In response to sweeping policy changes at the federal level, Seattle City Council has established a Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes to track and respond to threats to federal funding, executive orders, and civil rights rollbacks affecting the city. The committee, chaired by Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, aims to address the local fallout from the Trump administration's second term.
In this episode of "Hacks & Wonks" hosted by Crystal Fincher, Councilmember Rinck and journalist Amy Sundberg, who covers public safety and local policy for The Urbanist, discuss the committee's purpose and the challenges Seattle faces.
As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii. Find Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck on Bluesky at @alexis4seattle and Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:13):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I’m your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work, with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what’s happening, why it’s
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're digging into how Seattleis preparing for the local fallout
(00:37):
from sweeping policy changes andfunding threats at the federal level.
Just weeks after the start of the Trumpadministration's second term, Seattle City
Council and Councilmember Alexis MercedesRinck created the new Select Committee
to track and respond to shifts in federalfunding, executive orders, and civil
(00:58):
rights rollbacks that could deeply affectcity services and vulnerable communities.
Joining us today are two people witha very close eye on what's happening:
Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, whochairs the new committee, and journalist
Amy Sundberg, who covers public safetyand local policy for The Urbanist and
(01:18):
publishes the newsletter 'Notes from theEmerald City,' and is also a noted author.
Welcome to you both.
It's great to be here.
Thanks for having us forthis important conversation.
Absolutely.
Well, I want to overall explore what'salready changing on the ground in Seattle
and what City Hall can or can't do.
But just starting off - CouncilmemberRinck, you introduced the Select
(01:41):
Committee on Federal Administrationand Policy Changes just weeks
into the new presidential term.
What made it clear to you that Seattleneeded a special committee like this now?
While I was campaigning last year,it dawned on me - over the summer
- that there was a potential outcomethat I could win my election and
Donald Trump could win his election.
(02:03):
And that's when I spent some time withProject 2025 and read major chapters
throughout it, namely the Housing andHuman Services chapter, chapter on HUD
[Housing and Urban Development] , energypolicy - and started realizing quickly
the ramifications that it would have forWashington state and Seattle specifically,
assuming that Project 2025 was the plan.
And that seems to be the casefrom what we've seen so far.
(02:25):
And who knows what could happen bythe time this episode airs, candidly,
compared to what we'll be sharing today.
But I came into office and actually acouple days into my term - in November
- convened our first meeting of someinternal partners working in the space
of immigration and refugee resettlement,along with our county partners, because
(02:47):
I knew that immigrant communities wouldbe hit immediately by the administration.
And so started those discussionswith community leaders and
started developing plans.
This was before Trump took office,but it was just trying to gear
up and prepare for this work.
And just a couple weeks into the term, itbecame very clear that my colleagues were
getting information from community leaders- there was information flying all around
(03:08):
- and realizing we need a space as a fullCouncil body where we are all getting
the same information at the same timeand making it accessible to the public.
And luckily, we have the amazing SeattleChannel, which offers that opportunity
to really record those council meetings.
And then that serving as a tool to getinformation out to the public as well.
And so that's a bit about whatwas the core concept behind that.
(03:29):
And that vehicle, as a committee,will serve not just to receive
information, but serve as a spacefor me and my colleagues to discuss
- what are we going to do about this?
What are the actions thatthe City needs to take up?
And how are we going to make plans tobackfill for losses in federal funding
that will show up across the city?
And those losses are already showing up.
Absolutely.
Now, Amy - from your reporting, what'sthe broader context behind this?
(03:51):
Have we seen city governments orother governments respond to federal
policy shifts in this way before?
I don't know exactly this way.
I do feel that this is anunprecedented time in some ways.
But we've certainly seen Seattle CityCouncil pass resolutions and policy
in the past that are respondingto the national climate - so in
(04:15):
that way, there is precedent.
And during Trump's first term, forexample, there was something about
reproductive healthcare that was passedjust to make sure that it was very clear
to the public, to Seattleites, that thatis a value that we hold dear here - is
that access to reproductive healthcare.
(04:36):
Absolutely.
Now, Councilmember Rinck, your committeelooks at both direct federal funding
to the City and federal dollars flowinginto other institutions in Seattle, like
hospitals, universities, nonprofits.
Can you break down whythat distinction matters?
Absolutely.
We're tracking right now at thecity level all of the different
(04:56):
direct grants that the City receivesfrom the federal government.
The City has joined, alongside a numberof cities in a sanctuary city lawsuit.
And to date, as far as I know, we havenot lost any direct federal funding.
But that's easier for us to track becauseit's coming in and shows up in our budget.
What's harder for us to track andwhy we're using this committee
space to bring in so many communitypartners and other entities.
(05:17):
It's because we're already seeing theimpacts of loss of federal funding for
community-based provider organizations.
When we're looking at grants such as NEH[National Endowment for the Humanities]
grants or funding coming through HUD,these losses are already showing up.
And so part of that distinction is tojust keep things clear and understand what
is within the City's direct purview andwhat shows up in our budget is easier to
track and different from the ways in whichfederal funding shows up in our city.
(05:41):
And that's something that we're tryingto unearth - that's a task that we
haven't had to take up because I thinkwe always assumed that federal funding
would be a more stable source andwould continue to serve our neighbors.
But now we're trying to play a quickcatch up to figure out all the ways
in which federal funding is showingup, whether it be in meal programs,
getting diapers for low-income families,whether it be in the arts space.
(06:04):
The other committee that I chairis City Light, Sustainability
and Arts and Culture.
Each of those sectors has been deeplyaffected when we're talking about
our sustainability work, our energypolicy, and the arts and culture space.
I would speak to actually an event Iwas just at last night with the Seattle
Asian Art Museum - the launch of anew exhibit - which I would say it's
important to keep joy at this time.
(06:26):
And so certainly go seesome art if you can.
But this amazing exhibit that reallyfeatured an artist who is exploring
the intersections of her identity as anIndian woman and a family history tied
to Guyana - just really important art.
But, the director of SAM was therespeaking and speaking out about the ways
in which his start in the arts career wasmade possible through a federal grant.
(06:49):
And how important it is tobe using our voices at this
time in celebrating the arts.
That was a little bit of a sidetangent, but again, like things that
we just haven't thought about orspoken about directly, or connect
the dots on - federal funding impactsso many of us in different ways.
And the other piece of this is the waysin which we see programs like Medicaid
(07:10):
- and particularly Medicaid reimbursement- which I imagine we'll go into a bit more
when we talk about our recent meetingthat we had at the Select Committee.
That is a major fund source thatsupports a lot of people within our city.
And just unpacking the impacts of whatwould happen if we lost that is huge.
Absolutely - we will get more into that.
Amy, you've been tracking theimpacts of federal disinvestment
(07:32):
and rhetoric in your reporting.
What kinds of local disruptions- financial, civil rights, or anything
- have you seen already take root?
There's a lot, so bear with me.
And I have been trying to track some onthe county level and on the state level
as well, so it gives you a differentpicture when you zoom out a little bit.
(07:56):
But in terms of civil rightsimpacts, we're seeing a lot of
especial impacts, I'd say, on theimmigrant and refugee communities.
I'd say that's top of my mind andjust - there are a lot more raids, the
population at ICE's detention center inTacoma has grown much larger over the
(08:17):
course of the last couple of months.
We're seeing people being arrested.
There have been reports of ICEgoing to restaurants in Seattle.
There have been reports of ICE arrestingworkers who are part of burgeoning
labor movements or labor activists.
So, while I think probablyICE would disagree with this
(08:37):
characterization, it seems likeit could be targeted in that way.
That's certainly how it comesacross to the public, in any case.
And that has the effect ofchilling labor organizing, right?
As well, immigrants are afraid to askfor their labor rights, so they're
more likely to be exploited in allkinds of ways by their employers,
which is really unfortunate.
(08:58):
As well, we're seeing a lot of fearin the LGBTQ+ community, especially,
I would say, transgender community.
One of the noteworthy things thathappened there was with Seattle Children's
Hospital - at the last minute cancelingsome gender-affirming care surgeries,
which is obviously very traumaticfor the patients and their families.
(09:22):
So far, I don't think we'veseen any real quelling of
protests that I've heard about.
But that's something that I think we haveto watch out for in the future, especially
depending on what happens later in thismonth in terms of whether President
Trump decides to enact the InsurrectionAct, which I think could escalate a
(09:42):
lot of what I was just talking about.
And then in terms of funding, therehave already been funding impacts.
I'll just give a couple examples.
But I just read yesterday that thereis a State Library of Washington
State - it's just had some funding cut.
It supports, in particular,very small, rural libraries.
(10:05):
So that's not going to impact Seattle asmuch, but it is going to impact people's
access to even having the ability togo to the library in their community,
which is actually a pretty big deal.
