John Fetterman: 'I'm the Only Democrat in Congress Saying This'

John Fetterman, thank you for joining us here on the All-In podcast for this All-In interview. I’m very excited to have you here today. I know you’re in the middle of voting today. It sounds like the SAVE Act might be starting its debate on the floor. Is that correct?

I don’t know. From what I’ve heard recently, they don’t have the votes, but we’ll find out. I don’t have any special insight. It’s going to be very close. I don’t think it will pass. If they do hit it, I don’t see it going beyond 51.

It’s a shame that they didn’t make it more about just ID to vote. They turned it into other things. They turned it into kind of a Christmas tree, and they’re hanging all these things on it. But that’s where we are, and we’ll know. I’m having someone follow that, too. He’s going to let me know, in fact, because I’m really interested to see how it goes.

If they do, then that’s going to turn into a real spectacle about what a talking filibuster is.

Yeah. Well, let’s see what happens. It’s a pretty dramatic week ahead. Let me start. I want to zoom out a little bit and talk about how you make policy decisions. I want to start with party.

You ran as a progressive in 2016 and lost. You beat Dr. Oz in 2022, and now you have a 72% approval rating from Pennsylvania Republicans and only 22% from Democrats. Are you a Republican or are you a Democratic senator? What’s the way that you think about your party affiliation?

I actually think the more realistic numbers were from an earlier Morning Consult poll. That had me at basically 50/50 with Democrats, and I was in the 60s with Republicans. Without a doubt, I am more popular with Republicans, and I’m mystified by that. I’m honored to have support from any Pennsylvanian.

What I will say is that I’m just going to follow what I think is moral clarity. In my very first race back in 2015, over a decade ago, what used to be a progressive is definitely not what progressivism started to turn into and became. Even in my race in 2021–2022, I was announcing, “I am no longer—I’m just a Democrat. I’m not a progressive.”

Now there’s been an evolution away from those core principles, which really weren’t controversial. I’ve isolated myself by standing proud and unapologetically supporting Israel. If you’ve seen that poll that came out yesterday, the standing of the Democratic Party continues to deteriorate. I put that out on my social media, and I said, “I don’t follow. I don’t care about the polls. There’s a moral clarity here, and that should be where the rest of us should be.”

It’s been really easy for me to lean into it. I’m the only Democrat who’s very supportive of Operation Epic Fury, and I’m also the only Democrat who refuses to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Yes, as a Democrat, we would like to make some reforms to ICE, but what I’m unwilling to do is shut it down. After that horrific attack in Michigan, where he was looking to kill 150 toddlers, and now there are more and more of these kinds of events, why would you vote to shut our government down?

The cybersecurity agency—it must be incredible for the Chinese and the Iranians that we’ve shut that government down. My core values haven’t changed. If anything’s changed, it’s the core of what’s required to be a Democrat. I’m going to follow what I think is true: country over party and what I think is 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?

I honestly don’t know. What I will say, and what I would refer your listeners to, is: listen to what the people who are running for the Senate as Democrats are saying and doing. It’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 who said, “Absolutely, Netanyahu has done the right thing to break the axis there—Hezbollah and Hamas—and now attacking the Houthis as well.” So, do you know what Democrats stand for? See who’s running for the Senate. Look at Platner, the Nazi-tattoo guy. On top of being an avowed communist, he’s said incredibly offensive things about women and sexual assault, and he refers to rural people as stupid and racist. Is that what Democrats want? I guess we’ll see.

There’s also a guy in Michigan who, as far as I know, has refused to condemn Hamas. He led the—you know, no, the “Uncommitted.” I forget what that stupid thing was called, but it was like, “No vote for Uncommitted.”

Uncommitted, yeah.

Uncommitted, yeah. But, you know, we’re not going to vote for Kamala Harris. Now they helped deliver Trump for Michigan. So, look who’s running and look who’s being competitive. If you want to know where Democrats are, look in those kinds of races.

