Senator John Fetterman: Country Over Party

Summary

Senator John Fetterman joins Jason Calacanis, David Friedberg, and David Sacks for a wide-ranging interview on his political evolution from progressive to self-described “plain Democrat” who prioritizes moral clarity and country over party. Fetterman addresses his unusually high approval ratings among Pennsylvania Republicans (around 60%) and his deteriorating standing with the progressive wing, attributing the shift to his unapologetic support for Israel, his refusal to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, and his willingness to agree with the other side when he believes they are right. He offers a blunt critique of the Democratic Party, arguing it is currently governed by “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) that prevents lawmakers from acknowledging good outcomes simply because they come from a Republican president.

On foreign policy, Fetterman is the sole Democrat in Congress publicly celebrating the U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran, calling it a justified dismantlement of a dangerous regime and criticizing NATO allies for refusing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz despite consuming oil. Domestically, he supports the concept of voter ID — noting 83% of Americans favor it — but opposes the SAVE Act in its current form because Republicans loaded it with partisan add-ons instead of keeping it simple. On immigration, he describes himself as pro-immigration but insists the border must be secured and criminals deported, calling the Biden administration’s handling of the border a serious failure that cost Democrats the 2024 election.

The conversation also touches on the national debt death spiral, government fraud, the wealth tax proposals from Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna, and the state of American agriculture. Fetterman dismisses radical progressive proposals like AI data center moratoriums as gifts to China and refuses to demonize billionaires. Throughout the interview, he positions himself as an independent voice willing to “call balls and strikes” rather than engage in what he calls the “attention economy” of modern partisan politics.

Highlights

”TDS is the Leader of the Democratic Party Right Now”

“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, or I agree with the other side.” — John Fetterman, 9:02

yt-dlp --download-sections "*9:02-10:00" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZVqcW6Wwmg" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "tds-leader-democratic-party.mp4"

”I Am Literally the Only Democrat Saying Destroying Iran is a Good Thing”

“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.” — John Fetterman, 9:02

yt-dlp --download-sections "*9:02-10:30" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZVqcW6Wwmg" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "only-democrat-destroy-iran.mp4"

”Nazi Tattoo Is OK but Supporting Israel Is Not”

“I don’t know, like part of my party’s 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.” — John Fetterman, 7:13

yt-dlp --download-sections "*7:13-8:00" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZVqcW6Wwmg" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "nazi-tattoo-double-standard.mp4"

”77 Instances of Non-Citizen Voting in 24 Years”

“The Heritage Foundation… they said that at their database between 1999 to 2023 they identified 77 instances of non-citizens voting between 1999 and 2023. And that’s the Heritage Foundation.” — John Fetterman, 24:09

yt-dlp --download-sections "*24:09-25:04" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZVqcW6Wwmg" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "heritage-77-noncitizen-votes.mp4"

”I Haven’t Changed — My Party Has”

“Because I am a Democrat. And it’s not because I’ve changed, it’s because, you know, 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.” — John Fetterman, 37:49

yt-dlp --download-sections "*37:49-38:30" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZVqcW6Wwmg" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "party-changed-not-me.mp4"

