Comedian and podcast host Andrew Schulz accused Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign of “blatantly” lying about his efforts to secure an interview with her for his “Flagrant” podcast.
In an interview on the New York Times’ The Interview podcast released Saturday, Schulz detailed his attempts to engage Democratic figures, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Harris, during the 2024 election cycle. He claimed the Harris campaign falsely stated that no outreach occurred, despite multiple efforts by his team and intermediaries.
“It’s wild to blatantly lie when not only did I reach out — Charlamagne, who’s working with them, reached out,” Schulz said. “Mark Cuban, who’s a surrogate, reached out, and we reached out, and they blatantly lie.”
He expressed frustration that media reports quoting the campaign’s denial could portray him as dishonest, adding, “I think it’s an indictment on me, because it’s almost like calling me a liar.” Fox News Digital reached out to Harris, Charlamagne, and Cuban for comment but has not received a response.
Democratic Rejections and Alleged Bias
Schulz alleged that Democrats dismissed his team as “podcast bros” who were “s*xist, bigoted and racist,” rejecting invitations to appear on Flagrant during the campaign. According to a report from The Hill, Schulz suggested that the Democratic Party underestimated the influence of podcasts, believing traditional media was sufficient to reach voters.
He noted that post-election, progressive figures like Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have appeared on his podcast, indicating a shift in strategy after Harris’s loss to President Donald Trump.
A source familiar with the Harris campaign, cited by Politico, explained that the campaign prioritized established media outlets due to time constraints and strategic focus, but did not confirm or deny Schulz’s specific outreach claims.
The source noted that Harris’s team faced intense pressure to maximize voter outreach in a compressed campaign timeline following President Biden’s withdrawal in July 2024. This context may explain the campaign’s selective engagement with media platforms, though it does not address Schulz’s accusation of misrepresentation.
Political Context and Schulz’s Trump Interview
During the campaign, Schulz interviewed President Trump on Flagrant in October 2024, an appearance that he said shifted his perspective on Trump’s electoral prospects. “I felt Trump went from having ‘no chance’ of winning the presidency again to ‘winning by a landslide,’” Schulz said on The Interview.
Identifying as a lifelong Democrat, Schulz revealed he voted for Trump, citing dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party’s direction.
“[M]y vote was more like I voted against a Democratic institution that I feel was stripping the democratic process from its constituents,” he said, criticizing Harris for signaling continuity with unpopular policies.
The Trump interview, which garnered significant attention, was part of a trend of candidates engaging with non-traditional media.
According to Axios, Trump’s campaign embraced podcasts to reach younger and less politically engaged audiences, a strategy that contrasted with Harris’s more conventional approach.
Schulz’s accusation highlights a missed opportunity for Democrats to connect with voters through platforms like Flagrant, which has a large, diverse audience.
Data from Edison Research indicates that 47% of U.S. adults listened to podcasts monthly in 2024, highlighting their growing influence in shaping public discourse.
Implications for Political Engagement
The dispute reflects tensions between political campaigns and emerging media platforms, as well as the challenges of navigating a fragmented media landscape.
Schulz’s claims, amplified by his platform and echoed in outlets like The Hill and Politico, raise questions about transparency in campaign communications and the strategic value of non-traditional media.