We used to have the ability to agree on some things and disagree on other things. Nowadays, whatever the other side is doing or saying, you have to take the opposing view. In many cases, it seems like that might force folks to 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’s no longer the ability for us to agree on some things while disagreeing on other things. What caused this change in the country, and can we get back from it?

I don’t know. Part of my party has become so inflexible. What I’ve discovered is that you’re not allowed to be proudly and unapologetically standing with Israel, but it’s okay—it’s not a big deal—if you have a Nazi tattoo on your chest. People in my party are now trying to normalize that or excuse that. That’s kind of where we are.

I know what’s toxic as a Democrat to disagree with, but for me, those are our core values. The kinds of values in Israel are the kinds of core values that we have always used to say, “Never, ever shut our government down.” That’s always wrong. You’re going to punish union members and everyday Americans. Now here we are doing those same things.

I think our border should be secure, and we should deport all the criminals. But we should never, ever have tragedies like we had in Minneapolis. That’s not what anyone really voted for or supports. If I’m more popular with Republicans, I don’t really know, but I also treat everyone with respect. I don’t refer to Republicans or members of MAGA as Nazis. They’re not fascists, and they’re not trying to destroy our country.

I know and love many people who voted for or support President Trump. I’m going to treat anybody with respect. I don’t attack members of their families, and 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?

We don’t have one. I think TDS is the leader right now. Our party is governed by TDS, and it’s made it virtually impossible, without being punished as a Democrat, to agree that something’s good or to agree with the other side.

I would define that by Operation Epic Fury. I am literally the only Democrat in Congress that I’ve come across who’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.” What’s strange to me is that every single Democrat who’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 criticism and these kinds of attacks. You don’t have to agree on every single thing, but when a good thing happens, just because it comes from a different party, that tells me that you’re choosing the demands of the base or the party over the country, or over what’s really appropriate in those circumstances.

I would say to any country—any country—do you consume oil? Yes, of course we do. Well, then that makes it your problem, too. That makes it part of your responsibility. I don’t know why Israel and our nation did the heavy lifting—the heavy work—to destroy the Iranian military apparatus.

Why wouldn’t you help us reopen the straits, because you consume oil? You all have the ability, so why not participate? That’s strange to me. The only ones that aren’t are China and Russia, especially in Europe, given what they’re doing to Ukraine for over 4 years. We all know what China’s goals are.

You say it’s not our war. It’s like, yeah, well, it’s our cause. If you consume oil—and you all do—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 is what’s undeniably been happening. First, why aren’t all of the media outlets demanding proof of life from the Ayatollah? Ever since that first strike back last month, not a peep out of him. The Iranians are doing kind of like Weekend at Italia's, pretending this guy is functional in any way.

Today, they just eliminated who was effectively the de facto leader. I think that’s fantastic. Keep doing it for that. Without a doubt, they have no capabilities at this point other than to fire off a drone at civilians. The Iranians have never done anything other than attack civilians. Absolutely, that’s a fact.

They can’t engage in traditional kinds of combat. Those cowards fire drones to create chaos. They’ve been effectively neutered, and that’s a wonderful thing. That’s also effectively broken the proxies, and that’s made the world undeniably more secure.

This war is only 3 weeks into it. Whatever you want to call it, whatever the semantics, it’s 3 weeks. This is not like a Ukraine war. It’s not neat, and it’s not absolutely quick to dismantle the entire Iranian apparatus. Holding them accountable is entirely appropriate, and every single president for the last 40-some years has wanted to do something about Iran. Finally, that’s happened. It’s a good thing.

And now, to your point about the strait and America looking for assistance to support commercial oil activity through the strait, NATO allies have largely said no. Do you think we’re looking at the end of the NATO alliance? What does this speak to for the future, both America’s leadership in the West and this alliance that has kind of created a great-power center and created balance in the world? I mean, is NATO at risk?