Key Points

• SAVE Act Advances 51-48 (37:13) - Breaking news during the interview: Fetterman’s staff informs him the SAVE Act passed cloture 51-48 and will proceed to debate
• TDS Governs the Democratic Party (9:02) - Fetterman argues Trump Derangement Syndrome prevents Democrats from acknowledging anything positive from the opposition
• Only Democrat Supporting Iran Campaign (9:02) - Fetterman claims he is the only Democrat in Congress supporting the destruction of the Iranian military regime
• Party Purity Tests on Israel (7:13) - Supporting Israel has become disqualifying in the Democratic primary while candidates with Nazi tattoos get normalized
• Approval Rating Inversion (1:34) - Fetterman’s Morning Consult numbers show him at roughly 50-50 with Democrats and in the 60s with Republicans
• Iran Exit Strategy (12:02) - Three weeks in, the Iranian military has been “pulverized into irrelevance” — not a nation-building exercise but a disarmament
• NATO Refusal to Help (14:34) - NATO allies won’t help reopen the Strait of Hormuz despite all consuming oil; Fetterman says this makes it their responsibility
• Voter ID Support at 83% (20:39) - Fetterman supports simple Real ID to vote but opposes the SAVE Act’s “Christmas tree” of added provisions
• Heritage Foundation: 77 Non-Citizen Votes (24:09) - Even the Heritage Foundation only identified 77 instances of non-citizen voting between 1999-2023
• Only Democrat Funding DHS (26:57) - Fetterman is the sole Democrat voting to fund the Department of Homeland Security rather than shutting down the government
• Laken Riley Bill Leadership (27:43) - Fetterman was the Democratic lead on the Laken Riley bill, working with Katie Britt to get it passed
• Biden Border Failure (31:31) - Fetterman was “stunned” when Biden dropped Title 42 and says the party was “punished in ‘24” for the border crisis
• Debt Death Spiral (33:34) - $40 trillion debt with $1 trillion in annual interest; Social Security could be fixed with “small adjustments” extending it to 2070s-2080s
• Wealth Tax Dismissal (39:59) - Fetterman dismisses Bernie Sanders’ wealth tax proposals, noting Sanders has “never represented more than a very small state”
• AI Moratorium Helps China (40:31) - Sanders’ proposed moratorium on AI data centers would hand the AI race to China
• Agriculture Labor Crisis (42:00) - Pennsylvania farmers face a labor crisis; tariffs and immigration enforcement are making farming harder

Mentions

Companies

• Heritage Foundation (24:09) - Cited as source for non-citizen voting data (77 instances over 24 years)
• AIPAC (17:44) - Fetterman acknowledges taking AIPAC money, pushes back on “undue influence” narrative

Products & Technologies

• SAVE Act (20:16) - Voter ID legislation that passed cloture 51-48 during the interview
• Real ID (20:39) - Fetterman’s preferred simple approach to voter identification
• Laken Riley Bill (27:43) - Immigration enforcement bill Fetterman co-led with Katie Britt

People

• John Fetterman (0:00) - Pennsylvania Senator, interview subject
• Jason Calacanis (0:00) - Primary interviewer
• David Friedberg (24:00) - Co-interviewer, asks about agriculture and wealth inequality
• David Sacks (6:14) - Asks about partisan polarization
• Bernie Sanders (39:59) - Dismissed for wealth tax and AI moratorium proposals
• Ro Khanna (39:21) - Co-sponsor of national wealth tax proposal
• Katie Britt (27:43) - Republican senator who worked with Fetterman on Laken Riley bill
• Mayorkas (27:43) - Former DHS Secretary called “a disaster” by Fetterman
• Netanyahu (4:31) - Fetterman says he “done the right thing” against Hamas and Hezbollah
• Tucker Carlson (18:09) - Dismissed alongside extremists on the right
• Governor Newsom (35:18) - Criticized for smearing fraud investigator Nick Shirley
• Nick Shirley (35:06) - Journalist investigating California government fraud

Surprising Quotes

“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.” — John Fetterman, 9:02

“If you consume oil, that makes it part of your problem and that makes you part of your responsibility to join us.” — John Fetterman, 14:34

“Not stopping Iran would be a hell of a lot more expensive in lives and economic impact.” — John Fetterman, 16:27

“Senator Sanders has never represented more than a very small state. Win a competitive state.” — John Fetterman, 39:59

“Never shut the government down. Just don’t do that. We used to be the party that refused to do those things.” — John Fetterman, 27:00

Transcript

Jason Calacanis: 0:00 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: 0:14 I don’t know, like 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 it, if they do hit it, I don’t see it more beyond 51, 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, they turned it into kind of a Christmas tree and they’re hanging all these things on it. But, um, that’s where we are, but we’ll know and, uh, having someone follow that too, I just, 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.

Jason Calacanis: 1:05 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?

John Fetterman: 1:34 Well actually I think the more realistic, the realistic numbers was like earlier in the Morning Consult. And that had 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 Republicans and I’m mystified by that. I mean, I’m honored to have support from any Pennsylvanian, 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 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 in the Democratic Party continues to deteriorate, I put that out on my social media and I said…

John Fetterman: 3:00 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. Um 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 Israel 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 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 150 toddlers, you know, and now there’s more and more kinds of these these events. Why would you vote to shut our government down and the Cyber Security 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, 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 going to follow what I think is true, what is the country over party, whether that’s the right side of history.