As well, in King County, we've hadsome funding cut for various public
health services, and the Communityand Human Services Department
(10:26):
has also experienced some cuts.
I would say, on the whole, publichealth is in particular just being
decimated across the country.
So while we are very lucky here inthat King County Public Health is
known to be one of the best publichealth departments in the country,
it's already getting losses andI expect those to grow over time.
In Seattle, we haven't seen thatmany direct cuts, but there have
(10:50):
been a few public works projectsin Seattle that have been affected.
There is a Native American CarvingHouse project, which is going to be
building a Northwest Native Canoe Center.
And they've been having trouble gettingsome of their federal funding, so
it's causing hitches in the process.
(11:10):
Hopefully they've gotten it by now, but asof a month ago, they were having trouble.
The Seattle Center Monorail stationreconfiguration is supposed to
be scheduled around the World Cupnext year, and they've been having
trouble getting some of their funds.
So it's kind of messy andunpredictable in terms of where
and when the cuts are happening.
And I think also the future lookslike it could be a lot worse because
(11:35):
there's going to be new contracts,new grants, a new federal budget,
and a lot of cuts potentially comingdown to impact the local landscape.
Following up on that, Amy - do youthink the public, or for that matter,
most policymakers here in our regionfully understand the scale and scope of
(11:58):
Seattle's dependency on federal funds?
What surprised you most,as you've considered that?
I would say some elected officialsseem to really get it and others not so
much - so I would say that really varies.
But occasionally, I've been pleasantlysurprised, so there is hope in that arena.
(12:21):
But what surprised me most - Iguess I wasn't really trying to
predict what was going to happen.
I was just bracing myself and thensaying - I'm just going to wait and see.
I didn't expect quite such a brutalattack on a lot of the federal level
institutions that - a lot of them thengive grants to the local level, so
(12:44):
that is going to have the trickle down.
And also, the electricity thing - Ireally didn't see that coming at all.
When you say "the electricitything," what are you referring to?
Yeah, it's Bonneville Power - it is apower station that provides a third of
the Pacific Northwest electricity energy.
(13:04):
And they've had about 14% of theworkforce laid off, I believe.
So there is concern that there willnot be enough of a workforce to
keep everything running smoothly.
And if you're talking about athird of the region's power,
the failure mode of that is bad.
So we're thinking about - are theregoing to be rolling blackouts?
(13:25):
What is going to happen with that?
And then, of course, I immediatelythink about people who are going to
have extra issues because of that.
What if you're disabled and you havea machine that depends on electricity
to keep you functional, and suddenlythe electricity isn't reliable anymore?
So obviously, rolling blackoutswill be hard for all of us and
(13:48):
can affect everything from howpeople can get food, does it
spoil - how are those patterns going?
To are you able to get your work done?
But then I also really worry aboutpeople who will be especially impacted.
Absolutely.
Now, Councilmember Rinck, I wanted totalk to you about some feedback sometimes
(14:08):
we hear from different people in thecommunity who - some people look at this
and they hear numbers like we just heardabout the Bonneville Power Administration.
And hey - 14% of this workforceis being cut, or 10%, or 18%.
And they hear those numbers andthey think - That's a relatively
small number, and you know what?
There probably is a lotof waste, fraud and abuse.
(14:30):
They're just streamliningand working on things.
And that means that there are fewerpeople being paid by taxpayers - that
sounds like a good thing to many people.
Is that a good thing to you?
And how do you respond to that?
Yeah, let's talk about Bonnevilleas an example in particular.
And I've learned a lot aboutBonneville also - because as
(14:53):
Chair of City Light, City Lightpurchases power from Bonneville.
And City Light, as a committee,is usually considered the rookie
committee because it's usuallystable - it's a utility, right?
Nothing spicy should be going on.
Lo and behold - it is aspicy time for energy policy.
BPA is the Pacific Northwest'slargest grid operator.
Seattle cannot have afunctioning utility without it.
(15:14):
And we have the benefit of having - asCity Light, we have our own hydroelectric
dams, a lot of own generation, butwe still buy power from Bonneville.
And what's important to note about theloss of some of these positions within
Bonneville, these cuts - there were 120firings, but they were later reversed.
But they also offered retirementpackages for a ton of really
qualified longtime employees.
(15:34):
So still trying to sort out the staffinglevels and where things land there.
But Bonneville does notreceive federal funding.
It is self-funding - they sell energy.
So the cuts of these positions,in particular, does not
save the government money.
Because it is a business in itself- it's part of the energy economy.
And so this is where the logic of DOGE andgovernment efficiency really falls flat,
(15:59):
because you're firing positions that werenot getting government subsidy at all.
In fact, because Bonneville asan institution - it generates
its own funding, because it'sa part of the energy market.
And that's one example of justthe illogical nature of DOGE
and some of these actions.
The other piece of this, and I thinkwe're all learning quickly, the ways in
(16:20):
which federal agencies show up in ourday-to-day lives - there's the realities
of some of these cuts in staff positionsin agencies that do much more direct
services for folks directly in need.
And so at our last Select Committeeon Federal Administration and Policy
Changes, we had a focus session onhousing and homelessness policy.
(16:40):
But I think it's also important touplift some of the recent cuts that
we've seen here locally, like with HeadStart - the Health and Human Services
Office closed the downtown Seattle officeslast week - 200 staff being terminated.
That office oversaw Head Start, afederally funded program to promote
school readiness for low-income families.
What does that mean for that generationof kiddos and their access to opportunity?
(17:03):
Those are just two examples where we maysee 200 staff and think - Well, that's
not a number in the thousands per se,but again, the impact of that and what
it will mean for low-income familiesand their kiddos not being ready for
school is really frightening and willhave ramifications for years to come.
Absolutely.
Now, at your committee's firstmeetings, we heard about the
(17:25):
risks to the LGBTQ+ community andimmigrant communities, and about
gender-affirming care being canceled.
What specific actions, if any,are you pushing for to address
these civil rights impacts?
Absolutely.
We had two fantastic panels - and reallybeefy panels - it was a long meeting
because there's a lot to discuss.
(17:46):
There's so much happening and I couldprobably bring all of those organizations
back to provide updates, and we'dprobably have an even longer meeting.
So our first panel was focused onimmigration and labor rights issues.
We heard directly from the NorthwestImmigrant Rights Project, Washington
Immigrant Solidarity Network.
We had MLK Labor Council at the table,GSBA, alongside the Fair Work Center
(18:06):
and One America - talking about themost pressing concerns related to
mass deportations, the chilling effectaround accessing critical services, the
need for know-your-rights trainings,as well as just the steep number of
legal cases that folks are seeing.
And just overall, we also exploredthe increased fear of exploitation
(18:27):
from employers for utilizingimmigration status against employees.
In our following meeting - I'mworking on introducing a Welcoming
City Resolution to address some ofthe critical needs that were uplifted
from that first panel discussion.
And within that resolution, there'smaintaining commitment to a lot of
bodies of work that are currentlyhappening with the City, and we want
(18:48):
to make sure are actually continued.
It's a good moment to say that theCity does do a lot of good things when
it relates to some of our departmentsin terms of intentional outreach to
immigrant refugee partners, languageaccess - things happening within the
Office of Labor Standards, Office ofEconomic Development, as well as our
Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.
We want that to continue, andthere's going to need to be
(19:09):
funding to continue that work.
So the resolution includes thiscommitment to continuing that work and
maintaining it, especially as we headinto a challenging budget environment
where we're going to be making somereally hard decisions this year.
But maintaining those commitments,keeping the coordination with states'
Keep Washington Working policy - wehave some directives in there around the
City Attorney's Office exploring legalavenues to be able to do this work.
(19:33):
And we include language in here thatactually puts some investment and
puts forward a stated commitmentto $150,000 to $300,000 directly to
community-based organizations that wouldcontinue to provide legal defense work.
And the focus on legal defense workis really derived from some of the
(19:55):
immediate impacts that we've beenseeing from some of our organizations.
Kids In Need of Defense, also known asKIND, and Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project - these are two organizations- they provide legal representation to
over 200 unaccompanied minors in Seattlewho are going through legal proceedings.
So, as you can imagine, having alawyer accompany a six-year-old who's
(20:16):
needing to defend themselves in frontof a judge and in front of an ICE
attorney is a really important service.
But because of the loss in theirfederal funding, KIND is winding
down - and that's just heartbreaking.
What they've been able tostate, though, is that $300,000
translates to about 60 cases.
(20:37):
Knowing that there's funding availableand having Council make that commitment
to putting forward some funding wouldallow some of these organizations to
plan what their caseloads could be.
This could be the difference between60 kiddos who are not deported into
countries they may not know or havefamily connections to, and so on.
And so - this is language that is withinthe draft version of the resolution,
(20:59):
along a whole slate of things thatwe want the City to continue to do.
