch gears to my favorite topic, which is the fiscal condition of the United States government.

We have $40 trillion of debt, and we're going to have a $2 trillion 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 going to run out of money, including Social Security, which is projected to run out of money sometime between, call it five and 10 years from now. This is a classic debt, depth spiral problem. you know, what is, how much does Congress pay attention to this problem? Is it something that's talked about?

Because a lot of the conversation seemed 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. Yeah, that's a huge concern for me. I mean, you know, I'm old enough to remember when a billion dollars met something or that was a lot of money. And now the trillions are becoming more kinds of, and it's not kind of like social security.

Social security, for example, now they just need to make some small, small adjustments on the actuarial kinds of things, and that could extend it well into the 2070s to the 2080s, 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 going to stop tearing each other apart, we're going to find a way forward.

You know, I hope more Americans want my views of, why just turn it into just professional wrestling, or do you really want to find a better way? Like, effectively, if you turn Washington, D.C. 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 is, that's driving the conversation. If he supports, you know, he could come out for ice cream and lazy Sundays and now suddenly

Democrats would hate it. We would want to vote it down. Yeah. Well, 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 say that.

Let me say that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like, I absolutely. Like, why can't you celebrate any journalist or any, you know, activist doing that? And what, you know, uh, 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 want to disagree or, 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? Like, you know, eliminate all the waste. If it exists under my purview, 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 a pedophile or you're, you know, going after kids in the gross ways.

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 denouncing the reports of this. 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 should. It should. Yeah. 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 want to turn that into, if you want to turn that into, like the border, you know, what Democrats says in 2023. You know, we do that at our own peril.

You're so rightly critical of so many of these points, John, why are you still a Democrat? It passed. Yeah, so save just passed. My staffer just handed it as me. 51. You're kidding. Wow, they went forward, huh?

Yeah, it's going forward to debate, yeah. Yeah, it goes to the debate. Yeah. And so what do you think will happen there? Will this last a couple days, a week? I mean, how's this process going to go? I have no idea. I am not going to pretend to know exactly how the next couple days are going to look.

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? Because I am a Democrat. And it's not because I've changed. It's because parts of my party has changed right now. And that's where I'm at. I'm going to continue to be an independent voice. I'm going to call balls and strikes. I'm always going to pick country over part of my base or what they demand. Man. One of the clear rising themes right now in this country going into the midterms and probably going into 28 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? 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.

We're supporting our causes or they're underwriting, you know, things that are near and dear to us. In fact, we actually have 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. Well, 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. Rocahanna and Bernie Sanders have talked about passing a national wealth tax. Do you think we are going to find ourselves in that conversation in 2020? and we're going to 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. I mean, Senator Sanders has never represented more than a very small, you know, state. You know, like win, win a competitive state. So you have your own ideas and, you know, like we'll see what really is required to win, you know. 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-hows. China loves it.

China loves it. Yeah, let's hand AI that race over to the Chinese. Why do you think leaders in the party are supporting this idea? It's so obvious what's going to happen if we do this. But, you know, do you think AI is going to increase wealth disparity in this country? Win a real, you know, competitive election, win one. Then you can lecture me or you can tell me, hey, what's the right direction? Otherwise, you know, like, it's like they are the part of the party that's so hypercritical.

And those kinds of excesses like to fund the police and abolish. and these landish 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. Right. And then I just want to cover agriculture real quick. I've heard reports that the vast majority of U.S. 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 U.S. farmers lost money last year, if not for the federal government providing support payments, crop insurance, and would have been one-time bailouts. Do you 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? Farming is such a hard job. I absolutely revere American farms, especially in Pennsylvania ones. Their job, you know, quite literally feeds us. I fully support

all of their efforts. You know, I was deeply troubled by many of those tariffs. And also, the ones that I talk to, labor, labor, labor, has made that very, very difficult. We should celebrate and support farmers because I know because I've visited enough farms to see how hard backbreaking labor it is to just deliver food to your table. So 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 the kinds of things that are hurting a lot of the people that are just almost uniformly read parts of my state. Yeah. And just to wrap up, I mean, you've said you want to save the Democratic Party, not abandon it, which, you know, you repeated here today, you're a Democrat. But, you know, with only 22% approval rating among Pennsylvania Democrats, I mean, how do you carry this forward? And, you know, 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?

Well, as I said earlier, there was a poll that was current to that. And it has me around 50-50. You know, that's more accurate. So I'm not worried about 28. You know, 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 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 real peace, you know, yes, there's a lot of warfare now, but then I think that's a path for more enduring peace. There's been a lot of genuine speculation that you might run for president in 28. Is that on the table? I'm I you know it's like about 28 you know 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 clarity's and well thanks for speaking your voice Senator John Fetterman I appreciate being with us on all in today this has been great thank you I love conversations with anyone's that's just a real conversation yeah calling people names and saying out like landish thing. That doesn't make anyone, I don't know, like I refuse to engage it. So thanks

it. It's a breath of fresh air, honestly, and I really appreciate it. Thank you, Chuck.