Jason Calacanis: 4:24 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: 4:31 I I honestly I don’t know. But what I will say is 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 it’s becoming more and more anti-Israel, openly hostile to Israel. And now that becomes part of the litmus purity test and I’m not going to take any of their money. Um, I’m going to denounce that and as I was the only Democrat that absolutely Netanyahu’s done the right thing to to break the that access there, Hezbollah and Hamas and now attacking also Houthi as well. So, I mean, so do you know where what Democrats stand for? See who’s running for the Senate. And now Platner, look at the Nazi tattoo guy, um mean, 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 so and now is that what Democrats want? Well, 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 as I know, has refused to condemn Hamas.

Jason Calacanis: 6:00 And he led the, you know, 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…

David Sacks: 6:14 Uncommitted, yeah, uncommitted.

Jason Calacanis: 6:15 But, you know, we’re not going to vote for Kamala Harris and now they helped 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.

David Sacks: 6:33 You know, it’s interesting, we used to have the ability to agree on some things and disagree on others. 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 is 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: 7:13 I don’t know, like part of my party’s 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 in my party now who are trying to normalize that or to excuse that. I mean, like 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’ve 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 everyday Americans. Well, 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 in anything supports. So, you know, if I’m more popular with Republicans, I don’t really know. But I also know that 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. Now 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.

Jason Calacanis: 9:00 Democratic Party today.

John Fetterman: 9:02 Oh, we don’t, we don’t have one. I think, 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, or I agree with the other side. And 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 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 a 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 and our nation did the heavy leaving, excuse me, the heavy the heavy work to to destroy the Iranian military apparatus. You know, now why not wouldn’t you, you know, help us to reopen the straits because you consume oil? You all could be the ability to why not participate? 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 as well, so.

John Fetterman: 11:30 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.

Jason Calacanis: 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 push forward here. What’s our —

David Sacks: 12:00 That’s a path.

John Fetterman: 12:02 I, 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 Ayatollah’s, 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 capability to this point otherwise than to, to fire off a drone at civilians, at civilians. The Iranians have never done anything other than just attacking civilians.

David Sacks: 13:21 Absolutely. That’s a fact.

John Fetterman: 13:23 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 a, a, 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 war. You know, this is three weeks. It’s not, you know, neat and it’s not absolutely quick to dismantle 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…

Jason Calacanis: 14:07 To your point about the strait and America looking for its 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: 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 want to 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…

John Fetterman: 15:00 The horror of 10/7 was born by the Israelis, too. Now, they’ve done the appropriate thing too 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 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, they can’t even 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 to witness as they’ve killed up to 35,000 of them uh last time. So they’ve been held accountable. We’re as an American, hold them accountable. And that’s a good thing.

Jason Calacanis: 16:08 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 I don’t know if this is going to become another Iraq War or Afghanistan type situation. That’s what makes them concerned.

John Fetterman: 16:27 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, 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 critics critics are attacking, well it cost 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. Uh, 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.

Jason Calacanis: 17:44 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 AIPAC and I know that you’ve kind of been, uh, 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 action.

John Fetterman: 18:09 Well that 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 — 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 individuals and their opinions are on Israel or anything at that point. Same parts of my party as well too. Now if you if you want to normalize that a Nazi tattoo’s 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 is um the exact opposite. They were in a just war, you know, and remember where it started and remember what Hamas continued to do. Send everybody home and there there would be the end of this. So so that’s that’s part of this and now how anti-semitism out of control, out of control. You know on 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 immediately killed by the security. They had security because they had to provide those because they knew that’s always an ever-present kind 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 extreme on 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.

Jason Calacanis: 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: 20:39 Well the Republicans have never had any outreach or to engage. You know they never said hey how can we rework it, you know what can we offer. And now make it, you know, Real ID. Real ID to vote, keep it simple. You know, so like yeah, why not? Why not? I, you know, like it’s like 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 interested to really to have that conversation. Another thing that they continue to do, they tried to smear voting of, 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 the 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, ah, 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.