I’m proud to be an American, and I believe we are a force for good in the world. I truly don’t understand why they don’t want to join us to reopen the straits. But if you consume oil, that makes it your problem and part of your responsibility to join us.

We’ve done the hard work at this point, and the horror of 10/7 was borne by the Israelis, too. They’ve done the appropriate thing to destroy the proxies and hold them fully accountable. Why can’t the world rally around this to just do that?

I do believe we will be successful with or without their help. But remind people that it’s been 3 weeks. For a nation of 90 million that used to be this fearsome military force in the entire region, it has just been pulverized into irrelevance, other than creating kinds of chaos and firing a drone there.

They can’t even fight with honor. They attack civilians. They’ve massacred their own. There would be more uprising because they’re terrified, because they’ve had to witness as they’ve killed up to 35,000 of them last time. So they’ve been held accountable. We, as Americans, 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 as? How do we get out of this, and when do we walk away? 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 folks concerned.

Absolutely absurd. This is not a nation-building thing. This is destroying a terrible regime. Disarmament.

If you lived in Europe, remember what—if you had disarmed the German Nazi regime before it really started, I mean, have you forgotten the lessons of history? When you have a regime that is committed to destroying the nations in the region, why is it wrong to hold them accountable?

Yeah, go ahead.

Critics are attacking it: “Well, it cost us $1 billion.” Well, not stopping Iran would be a hell of a lot more expensive in lives and economic impact. That’s the thing. Clearly, if you consider the lessons from history of disarming a dangerous, toxic regime and the way they’ve done that, why can’t you be open to really participating, or at least acknowledge that the world is made safer as a result?

There’s a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle that perhaps President Trump was unduly influenced by Netanyahu and by Israeli lobbyists in the United States. You’ve taken money from AIPAC, and I know that’s been brought up before. How do you react to the argument that many are making that Israel has undue influence on our politics and our global actions?

Well, that plays into the antisemitism and the tropes. It’s like, “They’re pulling all the strings and they’re behind everything.” It’s just part of the group. It’s become more and more acceptable as a Democrat to say these things.

It’s like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes and these people—no one claims them. I promise you, I know no one who sits around wondering about those kinds of individuals and their opinions on Israel or anything else. The same goes for parts of my party as well.

If you want to normalize a Nazi tattoo as a one-off, as not a big deal, or if you think Israel engaged in a genocide, how ignorant that is of what actually defines a genocide—the exact opposite. They were in a just war. I remember where it started, and I remember what Hamas continued to do. Send everybody home, and that would be the end of this.

Antisemitism is out of control on our college campuses and in the world, even in San Jose. A Jew was beaten just having dinner. You have people driving and crashing into synagogues, kind of like Tree of Life, but thankfully, he was immediately killed by security. They had security because they had to provide those protections because they knew that was always an ever-present kind of risk there. Thank God. Think what that could have made possible without them.

That’s where we are, and I don’t listen to parts of my party or the extreme on the right. I never turn to someone like Tucker Carlson for wisdom or their views on this or anything, honestly.

Well, let’s talk about another controversial topic, which we just hit on for a moment at the start of the show: the SAVE Act. Eighty-three percent of Americans support voter ID for elections. The Senate is 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 engagement. They never said, “Hey, how can we rework it?” or “What can we offer?”

Make it REAL ID. REAL ID to vote. Keep it simple. Why not? I am not outraged by providing ID to vote. Seventy-one percent of Democrats are okay with that. Eighty-three percent of Americans are okay with it. Make it that, then, yeah, and I’m interested in really having that conversation.

Another thing they continue to do is try to smear voting by mail. That’s absolutely safe. The red states in America, like Florida, Ohio, and others, rely on it. The more rural a state is, the more they really use that, too.

