Tim Walz has been keeping busy since the 2024 election. Not only has the Minnesota governor been working to insulate his state from Donald Trump’s extreme agenda—he’s also gone on the offensive, headlining town halls in red districts across the country to turn up pressure on Republican lawmakers.
When I caught him at one last month—in Lorain, Ohio, a manufacturing town near Cleveland—it hearkened back to the optimism of the early days of Kamala Harris’s campaign. She and Walz seemed to have the wind at their backs, and it felt like “good vibes” might prevail over Trump, JD Vance, and what the Minnesota governor memorably described as “weird” MAGA Republicans. It didn’t exactly work out last fall, of course: Trump was returned to power, and Democrats were cast into the political wilderness.
And yet the former veep candidate remains hopeful. In a follow-up conversation, which has been lightly edited for clarity and length, Walz sounded off on Trump’s “dangerous” agenda, his own party’s shortcomings, and the “opportunity” Democrats could have on the other side of Trump’s term: “Trump has shown us that, in 100 days, we can significantly change this country,” Walz told me. “We’ll simply do it for the good of the people.”
Vanity Fair: One thing I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is how radically different things would be if the election had gone just a little differently. I mean, Trump claimed to have this “mandate” because he won the popular vote and Republicans won unified control in Washington—which isn’t insignificant, obviously. But we’re talking about a small fraction of votes in a handful of states that, if they go the other way, the country is on an entirely different trajectory. It’s striking to think about that as someone on the outside. But on a personal level, I wonder what that’s like for you, as someone whose name was actually on the ticket.
Tim Walz: I certainly wanted Kamala Harris! We would not have had this chaos. We would have had a serious leader. She’d have been surrounded by serious people—not these unserious clowns who sit around Donald Trump. And I think Americans would have seen a trajectory, especially on the economy and our global relationships, continue on. But a lot of people say that, like, there would have been this radically different world—I don’t think Donald Trump would have quit. I think January 6 would have been very small compared to what he would have done. He’s that dangerous. And so, you know, it’s all speculation, but I think, for me, I respect how dangerous he is. I respect when he says he’s going to do something, no matter how unhinged it is, he’s going to attempt to do it.
I think the foundational values of America would have been much more in place. I think that’s what these town halls are about. I think people are coming looking for a different way of doing things. I don’t think anybody should pretend it’s going to go back to the way it was before so quickly. It’s going to take work.
You mention the town halls. At the one in Lorain, Ohio, it seemed cathartic for those who were there. But talking to folks afterward, there was also this sense of powerlessness still—like, at least for the time being, we can sound all the alarms we want, but at the end of the day, there are limits to what can be done to check this guy’s whims. What do you say to that? And do you feel that to some extent as well?
What I try to tell people—even the power of a proactive approach, of going there, I talk about how you feel a sense of community. You’re surrounded by people. You’re not going crazy; other people think this way too. It gets you away from the negative.
I have to tell you, I’m blessed here in Minnesota with [state attorney general] Keith Ellison. The attorneys general in states are doing a hell of a job, and the federal bench at this point in time is still holding. How long that happens, I don’t know. What does the Supreme Court do when those federal cases reach them? I also don’t know. But I do think that this is not performative protest. What I thought was different, and I don’t know how you took it—I’ve done town halls and everything, and what I found so interesting about these, and I think Democrats would be wise to listen to this…people are telling their stories. They’re sharing and trusting others with their stories, and they’re telling stories about how this impacts them. To be candid with you, I’m not sure Democrats have done a good enough job of that. We talk about the need to protect the Department of Education. I don’t think we always get to the why. At my town hall down with Beto O’Rourke in Texas, a young man named Aiden, a middle schooler—he understands that if the Department of Education goes away, him and his friends who might have Individualized Education Programs are put at risk. And I think that’s what the town halls have done differently. I think this willingness of people to tell what government means to them is stronger than I’ve seen it.