Jason Calacanis: 22:18 And do you think there has been election fraud and to what extent?

John Fetterman: 22:23 Uh well, I mean in my experience as lieutenant governor, uh in 2020 there was a lot of allegation that there was 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 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 idea. 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.

Jason Calacanis: 23:49 Do you think there’s non-citizen voting going on? One of the arguments that’s made is that the Democrats open the border, brought in a lot of non-citizens, gave them access to vote in some way either mail in…

David Friedberg: 24:00 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 just a lot?

John Fetterman: 24:09 That’s a… that’s a great point. And I am concerned about that. You know, hey, is there an issue? So I just ran this. Uh, 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. And that’s the Heritage Foundation. You know, that’s, you know, there. So, for me, that would identify that it doesn’t seem that, you know, Heritage, 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 dilute the core mission of something like showing ID or making it more secure.

David Friedberg: 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, well, not everyone has access to an ID and —

John Fetterman: 25:23 I am not. I am not one of those Democrats. I am not one of those Democrats that say that that’s terrible.

David Friedberg: 25:24 Well, why are they saying that? Because if it’s such 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 so on. Why are they opposing it? What is actually going on?

John Fetterman: 25:44 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. You know, and I’ve said that publicly again and again and again. 71% of Democrats have no problem with it. And you want to know what really backed that up? Wisconsin, in April of 2024, 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 a vast 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.

David Friedberg: 26:41 Fair enough. Uh, well let’s come back to the DHS point you made earlier. You were one of the… you’re 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: 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- 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.

Jason Calacanis: 27:33 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: 27:43 Yeah, for me, you know, hey, I was- I was the Democratic lead on Laken 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 work together on it. That’s a serious- that’s a serious effort.’ Um, 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? Uh, and I even- I voted for Nielsen, one of the few Democrats that heard. 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.

Jason Calacanis: 29:08 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: 29:20 No, if, you know, you have the vast majority of Americans secure a border. They’ve done that without a doubt. And deport every criminal. There- they- come on. 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- 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 substantial important contributions to our nation. I’m a pro-democrat, I’m a excuse me, I’m a pro-immigration Democrat, but I’m also the only Democrat that’s used shut our government down the way that’s we’re at, and you know, 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.

Jason Calacanis: 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 kind of big debate points right now.

John Fetterman: 30:45 Well, I mean, for for me, I I what 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 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 size of Pittsburgh. I described that in terms of Pennsylvania. 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 Noem and I called her to to go.

Jason Calacanis: 31:23 What was why did why did President Biden open the border? What was the motivation? What have you heard from Democratic leadership?

John Fetterman: 31:31 I don’t know, but I’ll tell you the the truth is I was shocked when 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 the shoop right up after that.

Jason Calacanis: 31:51 Was it to reduce labor costs 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.

John Fetterman: 31:59 I’m not sure, 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, you’re not right, you lose. You know, and we were punished. We were punished in ‘24. The border was a serious, serious failure as as Democrats. So, it’s like holding us accountable, and now this is part of our responsibility to learn from from that situation now. And I do hope, and I do hope the Republicans learn from Minneapolis doesn’t help anybody. That that doesn’t, you know, doesn’t help your cause, you know, in in people that absolutely the optics, whether that’s the optics or the kinds of tactics, any of that, you’re not winning anybody over.

Jason Calacanis: 32:51 Right. So I want to switch gears to my favorite topic, which is the the fiscal condition of the United States government. We have 40 trillion dollars of debt, and we’re gonna have a two trillion dollar deficit.

David Friedberg: 33:00 Suggest that your a trillion dollars of that is just interest on the existing debt that number’s 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 5 and 10 years from now. This is a classic debt death 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 seems 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: 33:34 Yeah, debt’s a huge concern for me. I mean, you know, 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 20… 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, 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? 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 Sundays and now suddenly Democrats would hate it, we would want to vote it down. Yeah.

David Friedberg: 35:06 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.