And additional work for theCity Attorney's Office to
create more legal protections.
And certainly, I am fullyaware - $300,000 is not enough.
We know this is not enough tofill the entire gap created
by a cruel administration.
And this is a small step we cantake to try and meet this moment
and create some amount of certaintyso these organizations can plan.
(21:21):
That's just one piece of what we'retrying to do in this moment to
address the needs of our immigrantand refugee community members.
Now, Amy - one point in an Urbanistpiece that you wrote is that
we're already seeing immigrantsdetained under worse conditions
and workers afraid to speak out.
What kind of ripple effect doesthis have on trust in government?
(21:46):
That is a good question - I thinkit lowers trust in government.
But I think if you zoom back and lookat the big picture - maybe part of
the landscape of why we're here inthe first place is because there's
been a lowering trust in government.
And actually, from what I understand,that is a worldwide phenomenon - that
there is less trust in governmentall over the world today than there
(22:09):
was, say, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
And obviously, we can speculate aboutwhy that might be - I think inequality,
income inequality in particular, iscertainly going to be high on that list.
But at this point, I was hearingstories of immigrants who were worried
they would be targeted - and sothey just don't leave their house.
They're afraid to go to the grocery store.
They're afraid to go to the food bank.
(22:30):
They're afraid to go andreceive any of the services
that they may be eligible for.
And frankly, given the currentclimate, I don't blame them.
I think it's very scary.
And I think they're correct not totrust the government at this point.
There is a distinction between the federalgovernment and the city government,
say, or the county or state government.
(22:52):
But I feel like that can be hard,especially in the heat of the moment, to
be able to make that distinction between- which entity am I talking to right now?
And the consequences of gettingthat wrong are so high that one
could see that you would just nottrust any government at that point.
Yeah, definitely.
I've, in other reporting, seenreports - lots of schools reporting
(23:17):
lower attendance, employers reportinglower attendance and people no-showing,
being afraid what's happening.
People missing medicalappointments - not getting the kind
of medical care that they need.
Being afraid to show up in court- just the regular things that we
rely on on a day-to-day basis.
Concerns that people experiencingviolence, experiencing crime - afraid
(23:42):
to report that and seek justicebecause they don't know if they're
going to be penalized are things thatwe've seen reported and certainly
are concerning to a lot of people.
Now, Councilmember Rinck - Seattlehas received, I believe, $157 million
in ongoing federal funds in 2023.
(24:03):
If even a fraction of that islost, what are the options?
Can the city backfill it?
Is there a stabilization fund?
What are the options, andwhat would the plan be?
I really appreciate that questionbecause it's front of mind for me.
And I know at the time of filmingthis, we are waiting for our
revenue forecast to come out.
And I imagine by the timethis episode comes out, we'll
(24:26):
know what that looks like.
I don't have a number of what that lookslike - I'll be finding out alongside
the public when that comes out.
But it's not lost on me that thatnumber is not going to be good.
So, the double challenge of lossesin federal funding on top of the City
having an existing budget challenge,the state having a budget challenge,
the county having a budget challenge.
(24:46):
We have to, for the sake of ourcity and how it runs as we know it,
need to pursue progressive revenue.
Taxing the rich is not just a slogan.
It is the most practical and realisticsolution to what is before us.
That's a pretty prescient - it's apoint that's top of many people's minds.
(25:10):
One, you just look at the electionresults - and certainly those look
pretty overwhelming and convincing,not just in City elections, but
even in the statewide referendumvote that we just had last year.
That a lot of people found shocking- was a real wake-up call - that
a lot of people felt that way.
But that seems to be underscored by a lotof hard data, including that Washington
(25:34):
state is 49th out of 50 states whenit comes to how regressive taxes are.
Or meaning the people who make the leastpay by percentage the most - they're
being the most impacted, they'reasking to bear the greatest burden.
The people at the very top ofthe income ladder are being
(25:55):
asked to carry the least burden.
And so lots of people are feeling - thisis not quite fair, and we don't have
everyone paying their fair share.
So at these times when we're discussingrevenue, it seems like it's hard to get
away from that kind of conversation.
Absolutely.
Working families - so our bottom 60% ofWashington state - pay up to 13.8% of
(26:17):
their income in state and local taxes.
The wealthiest top 1% pay just 4.1%.
That inequity is not sustainable,especially in times of fiscal constraint.
I know I'm committed to exploringevery legal avenue to ensure that the
wealthy are paying their fair share.
What I refuse to accept is balancing abudget on the backs of working families
(26:38):
and cutting our essential services,especially at this time, and especially as
we're seemingly headed into a recession.
Who knows what the stockmarket is doing in this moment?
Could be in a verydifferent place - again.
And I keep emphasizing the time betweenwhen we're filming and when this comes
out - because it is so volatile right now.
And we knew this was a part oftheir strategy - to flood the zone.
(27:01):
But it is hard to keep track, we'regoing to keep doing our best to
keep track - but this is a reallyunreliable, inconsistent time.
And so much is changing day by day.
And we're going to keep followingwhat's going on and trying to understand
the impacts for our residents.
My office is committed to protecting ourresidents, and that's going to mean a
serious move towards progressive revenue.
(27:25):
Now, King County's been open aboutits inability to backfill major
losses, especially in public healthand human services, or challenges
that they would experience with that.
What are you hearing about - whatthe City could realistically do
to protect essential programs?
In the case of a loss of revenue, whatspecific types of progressive revenue are
(27:48):
on the table that look like they couldrealistically make it through this council
and get the signature of the mayor?
That's a tough question.
I would say this council and mayor havenot been overly friendly to the idea of
adding new, progressive revenue options.
I also will just remind everyonethat the council had a chance to
(28:09):
pass a capital gains tax for the cityduring the last budget cycle last
November - and they failed to do so.
And if they had done so, we would bein a slightly better position - because
the other thing you have to rememberis that when you start adding new,
progressive revenue options, it takesa little while for them to roll out.
So it's not like you're like - Okay,we're doing a capital gains tax
(28:30):
and then you have money tomorrow.
That's just not how it works.
Usually there is a year,hopefully no more than a year.
So, in general, it ismuch better to plan ahead.
And the City of Seattle, in myopinion, has failed to do that.
They had a huge deficit that theywere filling last year, and yet they
still added over $100 million in newspending by just taking the JumpStart
(28:53):
Tax money that had been allocated tocertain very specific projects - like
affordable housing, Green New Deal,equitable development - and just moving
it all over into the General Fund.
There are several reasons why I thinkthat was not the best idea, but now
we're seeing one of those reasonsalready coming home to roost - because
JumpStart did not bring in as muchas they thought it would for 2024.
(29:17):
So there's now a new deficitthat's going to need to be bridged.
And there was a deficitalready projected for 2027.
So there's just deficitafter deficit after deficit.
And yet we're not able to even passa capital gains tax, which we feel
like probably would survive legalchallenges - like, what are we doing?
So, you know, obviously, I think thecapital gains tax - that's low hanging
(29:39):
fruit - that should be a no-brainer.
It doesn't bring in necessarilya huge amount of money.
But I think at this point - aswe heard, $300,000 is enough
to save at least 60 kids.
At this point, any amount matters.
So I think it's definitelyworth doing that.
The other one that I think iseasier to do quickly would be
to adjust the JumpStart Tax.
(30:01):
And there are various wonkyways that you can do that
- there's not just one set way.
And we've seen the council do that - theyraised it a very small amount to cover
student mental health investments.
So it is not unprecedented that thatwould be a thing that they could
do - they could increase it some more.
That being said, JumpStart is volatile.
That is why we now have anotherdeficit on top of a deficit.
(30:23):
That's why it was originallydesignated for things like affordable
housing - that is easier to kind ofmove your investments based on what's
happening with the funding source.
So while I think that wouldn't be abad thing to do, I do think that that
still would not necessarily provideall the stability that we would want
in the City budget going forward.
(30:46):
Yeah, I think there were a number ofpeople who were hoping that we would
more meaningfully address structuralforces behind the deficit and rely
less on one-time transfers that left alot of the structural problem in place
that we now have to deal with - ontop of the rest of the volatility.
(31:07):
But in some ways, it looks like- councilmembers, and perhaps the mayor,
may have noticed how widespread publicsentiment is in favor of progressive
taxation and may be reconsideringsome of their previous stances.
Have you seen any of that willingnessto have or review some of those
(31:31):
conversations, Councilmember Rinck?
And what do you see as the pathforward to getting to revenue?
Well, I'm happy to share that my firstcouncil meeting - when we were taking
up our state legislative agenda - Isuccessfully got an amendment on
there to include language essentiallypushing the State Legislature to
(31:54):
consider progressive revenue optionsfirst when it comes to addressing the
budget challenge, instead of regressiveoptions that have a disproportionate
burden on working families.