They’ve made it this Christmas tree, hanging all these boutique and other issues. If you are serious and say, “Hey, ID to vote,” you might bring some actual Democrats in on that. I refuse the kind of extreme rhetoric about it being Jim Crow. It is not trying to suppress Americans from voting. It’s making it perhaps more secure. Then we’ll have a serious conversation. That’s why I said I’m unwilling to support it in its current form.

And do you think there has been election fraud, and to what extent?

Well, in my experience as lieutenant governor in 2020, there were a lot of allegations that there was fraud. Remind people: roughly 57 out of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties are deep, deep red. Not one single one had fraud. There was no fraud.

We identified, I believe, 6 or 7 cases, in fact. Coincidentally, they all happened to be Republicans who were voting for President Trump, and mostly they used a dead relative to try to vote, and they were caught.

So voting in Pennsylvania is absolutely secure. I can absolutely say that; I’ve witnessed it. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans drove that train of voting by mail. That was their idea. That was what they demanded. And in return, we dropped straight-party voting, where you just push a button to vote straight down the entire ticket.

Now, they had to turn their views because, at that time, the president decided that that’s a terrible thing. 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, and doing so in some of 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, and gave them access to vote in some way, either mail-in ballots without showing proof of citizenship or whatnot. That really boosted Democrat votes across blue states. Is that fair, or is that unfounded?

That’s a great point, and I am concerned about that. Is there an issue? I just ran this—the Heritage Foundation—

Heritage Foundation.

They said that their database, between 1999 and 2023, identified 77 instances of non-citizens voting. That’s the Heritage Foundation. They don’t claim that there are more than 77. So, for me, that would identify that it doesn’t seem that there’s a serious issue. If you’re really serious and you want to have that conversation, let’s make it about ID, not all these other kinds of parts that dilute the core mission of showing ID or making it more secure.

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 the media have brought in the idea that not everyone has access to an ID. I am not one of those Democrats—I am not one of those Democrats—to say that that’s terrible or evil. Why are they saying that? If it’s such an obvious, common-sense action and 83% of voters support it, why are so many in the party opposing it? A lot of people have conspiracy theories that they’re using it to harvest votes and so on. What is actually going on?

I can’t speak for them, but what I’m saying is that I refuse to—I’ll never tell 83% of Americans that it’s awful and terrible to show ID to vote. Seventy-one percent of 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 2 to 1. They also elected one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court in that same election.

It’s not controversial to the vast majority of Americans. I’m never going to be in the business of telling 80-some percent of Americans, “You’re Jim Crow,” or, “You’re trying to suppress votes.”

Fair enough. 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? 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. We would freak out. Freak out. And now here we are: We shut the whole damn government down.

I was one of only 2 Democrats to push back on that last year, and now I’m the only one. If it’s wrong for them, then it should be wrong for us as well.

But just to focus on ICE: With ICE’s actions in Minnesota, where do you think ICE should be doing immigration enforcement, and how? What do you think they shouldn’t have been doing?

For me, I was the Democratic lead on the Laken Riley Act. That was a serious bill. Katie Britt called me up and said, “Hey, what do you think?” And I said, “Yeah, 100%. Let’s work together on it.” That’s a serious effort. I led that, and enough Democrats broke cloture on it. That’s why it’s a law in America right now.

I’d like to think that my credentials on border security as a Democrat are platinum. I even voted for Noem, one of the few Democrats to vote for her. I met with her and treated her with respect. I refused to use the kind of sexist and gross terms like “ICE Barbie” and those kinds of things. I 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.

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, leaving others while we legislate? What’s the right way for ICE to operate?

The vast majority of Americans want us to secure our border. They’ve done that, without a doubt. And deport every criminal. They’re gone.

Now, in Pennsylvania, our top industry is farming and agriculture, and constantly their issue is labor, labor, labor. It’s really problematic. Targeting otherwise lawful migrants, I don’t think that’s what America really wants. Honestly, that’s not what America needs. They are an important part of our economy, and finding a better way to address that—I’m here for that conversation.