John Fetterman: 35:18 Yeah, let me see that, let me see that! Yeah. Yeah. Like 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 want to disagree or what but to imply that someone… someone in one of the most gross kinds of terms like that. Now, it’s like hey, shouldn’t we agree like… you know, eliminate all the waste? If it exists under… 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- you’re a pedophile or you’re, you know, going after kids in gross ways.

David Friedberg: 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 denouncing that 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.

John Fetterman: 36:29 It should. It should, yeah, 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 they’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 as in 2023, you know, we do that at our own peril.

David Friedberg: 37:03 You’re- you’re so rightly critical of so many of these points, John. Why are you still a Democrat? It passed.

John Fetterman: 37:13 Yeah. So SAFE just passed. My- my staff just handed this to me. 51 to 48.

David Friedberg: 37:21 Wow. They went forward, huh?

John Fetterman: 37:25 Yeah, it’s- it’s going forward. To debate, yeah. Uh, it goes to debate. Yeah.

David Friedberg: 37:31 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?

John Fetterman: 37:34 I- I have no idea. I- I am not going to pretend to know exactly how the next couple days are going to look.

David Friedberg: 37:41 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: 37:49 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 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, uh, part of my base or what they demand. So.

David Friedberg: 38:14 One of the- one of the clear rising themes right now in this country going into the midterms and probably going into 2024 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: 38:32 I- I don’t- I don’t really know. Uh, but I- I don’t hate billionaires, I don’t make them the problem. Now that with Democrats, we love billionaires if they’re supporting our- or supporting our causes or 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 stuff, attacking each other and find what we can agree on now. But we live in the kinds of attention economy and just saying outlandish thing and making, you know, crazy statements. You know, yeah, that drives the clicks, but that’s not governance.

Jason Calacanis: 39:21 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. Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders have talked about passing a national wealth tax. Do you think we are going to find ourselves in that conversation in 2028 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?

John Fetterman: 39:59 I mean, uh, Senator Sanders has never represented more than a very small, you know, state, you know. Like, win, win a competitive state. Uh, so you have your own ideas and, you know, like, we’ll see what really is required to, to win. Yeah.

Jason Calacanis: 40:24 Well, so let me ask, he’s also recently called for a moratorium on building AI data centers. I worked in Silicon Valley as did my co-host…

John Fetterman: 40:31 Yeah, but China, China loves it. China loves it.

David Friedberg: 40:33 Yeah, let’s hand, 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, um, you know, do you think AI is going to increase wealth disparity in this country?

John Fetterman: 40:49 Win, 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, the, 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 defund the police 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: 41:21 Right. And then I just want to cover agriculture real quick. 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 what 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?

John Fetterman: 41:51 Farming is such a hard job. I absolutely revere American farms, especially Pennsylvania ones. Their job, you know… knows, 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 talked to, labor, labor, labor is 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, um, that’s why, um, that’s part of the immigration conversation, that’s part of the tariffs and that’s wherever like that. So so the kinds of things that are hurting a lot of the people that are just almost uniformly red parts of of my state.

Jason Calacanis: 43:00 Yeah and 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?

John Fetterman: 43:31 Well, as I as I said earlier, there was there was there was a poll out that was con- was current to that and it has me around 50/50. You know, that’s that’s much 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 um 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 things like destroying Iran, securing Israel, and standing with uh the Jewish community and Israel after everything that’s they’ve been through and how close how much more of uh optimism of of real peace. You know, yes there’s there’s a lot of warfare now but then I think that’s a path for for more enduring peace.

Jason Calacanis: 44:31 There’s been a lot of genuine speculation that you might run for president in ‘28. Is that on the table?

John Fetterman: 44:36 Um I uh you know, it’s like about 28, you know, I I don’t know what what America wants or the direction. You know, I’m following what I’ve just said, that’s the moral clarities and…

Jason Calacanis: 44:51 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: 44:57 Well thank you. I I love the conversations uh with anyones that’s just… Real conversation. Calling people names and saying outlandish things, um, that doesn’t make anyone, um, I don’t know, like I refuse to engage in. So, thanks for having me.

Jason Calacanis: 45:11 It’s a breath of fresh air, honestly, and I really appreciate it. Thank you, John.