That is on our City's state legislativeagenda - that amendment did go through
- some indication from my colleagues,at least, to acknowledge on the state
level that pursuing progressive revenueis the step that we'd like to see.
(32:17):
And of course, when we approvedthat agenda - a lot has
happened, a lot has changed.
And with the revenue forecasts thatare coming in, with the cuts that we're
hearing about from community members.
And I really do think with what ourcommunity partners are presenting to us,
especially in the realm of housing - I'msincerely hopeful that my colleagues
are seeing the writing on the wallwhen we're talking about things like
(32:37):
when KCRHA shares with us that they'vereceived $23 million from HUD and that's
an impact of keeping 4,490 people housed.
Losing that money means thosepeople do not have housing - that
is a huge issue for already ourregion experiencing homelessness.
We also have HUD continu- COC [Continuumof Care] funding - $66 million for
(33:00):
Washington state could be lost.
When we have DESC, Downtown EmergencyServices Center, which is one of
our service providers who serve ourcommunity's most vulnerable - folks who
have behavioral health, physical healthchallenges, and experiencing homelessness.
They receive about $35 millionin federal funding, primarily
through Medicaid reimbursements.
What does it mean if Medicaidgoes away and we're unable to
(33:22):
fill that gap to serve folks?
These are programs that include outpatientbehavioral health, case management,
mental healthcare, substance usedisorder care, crisis stabilization,
mobile outreach, opioid treatment,foundational community supports.
So I bring these things up tosay - this is the value of really
being able to present these issuesand really demonstrate the impact.
(33:42):
And as we're doing work to evaluate whatoptions are on the table - and right now
truly we're looking at - we have to putevery option on the table when it comes
to seeking new revenue and continue thesediscussions because our fundamental role
on City Council is to serve the people.
And when we're talking about our communitythat is at risk of going hungry and going
unhoused more than already the challengeswe've had in being able to house and
(34:04):
feed our community, that's a huge issue.
And I sincerely hope that it is takenwith the level of seriousness that
the situation requires, because whatwe're facing is just - candidly - dire.
Now, you've been critical of recentCouncil moves like expanding surveillance
(34:24):
tools and approving less lethal weapons.
Councilmember Rinck, do you seecontradictions between those
decisions and the City's effortto protect vulnerable communities?
Yeah, certainly.
I'm particularly concerned aboutsurveillance as it stands, and my
team has been putting forward a lot ofquestions to City departments to really
(34:45):
examine our current contracts, the useof that technology, the vulnerabilities
in that technology - as well as itrelates to then, even potentially
state law with Keep Washington Working.
And some of the ways in which thatdata is stored through cloud-based
technologies being susceptible tonot being covered by state law.
With that being said, we're looking at- and think we need to have a discussion
(35:07):
about surveillance technology, andhow it has been deployed, and how it
could be potentially making peoplemore vulnerable during this time.
It's certainly something that we'rekeeping up and having conversation about
and something that I think we need tobring back this year - now we're in a
different context - we have to bringit back for a serious discussion.
Absolutely.
(35:27):
Now, Amy - Councilmember Rinck, wasn'tyet in office during a lot of those votes.
But do you think the City's recentpublic safety decisions undermine
its credibility on protecting civilliberties from federal overreach?
Yes.
The short answer is - yes, I do.
I watched both of those decisionsyou referenced in terms of the less
(35:49):
lethal weapons renewal legislation,and the new surveillance technology,
which was a few different bills.
I was covering them as they happened.
And the surveillance technology- that all happened last year.
And we knew that theelection was going to happen.
And certainly, at least I knew there wasa possibility that Donald Trump would win.
(36:09):
And while the context has changed, Ido feel like we knew this was possible.
It wasn't like this isa big, big shock, right?
So the fact that the Council was unwillingto take some of these safety and privacy
issues more seriously at that time wasfairly disturbing to watch, to be honest.
And one of the things that really standsout to me when I reflect back on it is
(36:33):
that they have a Surveillance WorkingGroup, whose job it is, is to review
any new surveillance technologies.
They tend to be technical experts.
And then they compile a report to assessthese new technologies and the impact
they might have, and whether or notthey would recommend these technologies
(36:53):
to be implemented in the city.
And the report that finally came outabout CCTV and the Real-Time Crime Center
specifically did not recommend that theCity utilize either of those technologies.
And one of the main reasonswas because there were a lot of
civil liberties concerns in termsof the privacy of that data.
(37:15):
So, like Councilmember Rincksaid - because Washington law
doesn't necessarily protect data ifit's held in another state, which
data center could be anywhere.
Or if the company is not incorporated inWashington, which the company Axon that
is contracted to do these technologies,is not a Washington-based company.
(37:36):
So there are holes in that data.
And what that can mean is that, forexample, ICE could get a hold of
that data so it could compromiseimmigrant and refugee safety.
It also means that potentially otherstates could get that data if, for
example, they were trying to track peoplethat live in their state who are coming
to Washington to get reproductive carethat perhaps is illegal in the originating
(38:00):
state, but obviously is not illegal here.
And it makes it, frankly, alot less safe for everyone.
I will say that the additional contextthat we have learned this year about
that surveillance is that we'reseeing the Trump administration being
very comfortable just ignoring laws.
So I would say, frankly, even if youhad this surveillance and the data
(38:26):
was more securely stored - so it wasstored in servers in Washington state,
that would definitely be better.
But I would say at this point in time,that is no guarantee that that data
is actually safe, because we're seeingthat these norms are being just thrown
out the window, that the rule of law nolonger has the weight that it once did.
And even if you can do a lawsuit aboutthese things, that might be too late.
(38:49):
Harm will already havebeen done at that point.
So the thing I think that people don'tconsider is that as soon as you start
adding more surveillance to an area,there's no real way to 100% guarantee the
security of that data anymore - at leastnot in our current political climate.
(39:10):
The other thing I'll say is that interms of the less lethal weapons - to
pass that at that point, it was prettyclear how things were going to go.
When we know that there might be moreprotests going forward, when we know
that the federal government is likelyto be trying to crack down on that - to
then allow as much leeway as theSeattle Police Department was allowed
(39:31):
by this new legislation seems dangerous.
As well, SPD's mutual aid partnersare given a huge amount of leeway in
the new bill, which seems dangerous.
And I really hope that we don't seethe consequences of these decisions
later this year or next year.
But frankly, it seems more likelythan not to me that we probably will.
(39:57):
And just to chime in on that point - I wasone of the three votes that voted against
the legislation, for a variety of reasons.
And I think it's important to notethat just before that vote, there was
a peaceful demonstration in District 1- Alki Beach - folks protesting the Trump
administration, ICE and family separationpolicies, community members exercising
(40:20):
their legal First Amendment rights.
And an SPD officer pointed the barrelof what looked like a pepperball gun
in the face of a young demonstrator.
All of our offices were emailedthat video just days before
we voted on this legislation.
That is where we were before passingthat policy - an SPD officer pointing
the gun in the face of a young personprotesting government that is trying
(40:44):
to destroy families and communities.
And I am disappointed by that.
But paired with that, I think aboutthe message that we've sent to our
community about passing this kind ofa policy, especially in the wake of
what is going to be a time where thereare going to be a lot of protests.
I know I've participated in therally that happened over the
(41:08):
weekend, the Hands Off rally.
I've certainly seen many protests- and we're going to continue to have
protests, just as we did duringthe first Trump administration.
And the message that I know many communitymembers heard from the passage of that
legislation is that - now that we have agovernment that's already taking away our
rights, our local police force is goingto be cracking down on our ability to
(41:30):
voice our discontent with that government.
And that was the headline that manycommunity members received or reached out
to my office about, and I think that'sdeeply saddening that that is the message
that people have taken away from this.
And it is deeply concerning, I would say,as a City leader, to not be holding SPD
to the absolute highest possible standard,especially during times like these.
(41:52):
Absolutely.
So what should residents expectnext from your committee?
More hearings, proposedlegislation, budget interventions?
What's next?
We have a lineup of sometopics for continued briefings.
As we've talked about, thereare so many different aspects
in which our lives are impacted.
(42:12):
So some of the upcoming briefingswill be focused on transportation.
And we know that the transportationsector and all the projects that
have been planned will be deeplyimpacted by losses in federal funding.
Paired with that, we have been indiscussion with talking about trade
and the impact of the trade war.
And we are deeply connected - we are aport city, we have the Port of Seattle.
And so talking about whatkind of ramifications that
(42:33):
will be for our local economy.
We've also been in discussion withthe Attorney General's Office and
are looking at partnerships andways to talk about some of the state
level litigation and do an explaineron what's happening on that front.
As well as some coordinationwith King County.