Well, speaking of the effects the Trump administration is having on everyday Americans, Trump just released his budget plan today, and, as expected, it includes massive cuts to nondefense spending, diversity initiatives, and clean-energy initiatives, among others—upwards of $160 billion in total, all of which will be meant to offset his planned tax cuts. It’s hard to be surprised by this; this is essentially the wish list he ran on. But what do you make of the proposal, and what do you think it would mean for everyday Americans?
I’m just digesting like everybody else. But I think what is significant about this coming out is not just that it is horrific and not that it favors the wealthy and not that it is cruel—it’s that it is now on paper. And members of Congress who are avoiding these town halls are now going to have to vote for it. You already see a couple of them cracking. That was the purpose of the town halls—to put the pressure on them that we are watching you. We are watching you if you are going to make these cuts, if you’re going to make cuts to Social Security, if you’re going to make the cuts to veterans’ benefits, education—things that poll very highly amongst Republicans and Democrats. Now you’re on the clock. It was theoretical. It was Mr. Lie During the Campaign—I’ll reduce prices; I’ll end the war in Ukraine; I’ll do this, I’ll do that. Well, none of it was true. He can get away with trying to make those lies. But now he put it on paper.
What I would say is this is a rallying point. I think a lot of the town halls and a lot of the rallies were pretext. Now it’s real. This is the fight to this CR vote. If we get this thing to fail, or significant backing off of these, not only does it protect the American public—it puts Donald Trump at huge risk, and it puts those members of Congress at huge risk.
And he has, amid some of this pressure, backed off certain things. I’m thinking about tariffs here. He has backed off some tariffs or amended them. He “modified” his auto tariffs in an executive order this week, for example, amid a lot of warnings from industry leaders about the effect they would have. And I guess you could look at that as some relief, that perhaps he can be moved, but to me it also adds to this other concern: that he’s basically holding the economy hostage and using the promise of relief to force the private sector to kiss the ring.
I agree with you 100%. If he’s making any changes, it has nothing to do with the pain it’s causing the American public. It has nothing to do with whether experts agree with it or not. It has everything to do with Donald Trump’s personal poll ratings, which are tanking. So as long as they continue to tank, he may modify himself. And look, I’m grateful if it’s providing a little relief to Americans. But this flip-flopping, putting a tariff on and off—the damage is already done. People are looking for trading partners they can depend on. The stress is already showing up. The tariffs are already hitting. You know, he goes and pressures Jeff Bezos—well, Americans are not stupid. When the Xbox they’re planning to buy their kids over Christmas has gone up from $300 to $380, which it did today, they’re going to know it’s totally Trump. So the only way Trump will change is if he thinks it’s a personal threat to him.
Look, we’re going to win the governor’s race this fall in New Jersey and Virginia. You’re going to start to see—any special elections, they’re going to start losing members of Congress who are in districts that Kamala Harris won, and Republicans are going to start jumping ship, and Trump’s going to have a problem. What I worry about is, just like a cornered rat, he’s going to start lashing out again. That’s why I would expect you to see him double down on his horrific policies around immigration and no due process. He will scapegoat the LGBT community. He will go after political rivals. We need to be buckled up and ready to go. They’re showing that. This resistance feels different to me.
In what way?
I just think it’s more focused and it’s less dependent on an election or a candidate. It’s more focused on, You’re not going to do this to America. You’re not going to do this to my neighborhood.
One thing that feels different to me compared with the first term is that some of it feels more antagonistic to Democrats as well. It seems like there’s broader frustration—not only with Trump for doing all this, but toward Democrats for not putting forward enough of a competing vision. It feels more wide-ranging.
I think that’s fair too, and I think you should have to respond to people. I’ve been saying this. People are frustrated that when we get power, we haven’t moved the ball far enough. They were happy with the [Affordable Care Act] 15 years ago, but they’re still battling with their insurance company and getting denials and things. We are seeing jobs go overseas. Trump assesses their pain, even though he caused most of it and is not going to fix it. He assessed their pain. And Democrats—I heard it especially in Ohio that, you know, You guys said you were going to help and you didn’t. So I think what it’s doing is refocusing. I know people say, We don’t need a circular firing squad. We don’t need to fight internally. I think we do need to reclarify who we are. If our brand is damaged, we need to make sure, without a doubt, the working class knows we’re with them. So I’m glad for people to challenge us. I’m glad for them to challenge me if I’m not moving in a direction that helps them. I think that makes us stronger.