My wife was a Dreamer. I would love to work with the other side. I shouldn’t punish a 2-year-old who was brought here and had no idea at that age. I think they’ve made important contributions to our nation.

I’m a pro-immigration Democrat, but I’m also the only Democrat that refuses to shut our government down. That’s where we’re at. And I’m the only very proud supporter of Israel. I’m the only Democrat saying that destroying a regime like Iran is a good thing.

Do you think 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 big debate points right now.

For me, what I will say is that if you secure a border, that makes those kinds of things more and more difficult or unlikely to happen. Back in 2023, you saw the numbers: 300,000 people showing up at the border. That’s the size of Pittsburgh. I describe it in terms of Pennsylvania—the size of Pittsburgh is showing up at the border. That’s unsustainable. We have to do something about it.

Mayorkas had to go. He’s been a liability. That’s why I described Noem that way, and I called for her to go.

Why did President Biden open the border? What was the motivation? What have you heard from Democrats?

I’ll tell you the truth: I was shocked when they dropped Article 42. In my primary, we all ran on that. That wasn’t controversial. I was stunned when they dropped that, and you could see this right after that.

Was it to reduce labor costs, to bring in Democratic voters, or what was the motivation from the party? You must speak to party leadership that tells you why they were justified in doing that when they did it.

I don’t know, but I was alarmed. For me, like for any politician, if you are telling the people that what they’re seeing is crazy or not right, you lose. We were punished in 2024. The border was a serious, serious failure as Democrats. It’s about holding us accountable, and now that’s part of our responsibility: to learn from that situation.

I do hope the Republicans learn from Minneapolis. That doesn’t help anybody. It doesn’t help your cause. People aren’t going to be won over by the optics or the kinds of tactics being used.

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.

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, 5 and 10 years from now. This is a classic debt spiral problem. How much does Congress pay attention to this problem? Is it something that’s talked about? A lot of the conversation seems to be about what the polls say, so that people can get elected again in the next cycle, versus looking at this big, looming debt problem we’re facing and how we’re going to address it.

Debt’s a huge concern for me. I’m old enough to remember when a billion dollars meant something, or that was a lot of money. Now the trillions are becoming more commonplace. It’s kind of like Social Security.

Social Security, for example, just needs some small adjustments for the actuarial kinds of things, and that could extend it well into the 2070s or the 2080s. Just small kinds of things. That wouldn’t require real leadership, and that would require them to just put down the partisan guns, stop attacking each other, and find a real solution for all Americans.

And now you'll never address debt until both sides agree that we're going to stop tearing each other apart. We're going to find a way forward. I hope more Americans want my view: why just turn it into professional wrestling? Do you really want to find a better way? [Laughter]

Effectively, if you turn Washington, D.C., into 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 what's driving the conversation. If he supports it, 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, 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 Sherry doing them out of California.

Yeah, let me say that. Why can't you celebrate any journalist or activist doing that? Governor Newsom put out a disgusting video implying that he's a pedophile. Why? That's kind of a smear. You may want to disagree, but to imply that about someone in one of the most gross kinds of terms like that—shouldn't we agree to eliminate all the waste? If it exists under my purview, let's eliminate it. Let's call that what it is. I'm not going to call someone or imply that you're a pedophile or that you're going after kids in gross ways.

But what's crazy to me, and so many other people that have seen these videos, is then seeing 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. 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. You should be angry. Fraud can happen on both sides, but when it's identified, I don't care if it's in a Democratic state—we should all just acknowledge that maybe there is a problem here. This is part of the thing: if you tell voters that they're wrong—“Hey, it's no problem. There's nothing here”—then you lose. If you want to turn that into the border, as Democrats did in 2023, 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. The SAVE Act just passed. My staffer just handed it to me: 51—

You're kidding. Wow. They went forward, huh?

Yeah, it's going forward.