So trying to pepper in these briefings,so we're continuing to be appraised
of these different sectors andchallenges that may be coming up,
(42:55):
but also taking up some legislation.
Our first trial run will be with thisresolution related to seeing if we can
move towards maintaining our commitmentsto our immigrant refugee community.
And seeing if we can alsocommit to an initial increase
in investing in legal defense.
And we'll be working with officeson subsequent legislation.
The big thing here is, of course,what is our plan to backfill?
(43:18):
The losses in federal funding are coming.
And so starting these conversationsnow, where we are still ahead of budget
season - to really understand what isit that we're working with and what
are our options - that work begins now.
And it's going to be areally interesting time.
And we're going to need a lotof partnership to get through it
and a lot of candid conversation.
And intending for the committee tobe the space where we can have those
conversations and really just have agood spirit of - we got to work on this
(43:41):
together for the sake of our residents.
And Amy, what stories or signalswill you be watching in the months
ahead to track how Seattle isreally responding to instability or
changes from the federal government?
I will definitely be attendingCouncilmember Rinck's committee meetings.
(44:02):
As well, there is going tobe regular monthly updates
for the King County Council.
So that will give me the insideview from that standpoint.
But a lot of it is just going tobe tracking what happens at the
federal level and what that actuallymeans for the people that live here.
So when the library funding getscut, who does that actually impact?
(44:25):
If we're having rolling blackouts,who is really suffering from that?
Looking at protests, I feel like I haven'tseen a huge amount of news about protests.
But there's been research done thatshows that there actually has been a
huge uptick of protests in this periodof time in Trump's second administration,
(44:48):
compared to the same period oftime in his first administration.
So just getting the word out, right?
People are out there.
People are doing things.
People are moving.
And I feel like seeing what peoplecare about and are uplifting in
their own communities is somethingthat I'm going to be very interested
in following and trying to uplift.
(45:11):
Well, big thank you to CouncilmemberAlexis Mercedes Rinck and journalist
Amy Sundberg for joining us.
We'll keep watching what happensas Seattle responds to this new
federal landscape, and how localleaders are responding to their
communities and how they're impacted.
Thank you both so much.
Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks,which is produced by Shannon Cheng.
(45:34):
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on everypodcast service and app - just type
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed.
(45:57):
If you like us, leave areview wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next
time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I’m your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work, with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what’s happening, why it’s
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're digging into how Seattleis preparing for the local fallout
(00:37):
from sweeping policy changes andfunding threats at the federal level.
Just weeks after the start of the Trumpadministration's second term, Seattle City
Council and Councilmember Alexis MercedesRinck created the new Select Committee
to track and respond to shifts in federalfunding, executive orders, and civil
(00:58):
rights rollbacks that could deeply affectcity services and vulnerable communities.
Joining us today are two people witha very close eye on what's happening:
Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, whochairs the new committee, and journalist
Amy Sundberg, who covers public safetyand local policy for The Urbanist and
(01:18):
publishes the newsletter 'Notes from theEmerald City,' and is also a noted author.
Welcome to you both.
It's great to be here.
Thanks for having us forthis important conversation.
Absolutely.
Well, I want to overall explore what'salready changing on the ground in Seattle
and what City Hall can or can't do.
But just starting off - CouncilmemberRinck, you introduced the Select
(01:41):
Committee on Federal Administrationand Policy Changes just weeks
into the new presidential term.
What made it clear to you that Seattleneeded a special committee like this now?
While I was campaigning last year,it dawned on me - over the summer
- that there was a potential outcomethat I could win my election and
Donald Trump could win his election.
(02:03):
And that's when I spent some time withProject 2025 and read major chapters
throughout it, namely the Housing andHuman Services chapter, chapter on HUD
[Housing and Urban Development] , energypolicy - and started realizing quickly
the ramifications that it would have forWashington state and Seattle specifically,
assuming that Project 2025 was the plan.
And that seems to be the casefrom what we've seen so far.
(02:25):
And who knows what could happen bythe time this episode airs, candidly,
compared to what we'll be sharing today.
But I came into office and actually acouple days into my term - in November
- convened our first meeting of someinternal partners working in the space
of immigration and refugee resettlement,along with our county partners, because
(02:47):
I knew that immigrant communities wouldbe hit immediately by the administration.
And so started those discussionswith community leaders and
started developing plans.
This was before Trump took office,but it was just trying to gear
up and prepare for this work.
And just a couple weeks into the term, itbecame very clear that my colleagues were
getting information from community leaders- there was information flying all around
(03:08):
- and realizing we need a space as a fullCouncil body where we are all getting
the same information at the same timeand making it accessible to the public.
And luckily, we have the amazing SeattleChannel, which offers that opportunity
to really record those council meetings.
And then that serving as a tool to getinformation out to the public as well.
And so that's a bit about whatwas the core concept behind that.
(03:29):
And that vehicle, as a committee,will serve not just to receive
information, but serve as a spacefor me and my colleagues to discuss
- what are we going to do about this?
What are the actions thatthe City needs to take up?
And how are we going to make plans tobackfill for losses in federal funding
that will show up across the city?
And those losses are already showing up.
Absolutely.
Now, Amy - from your reporting, what'sthe broader context behind this?
(03:51):
Have we seen city governments orother governments respond to federal
policy shifts in this way before?
I don't know exactly this way.
I do feel that this is anunprecedented time in some ways.
But we've certainly seen Seattle CityCouncil pass resolutions and policy
in the past that are respondingto the national climate - so in
(04:15):
that way, there is precedent.
And during Trump's first term, forexample, there was something about
reproductive healthcare that was passedjust to make sure that it was very clear
to the public, to Seattleites, that thatis a value that we hold dear here - is
that access to reproductive healthcare.
(04:36):
Absolutely.
Now, Councilmember Rinck, your committeelooks at both direct federal funding
to the City and federal dollars flowinginto other institutions in Seattle, like
hospitals, universities, nonprofits.
Can you break down whythat distinction matters?
Absolutely.
We're tracking right now at thecity level all of the different
(04:56):
direct grants that the City receivesfrom the federal government.
The City has joined, alongside a numberof cities in a sanctuary city lawsuit.
And to date, as far as I know, we havenot lost any direct federal funding.
But that's easier for us to track becauseit's coming in and shows up in our budget.
What's harder for us to track andwhy we're using this committee
space to bring in so many communitypartners and other entities.
(05:17):
It's because we're already seeing theimpacts of loss of federal funding for
community-based provider organizations.
When we're looking at grants such as NEH[National Endowment for the Humanities]
grants or funding coming through HUD,these losses are already showing up.
And so part of that distinction is tojust keep things clear and understand what
is within the City's direct purview andwhat shows up in our budget is easier to
track and different from the ways in whichfederal funding shows up in our city.
(05:41):
And that's something that we're tryingto unearth - that's a task that we
haven't had to take up because I thinkwe always assumed that federal funding
would be a more stable source andwould continue to serve our neighbors.
But now we're trying to play a quickcatch up to figure out all the ways
in which federal funding is showingup, whether it be in meal programs,
getting diapers for low-income families,whether it be in the arts space.
(06:04):
The other committee that I chairis City Light, Sustainability
and Arts and Culture.
Each of those sectors has been deeplyaffected when we're talking about
our sustainability work, our energypolicy, and the arts and culture space.
I would speak to actually an event Iwas just at last night with the Seattle
Asian Art Museum - the launch of anew exhibit - which I would say it's
important to keep joy at this time.
(06:26):
And so certainly go seesome art if you can.
But this amazing exhibit that reallyfeatured an artist who is exploring
the intersections of her identity as anIndian woman and a family history tied
to Guyana - just really important art.
But, the director of SAM was therespeaking and speaking out about the ways
in which his start in the arts career wasmade possible through a federal grant.
(06:49):
And how important it is tobe using our voices at this
time in celebrating the arts.
That was a little bit of a sidetangent, but again, like things that
we just haven't thought about orspoken about directly, or connect
the dots on - federal funding impactsso many of us in different ways.
And the other piece of this is the waysin which we see programs like Medicaid
(07:10):
- and particularly Medicaid reimbursement- which I imagine we'll go into a bit more
when we talk about our recent meetingthat we had at the Select Committee.
That is a major fund source thatsupports a lot of people within our city.
And just unpacking the impacts of whatwould happen if we lost that is huge.
Absolutely - we will get more into that.
Amy, you've been tracking theimpacts of federal disinvestment
(07:32):
and rhetoric in your reporting.
What kinds of local disruptions- financial, civil rights, or anything
- have you seen already take root?
There's a lot, so bear with me.
And I have been trying to track some onthe county level and on the state level
as well, so it gives you a differentpicture when you zoom out a little bit.
(07:56):
But in terms of civil rightsimpacts, we're seeing a lot of
especial impacts, I'd say, on theimmigrant and refugee communities.