Especially with Democrats in the minority right now in Washington, and Republicans not doing a ton to curb Trump at the moment, state leaders like yourself have taken on even more importance. Democratic governors have made a lot of moves to shield their states from Trump. But there does seem to be some divergence in approach. I’m based in Chicago—JB Pritzker, in my state, has taken a very aggressive approach; Gretchen Whitmer, in Michigan, has established this “working relationship” with Trump on certain things, even as she warns that he has brought the United States into a constitutional crisis. How do you think about your approach? And more broadly, how do you think Democrats should be coming at this political moment?
First and foremost, Democratic governors have a responsibility to protect their people in their state. Each state’s a little different. Each state’s circumstances are a little different, in how they approach them. And I found that out during COVID. I had a good working relationship with Vice President Mike Pence, who I had served with in the House, and he was very helpful—I don’t know if that story ever got told. But you find your way to make a difference. JB is out hammering on this; you’ve got Maura Healey; you’ve got Andy Beshear doing his thing by showing that there’s a way to bring people together. For me, it’s a little bit different, having been the vice president’s running mate this last time. It brings a little more attention, so I have a platform, and I’m going out and using that platform to challenge these folks. But I think it goes back to, how can we best make sure that the damage he’s doing is mitigated? And I trust my Democratic governor colleagues are trying to use their skills and their unique position to the best of their ability. I keep saying this, Eric, and I think this is true: Democratic governors, senators, Senator [Cory] Booker, others that are out there, House members, Bernie Sanders, [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]—I think all of us need to fill a lane that’s best for us. I don’t think one voice can counter where Trump is at. He sucks up too much oxygen. So I’m actually quite comfortable with each of these folks finding what they can do. And I can tell you, again, going back to the governors—their styles may look differently, but it’s all focused on protecting their states.
This week marked 100 days of this presidency. It’s stunning to think of all the destruction he’s wrought in that time. It’s stunning, too, to think there’s over 1,300 days more. Looking ahead at that…
Look, he’ll be a lame duck after the midterms, and that’ll significantly change things. I see it as an opportunity. He has massively changed and rearranged us as a nation. He’s destroyed our relationships, our credibility. He’s put us into the camp with the autocrats—North Korea, Russia—and he did it in 100 days. So my thinking is, Why the hell should we wait a generation to fix health care? Why should I wait a generation to pull people out of poverty? I’m of the sense now that Trump has shown us that, in 100 days, we can significantly change this country—we’ll simply do it for the good of the people.
This guy will be gone at one point in time. You’re right—1,300 days. I do think he’ll be dangerous during that time. But I think we should see it as an opportunity when we get back in power: God help us if we don’t move fast to improve people’s lives. That’s how I’m looking at it.
An opportunity, as well as an endurance test right now.
It is. We’ll stick together. I’m in for the fight, and I can tell Americans are.
More Great Stories From Vanity Fair
-
How Miriam Adelson Went From Big MAGA Winner to Casino Loser in Trump’s First 100 Days
-
Trump’s Lies Are Finally Catching Up to Him
-
The UK Has Found Another Reason to Be Mad at Meghan Markle
-
“It’s About Him”: How Trump Is Perverting the Presidential Photo Stream
-
The Ballad of Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson
-
The Truth Underlying Pete Hegseth’s Job Security
-
Why Are Americans So Obsessed With Protein? Blame MAGA.
-
How Sebastian Stan Became Hollywood’s Most Daring Shape-Shifter
-
Every Quentin Tarantino Movie, Ranked
-
Meet Elon Musk’s 14 Children and Their Mothers (Whom We Know of)
-
From the Archive: Sinatra and the Mob
The post Tim Walz Thinks Democrats Didn’t Do “a Good Enough Job” of Listening to Voters—but He’s Not Despairing appeared first on Vanity Fair.