To debate, yeah.

Yeah, it goes to the debate.

And so, what do you think will happen there? Will this last a couple of days, a week? I mean, how's this process going to go?

I have no idea. I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how the next couple of days are going to look. The question just before that was: 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 have changed right now. 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.

One of the clear rising themes right now in this country, going into—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 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. Democrats love billionaires if they're supporting our causes or underwriting things that are near and dear to us. In fact, we actually have a billionaire as a Democratic governor. That doesn't mean he's an oligarch and trying to destroy America.

It's about trying to be more honest and stop attacking each other and find what we can agree on. But we live in the attention economy, and just saying outlandish things and making crazy statements—that drives the clicks, but that's not government. That's not government.

It's on the ballot now in California to pass a wealth tax. It starts as a one-time 5% tax for billionaires, but it gives the legislature in California the ability to lower the threshold, make it every year if they wanted to, and change the percentage. Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders have talked about passing a national wealth tax. Do you think we're going to find ourselves in that conversation in 2028 and have a national wealth tax? Eventually, just like we started with a 1% income tax, will everyone pay a significant percentage of their net worth every year to support government services?

Senator Sanders has never represented more than a very small state, like Vermont, or won in a competitive state. So, you have your own ideas, and we'll see what really is required to win.

Well, 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-hosts.

China loves it.

China loves it. Yeah, let's hand that AI 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. Do you think AI is going to increase wealth disparity in this country?

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 like they are the part of the party that's so hypercritical. Those kinds of excesses—“defund the police,” “abolish ICE,” and these outlandish kinds of things—you know, they're the same part of the party now that loves the dude with the Nazi tattoo on his chest.

I 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 Agriculture Committee, which is why I'm asking this. This is becoming, I think, a big national issue: the majority of U.S. farmers lost money last year, if not for the federal government providing support payments, crop insurance, and what have been one-time bailouts. Do you think we have a path to fixing agriculture in this country? How do we get farmers back on track so they can earn a living without requiring checks from the government?

Farming is such a hard job. I absolutely revere American farms, especially the ones in Pennsylvania. Their job quite literally feeds us. I fully support all of their efforts. I was deeply troubled by many of those tariffs. And for the ones that I talked to, labor has made that very, very difficult.

We know we should celebrate and support farmers because I've visited enough farms to see how hard, backbreaking labor it is to deliver food to your table. That's part of it, and that's connected to other things. Thankfully, we have the kind of abundance in our nation for our food, and I know why. That's why it's part of the immigration conversation, part of the tariffs, and whatever like that. Those are the kinds of things that are hurting a lot of the people in the almost uniformly red parts of my state.

Just to wrap up, you've said you want to save the Democratic Party, not abandon it, which you've repeated here today. You're a Democrat. But with only a 22% approval rating among Pennsylvania Democrats, how do you carry this forward? What's the way to bring this party out of the doldrums, if you will, when there's a lack of leadership and a lack of moral clarity, as you call it?

As I said earlier, there was a poll out that was contrary to that, and it has me around 50/50. That's much more accurate. I'm not worried about '28. We have Iran, and we have a lot of other things right now. I'm not interested in the parlor games about something like that.

I've never felt better about just voting my conscience, voting country over party, and following the moral clarity in really important things like destroying Iran, securing Israel, and standing with the Jewish community and Israel after everything that they've been through, and how much more optimism there is for real peace. Yes, there's a lot of warfare now, but I think that's a path to 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 don't know about '28. I don't know what America wants or the direction. I'm following what I've just said. That's the moral clarity.

Well, thanks for speaking your voice. Senator John Fetterman, I appreciate you being with us today. This has been great.

Thank you. I love conversations with anyone when it's just a real conversation.

Yeah. Calling people names and saying outlandish things—that doesn't make anyone, I don't know.

I refuse to engage in that. So, thanks for—

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

[music]

I’m going all in.