I'd say that's top of my mind andjust - there are a lot more raids, the
population at ICE's detention center inTacoma has grown much larger over the
(08:17):
course of the last couple of months.
We're seeing people being arrested.
There have been reports of ICEgoing to restaurants in Seattle.
There have been reports of ICE arrestingworkers who are part of burgeoning
labor movements or labor activists.
So, while I think probablyICE would disagree with this
(08:37):
characterization, it seems likeit could be targeted in that way.
That's certainly how it comesacross to the public, in any case.
And that has the effect ofchilling labor organizing, right?
As well, immigrants are afraid to askfor their labor rights, so they're
more likely to be exploited in allkinds of ways by their employers,
which is really unfortunate.
(08:58):
As well, we're seeing a lot of fearin the LGBTQ+ community, especially,
I would say, transgender community.
One of the noteworthy things thathappened there was with Seattle Children's
Hospital - at the last minute cancelingsome gender-affirming care surgeries,
which is obviously very traumaticfor the patients and their families.
(09:22):
So far, I don't think we'veseen any real quelling of
protests that I've heard about.
But that's something that I think we haveto watch out for in the future, especially
depending on what happens later in thismonth in terms of whether President
Trump decides to enact the InsurrectionAct, which I think could escalate a
(09:42):
lot of what I was just talking about.
And then in terms of funding, therehave already been funding impacts.
I'll just give a couple examples.
But I just read yesterday that thereis a State Library of Washington
State - it's just had some funding cut.
It supports, in particular,very small, rural libraries.
(10:05):
So that's not going to impact Seattle asmuch, but it is going to impact people's
access to even having the ability togo to the library in their community,
which is actually a pretty big deal.
As well, in King County, we've hadsome funding cut for various public
health services, and the Communityand Human Services Department
(10:26):
has also experienced some cuts.
I would say, on the whole, publichealth is in particular just being
decimated across the country.
So while we are very lucky here inthat King County Public Health is
known to be one of the best publichealth departments in the country,
it's already getting losses andI expect those to grow over time.
In Seattle, we haven't seen thatmany direct cuts, but there have
(10:50):
been a few public works projectsin Seattle that have been affected.
There is a Native American CarvingHouse project, which is going to be
building a Northwest Native Canoe Center.
And they've been having trouble gettingsome of their federal funding, so
it's causing hitches in the process.
(11:10):
Hopefully they've gotten it by now, but asof a month ago, they were having trouble.
The Seattle Center Monorail stationreconfiguration is supposed to
be scheduled around the World Cupnext year, and they've been having
trouble getting some of their funds.
So it's kind of messy andunpredictable in terms of where
and when the cuts are happening.
And I think also the future lookslike it could be a lot worse because
(11:35):
there's going to be new contracts,new grants, a new federal budget,
and a lot of cuts potentially comingdown to impact the local landscape.
Following up on that, Amy - do youthink the public, or for that matter,
most policymakers here in our regionfully understand the scale and scope of
(11:58):
Seattle's dependency on federal funds?
What surprised you most,as you've considered that?
I would say some elected officialsseem to really get it and others not so
much - so I would say that really varies.
But occasionally, I've been pleasantlysurprised, so there is hope in that arena.
(12:21):
But what surprised me most - Iguess I wasn't really trying to
predict what was going to happen.
I was just bracing myself and thensaying - I'm just going to wait and see.
I didn't expect quite such a brutalattack on a lot of the federal level
institutions that - a lot of them thengive grants to the local level, so
(12:44):
that is going to have the trickle down.
And also, the electricity thing - Ireally didn't see that coming at all.
When you say "the electricitything," what are you referring to?
Yeah, it's Bonneville Power - it is apower station that provides a third of
the Pacific Northwest electricity energy.
(13:04):
And they've had about 14% of theworkforce laid off, I believe.
So there is concern that there willnot be enough of a workforce to
keep everything running smoothly.
And if you're talking about athird of the region's power,
the failure mode of that is bad.
So we're thinking about - are theregoing to be rolling blackouts?
(13:25):
What is going to happen with that?
And then, of course, I immediatelythink about people who are going to
have extra issues because of that.
What if you're disabled and you havea machine that depends on electricity
to keep you functional, and suddenlythe electricity isn't reliable anymore?
So obviously, rolling blackoutswill be hard for all of us and
(13:48):
can affect everything from howpeople can get food, does it
spoil - how are those patterns going?
To are you able to get your work done?
But then I also really worry aboutpeople who will be especially impacted.
Absolutely.
Now, Councilmember Rinck, I wanted totalk to you about some feedback sometimes
(14:08):
we hear from different people in thecommunity who - some people look at this
and they hear numbers like we just heardabout the Bonneville Power Administration.
And hey - 14% of this workforceis being cut, or 10%, or 18%.
And they hear those numbers andthey think - That's a relatively
small number, and you know what?
There probably is a lotof waste, fraud and abuse.
(14:30):
They're just streamliningand working on things.
And that means that there are fewerpeople being paid by taxpayers - that
sounds like a good thing to many people.
Is that a good thing to you?
And how do you respond to that?
Yeah, let's talk about Bonnevilleas an example in particular.
And I've learned a lot aboutBonneville also - because as
(14:53):
Chair of City Light, City Lightpurchases power from Bonneville.
And City Light, as a committee,is usually considered the rookie
committee because it's usuallystable - it's a utility, right?
Nothing spicy should be going on.
Lo and behold - it is aspicy time for energy policy.
BPA is the Pacific Northwest'slargest grid operator.
Seattle cannot have afunctioning utility without it.
(15:14):
And we have the benefit of having - asCity Light, we have our own hydroelectric
dams, a lot of own generation, butwe still buy power from Bonneville.
And what's important to note about theloss of some of these positions within
Bonneville, these cuts - there were 120firings, but they were later reversed.
But they also offered retirementpackages for a ton of really
qualified longtime employees.
(15:34):
So still trying to sort out the staffinglevels and where things land there.
But Bonneville does notreceive federal funding.
It is self-funding - they sell energy.
So the cuts of these positions,in particular, does not
save the government money.
Because it is a business in itself- it's part of the energy economy.
And so this is where the logic of DOGE andgovernment efficiency really falls flat,
(15:59):
because you're firing positions that werenot getting government subsidy at all.
In fact, because Bonneville asan institution - it generates
its own funding, because it'sa part of the energy market.
And that's one example of justthe illogical nature of DOGE
and some of these actions.
The other piece of this, and I thinkwe're all learning quickly, the ways in
(16:20):
which federal agencies show up in ourday-to-day lives - there's the realities
of some of these cuts in staff positionsin agencies that do much more direct
services for folks directly in need.
And so at our last Select Committeeon Federal Administration and Policy
Changes, we had a focus session onhousing and homelessness policy.
(16:40):
But I think it's also important touplift some of the recent cuts that
we've seen here locally, like with HeadStart - the Health and Human Services
Office closed the downtown Seattle officeslast week - 200 staff being terminated.
That office oversaw Head Start, afederally funded program to promote
school readiness for low-income families.
What does that mean for that generationof kiddos and their access to opportunity?
(17:03):
Those are just two examples where we maysee 200 staff and think - Well, that's
not a number in the thousands per se,but again, the impact of that and what
it will mean for low-income familiesand their kiddos not being ready for
school is really frightening and willhave ramifications for years to come.
Absolutely.
Now, at your committee's firstmeetings, we heard about the
(17:25):
risks to the LGBTQ+ community andimmigrant communities, and about
gender-affirming care being canceled.
What specific actions, if any,are you pushing for to address
these civil rights impacts?
Absolutely.
We had two fantastic panels - and reallybeefy panels - it was a long meeting
because there's a lot to discuss.
(17:46):
There's so much happening and I couldprobably bring all of those organizations
back to provide updates, and we'dprobably have an even longer meeting.
So our first panel was focused onimmigration and labor rights issues.
We heard directly from the NorthwestImmigrant Rights Project, Washington
Immigrant Solidarity Network.
We had MLK Labor Council at the table,GSBA, alongside the Fair Work Center
(18:06):
and One America - talking about themost pressing concerns related to
mass deportations, the chilling effectaround accessing critical services, the
need for know-your-rights trainings,as well as just the steep number of
legal cases that folks are seeing.
And just overall, we also exploredthe increased fear of exploitation
(18:27):
from employers for utilizingimmigration status against employees.
In our following meeting - I'mworking on introducing a Welcoming
City Resolution to address some ofthe critical needs that were uplifted
from that first panel discussion.
And within that resolution, there'smaintaining commitment to a lot of
bodies of work that are currentlyhappening with the City, and we want
(18:48):
to make sure are actually continued.
It's a good moment to say that theCity does do a lot of good things when
it relates to some of our departmentsin terms of intentional outreach to
immigrant refugee partners, languageaccess - things happening within the
Office of Labor Standards, Office ofEconomic Development, as well as our
Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.
We want that to continue, andthere's going to need to be
(19:09):
funding to continue that work.
So the resolution includes thiscommitment to continuing that work and
maintaining it, especially as we headinto a challenging budget environment
where we're going to be making somereally hard decisions this year.
But maintaining those commitments,keeping the coordination with states'
Keep Washington Working policy - wehave some directives in there around the
City Attorney's Office exploring legalavenues to be able to do this work.
(19:33):
And we include language in here thatactually puts some investment and
puts forward a stated commitmentto $150,000 to $300,000 directly to
community-based organizations that wouldcontinue to provide legal defense work.
And the focus on legal defense workis really derived from some of the
(19:55):
immediate impacts that we've beenseeing from some of our organizations.
Kids In Need of Defense, also known asKIND, and Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project - these are two organizations- they provide legal representation to
over 200 unaccompanied minors in Seattlewho are going through legal proceedings.
So, as you can imagine, having alawyer accompany a six-year-old who's
(20:16):
needing to defend themselves in frontof a judge and in front of an ICE
attorney is a really important service.
But because of the loss in theirfederal funding, KIND is winding
down - and that's just heartbreaking.
What they've been able tostate, though, is that $300,000
translates to about 60 cases.
(20:37):
Knowing that there's funding availableand having Council make that commitment
to putting forward some funding wouldallow some of these organizations to
plan what their caseloads could be.
This could be the difference between60 kiddos who are not deported into
countries they may not know or havefamily connections to, and so on.
And so - this is language that is withinthe draft version of the resolution,
(20:59):
along a whole slate of things thatwe want the City to continue to do.
And additional work for theCity Attorney's Office to
create more legal protections.
And certainly, I am fullyaware - $300,000 is not enough.
We know this is not enough tofill the entire gap created
by a cruel administration.
And this is a small step we cantake to try and meet this moment
and create some amount of certaintyso these organizations can plan.
(21:21):
That's just one piece of what we'retrying to do in this moment to
address the needs of our immigrantand refugee community members.
Now, Amy - one point in an Urbanistpiece that you wrote is that
we're already seeing immigrantsdetained under worse conditions
and workers afraid to speak out.
What kind of ripple effect doesthis have on trust in government?
(21:46):
That is a good question - I thinkit lowers trust in government.
But I think if you zoom back and lookat the big picture - maybe part of
the landscape of why we're here inthe first place is because there's
been a lowering trust in government.
And actually, from what I understand,that is a worldwide phenomenon - that
there is less trust in governmentall over the world today than there
(22:09):
was, say, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
And obviously, we can speculate aboutwhy that might be - I think inequality,
income inequality in particular, iscertainly going to be high on that list.
But at this point, I was hearingstories of immigrants who were worried
they would be targeted - and sothey just don't leave their house.
They're afraid to go to the grocery store.
They're afraid to go to the food bank.
(22:30):
They're afraid to go andreceive any of the services
that they may be eligible for.
And frankly, given the currentclimate, I don't blame them.
I think it's very scary.
And I think they're correct not totrust the government at this point.
There is a distinction between the federalgovernment and the city government,
say, or the county or state government.
(22:52):
But I feel like that can be hard,especially in the heat of the moment, to
be able to make that distinction between- which entity am I talking to right now?
And the consequences of gettingthat wrong are so high that one
could see that you would just nottrust any government at that point.
Yeah, definitely.
I've, in other reporting, seenreports - lots of schools reporting
(23:17):
lower attendance, employers reportinglower attendance and people no-showing,
being afraid what's happening.
People missing medicalappointments - not getting the kind
of medical care that they need.
Being afraid to show up in court- just the regular things that we
rely on on a day-to-day basis.
Concerns that people experiencingviolence, experiencing crime - afraid
(23:42):
to report that and seek justicebecause they don't know if they're
going to be penalized are things thatwe've seen reported and certainly
are concerning to a lot of people.
Now, Councilmember Rinck - Seattlehas received, I believe, $157 million
in ongoing federal funds in 2023.
(24:03):
If even a fraction of that islost, what are the options?
Can the city backfill it?
Is there a stabilization fund?
What are the options, andwhat would the plan be?
I really appreciate that questionbecause it's front of mind for me.
And I know at the time of filmingthis, we are waiting for our
revenue forecast to come out.
And I imagine by the timethis episode comes out, we'll
(24:26):
know what that looks like.
I don't have a number of what that lookslike - I'll be finding out alongside
the public when that comes out.
But it's not lost on me that thatnumber is not going to be good.
So, the double challenge of lossesin federal funding on top of the City
having an existing budget challenge,the state having a budget challenge,
the county having a budget challenge.
(24:46):
We have to, for the sake of ourcity and how it runs as we know it,
need to pursue progressive revenue.
Taxing the rich is not just a slogan.
It is the most practical and realisticsolution to what is before us.
That's a pretty prescient - it's apoint that's top of many people's minds.
(25:10):
One, you just look at the electionresults - and certainly those look
pretty overwhelming and convincing,not just in City elections, but
even in the statewide referendumvote that we just had last year.
That a lot of people found shocking- was a real wake-up call - that
a lot of people felt that way.
But that seems to be underscored by a lotof hard data, including that Washington
(25:34):
state is 49th out of 50 states whenit comes to how regressive taxes are.
Or meaning the people who make the leastpay by percentage the most - they're
being the most impacted, they'reasking to bear the greatest burden.
The people at the very top ofthe income ladder are being
(25:55):
asked to carry the least burden.
And so lots of people are feeling - thisis not quite fair, and we don't have
everyone paying their fair share.
So at these times when we're discussingrevenue, it seems like it's hard to get
away from that kind of conversation.
Absolutely.
Working families - so our bottom 60% ofWashington state - pay up to 13.8% of
(26:17):
their income in state and local taxes.
The wealthiest top 1% pay just 4.1%.
That inequity is not sustainable,especially in times of fiscal constraint.
I know I'm committed to exploringevery legal avenue to ensure that the
wealthy are paying their fair share.
What I refuse to accept is balancing abudget on the backs of working families
(26:38):
and cutting our essential services,especially at this time, and especially as
we're seemingly headed into a recession.
Who knows what the stockmarket is doing in this moment?
Could be in a verydifferent place - again.
And I keep emphasizing the time betweenwhen we're filming and when this comes
out - because it is so volatile right now.
And we knew this was a part oftheir strategy - to flood the zone.
(27:01):
But it is hard to keep track, we'regoing to keep doing our best to
keep track - but this is a reallyunreliable, inconsistent time.
And so much is changing day by day.
And we're going to keep followingwhat's going on and trying to understand
the impacts for our residents.
My office is committed to protecting ourresidents, and that's going to mean a
serious move towards progressive revenue.
(27:25):
Now, King County's been open aboutits inability to backfill major
losses, especially in public healthand human services, or challenges
that they would experience with that.
What are you hearing about - whatthe City could realistically do
to protect essential programs?
In the case of a loss of revenue, whatspecific types of progressive revenue are
(27:48):
on the table that look like they couldrealistically make it through this council
and get the signature of the mayor?
That's a tough question.
I would say this council and mayor havenot been overly friendly to the idea of
adding new, progressive revenue options.
I also will just remind everyonethat the council had a chance to
(28:09):
pass a capital gains tax for the cityduring the last budget cycle last
November - and they failed to do so.
And if they had done so, we would bein a slightly better position - because
the other thing you have to rememberis that when you start adding new,
progressive revenue options, it takesa little while for them to roll out.
So it's not like you're like - Okay,we're doing a capital gains tax
(28:30):
and then you have money tomorrow.
That's just not how it works.
Usually there is a year,hopefully no more than a year.
So, in general, it ismuch better to plan ahead.
And the City of Seattle, in myopinion, has failed to do that.
They had a huge deficit that theywere filling last year, and yet they
still added over $100 million in newspending by just taking the JumpStart
(28:53):
Tax money that had been allocated tocertain very specific projects - like
affordable housing, Green New Deal,equitable development - and just moving
it all over into the General Fund.
There are several reasons why I thinkthat was not the best idea, but now
we're seeing one of those reasonsalready coming home to roost - because
JumpStart did not bring in as muchas they thought it would for 2024.
(29:17):
So there's now a new deficitthat's going to need to be bridged.
And there was a deficitalready projected for 2027.
So there's just deficitafter deficit after deficit.
And yet we're not able to even passa capital gains tax, which we feel
like probably would survive legalchallenges - like, what are we doing?
So, you know, obviously, I think thecapital gains tax - that's low hanging
(29:39):
fruit - that should be a no-brainer.
It doesn't bring in necessarilya huge amount of money.
But I think at this point - aswe heard, $300,000 is enough
to save at least 60 kids.
At this point, any amount matters.
So I think it's definitelyworth doing that.
The other one that I think iseasier to do quickly would be
to adjust the JumpStart Tax.
(30:01):
And there are various wonkyways that you can do that
- there's not just one set way.
And we've seen the council do that - theyraised it a very small amount to cover
student mental health investments.
So it is not unprecedented that thatwould be a thing that they could
do - they could increase it some more.
That being said, JumpStart is volatile.
That is why we now have anotherdeficit on top of a deficit.
(30:23):
That's why it was originallydesignated for things like affordable
housing - that is easier to kind ofmove your investments based on what's
happening with the funding source.
So while I think that wouldn't be abad thing to do, I do think that that
still would not necessarily provideall the stability that we would want
in the City budget going forward.
(30:46):
Yeah, I think there were a number ofpeople who were hoping that we would
more meaningfully address structuralforces behind the deficit and rely
less on one-time transfers that left alot of the structural problem in place
that we now have to deal with - ontop of the rest of the volatility.
(31:07):
But in some ways, it looks like- councilmembers, and perhaps the mayor,
may have noticed how widespread publicsentiment is in favor of progressive
taxation and may be reconsideringsome of their previous stances.
Have you seen any of that willingnessto have or review some of those
(31:31):
conversations, Councilmember Rinck?
And what do you see as the pathforward to getting to revenue?
Well, I'm happy to share that my firstcouncil meeting - when we were taking
up our state legislative agenda - Isuccessfully got an amendment on
there to include language essentiallypushing the State Legislature to
(31:54):
consider progressive revenue optionsfirst when it comes to addressing the
budget challenge, instead of regressiveoptions that have a disproportionate
burden on working families.
That is on our City's state legislativeagenda - that amendment did go through
- some indication from my colleagues,at least, to acknowledge on the state
level that pursuing progressive revenueis the step that we'd like to see.
(32:17):
And of course, when we approvedthat agenda - a lot has
happened, a lot has changed.
And with the revenue forecasts thatare coming in, with the cuts that we're
hearing about from community members.
And I really do think with what ourcommunity partners are presenting to us,
especially in the realm of housing - I'msincerely hopeful that my colleagues
are seeing the writing on the wallwhen we're talking about things like
(32:37):
when KCRHA shares with us that they'vereceived $23 million from HUD and that's
an impact of keeping 4,490 people housed.
Losing that money means thosepeople do not have housing - that
is a huge issue for already ourregion experiencing homelessness.
We also have HUD continu- COC [Continuumof Care] funding - $66 million for
(33:00):
Washington state could be lost.
When we have DESC, Downtown EmergencyServices Center, which is one of
our service providers who serve ourcommunity's most vulnerable - folks who
have behavioral health, physical healthchallenges, and experiencing homelessness.
They receive about $35 millionin federal funding, primarily
through Medicaid reimbursements.
What does it mean if Medicaidgoes away and we're unable to
(33:22):
fill that gap to serve folks?
These are programs that include outpatientbehavioral health, case management,
mental healthcare, substance usedisorder care, crisis stabilization,
mobile outreach, opioid treatment,foundational community supports.
So I bring these things up tosay - this is the value of really
being able to present these issuesand really demonstrate the impact.
(33:42):
And as we're doing work to evaluate whatoptions are on the table - and right now
truly we're looking at - we have to putevery option on the table when it comes
to seeking new revenue and continue thesediscussions because our fundamental role
on City Council is to serve the people.
And when we're talking about our communitythat is at risk of going hungry and going
unhoused more than already the challengeswe've had in being able to house and
(34:04):
feed our community, that's a huge issue.
And I sincerely hope that it is takenwith the level of seriousness that
the situation requires, because whatwe're facing is just - candidly - dire.
Now, you've been critical of recentCouncil moves like expanding surveillance
(34:24):
tools and approving less lethal weapons.
Councilmember Rinck, do you seecontradictions between those
decisions and the City's effortto protect vulnerable communities?
Yeah, certainly.
I'm particularly concerned aboutsurveillance as it stands, and my
team has been putting forward a lot ofquestions to City departments to really
(34:45):
examine our current contracts, the useof that technology, the vulnerabilities
in that technology - as well as itrelates to then, even potentially
state law with Keep Washington Working.
And some of the ways in which thatdata is stored through cloud-based
technologies being susceptible tonot being covered by state law.
With that being said, we're looking at- and think we need to have a discussion
(35:07):
about surveillance technology, andhow it has been deployed, and how it
could be potentially making peoplemore vulnerable during this time.
It's certainly something that we'rekeeping up and having conversation about
and something that I think we need tobring back this year - now we're in a
different context - we have to bringit back for a serious discussion.
Absolutely.
(35:27):
Now, Amy - Councilmember Rinck, wasn'tyet in office during a lot of those votes.
But do you think the City's recentpublic safety decisions undermine
its credibility on protecting civilliberties from federal overreach?
Yes.
The short answer is - yes, I do.
I watched both of those decisionsyou referenced in terms of the less
(35:49):
lethal weapons renewal legislation,and the new surveillance technology,
which was a few different bills.
I was covering them as they happened.
And the surveillance technology- that all happened last year.
And we knew that theelection was going to happen.
And certainly, at least I knew there wasa possibility that Donald Trump would win.
(36:09):
And while the context has changed, Ido feel like we knew this was possible.
It wasn't like this isa big, big shock, right?
So the fact that the Council was unwillingto take some of these safety and privacy
issues more seriously at that time wasfairly disturbing to watch, to be honest.
And one of the things that really standsout to me when I reflect back on it is
(36:33):
that they have a Surveillance WorkingGroup, whose job it is, is to review
any new surveillance technologies.
They tend to be technical experts.
And then they compile a report to assessthese new technologies and the impact
they might have, and whether or notthey would recommend these technologies
(36:53):
to be implemented in the city.
And the report that finally came outabout CCTV and the Real-Time Crime Center
specifically did not recommend that theCity utilize either of those technologies.
And one of the main reasonswas because there were a lot of
civil liberties concerns in termsof the privacy of that data.
(37:15):
So, like Councilmember Rincksaid - because Washington law
doesn't necessarily protect data ifit's held in another state, which
data center could be anywhere.
Or if the company is not incorporated inWashington, which the company Axon that
is contracted to do these technologies,is not a Washington-based company.
(37:36):
So there are holes in that data.
And what that can mean is that, forexample, ICE could get a hold of
that data so it could compromiseimmigrant and refugee safety.
It also means that potentially otherstates could get that data if, for
example, they were trying to track peoplethat live in their state who are coming
to Washington to get reproductive carethat perhaps is illegal in the originating
(38:00):
state, but obviously is not illegal here.
And it makes it, frankly, alot less safe for everyone.
I will say that the additional contextthat we have learned this year about
that surveillance is that we'reseeing the Trump administration being
very comfortable just ignoring laws.
So I would say, frankly, even if youhad this surveillance and the data
(38:26):
was more securely stored - so it wasstored in servers in Washington state,
that would definitely be better.
But I would say at this point in time,that is no guarantee that that data
is actually safe, because we're seeingthat these norms are being just thrown
out the window, that the rule of law nolonger has the weight that it once did.
And even if you can do a lawsuit aboutthese things, that might be too late.
(38:49):
Harm will already havebeen done at that point.
So the thing I think that people don'tconsider is that as soon as you start
adding more surveillance to an area,there's no real way to 100% guarantee the
security of that data anymore - at leastnot in our current political climate.
(39:10):
The other thing I'll say is that interms of the less lethal weapons - to
pass that at that point, it was prettyclear how things were going to go.
When we know that there might be moreprotests going forward, when we know
that the federal government is likelyto be trying to crack down on that - to
then allow as much leeway as theSeattle Police Department was allowed
(39:31):
by this new legislation seems dangerous.
As well, SPD's mutual aid partnersare given a huge amount of leeway in
the new bill, which seems dangerous.
And I really hope that we don't seethe consequences of these decisions
later this year or next year.
But frankly, it seems more likelythan not to me that we probably will.
(39:57):
And just to chime in on that point - I wasone of the three votes that voted against
the legislation, for a variety of reasons.
And I think it's important to notethat just before that vote, there was
a peaceful demonstration in District 1- Alki Beach - folks protesting the Trump
administration, ICE and family separationpolicies, community members exercising
(40:20):
their legal First Amendment rights.
And an SPD officer pointed the barrelof what looked like a pepperball gun
in the face of a young demonstrator.
All of our offices were emailedthat video just days before
we voted on this legislation.
That is where we were before passingthat policy - an SPD officer pointing
the gun in the face of a young personprotesting government that is trying
(40:44):
to destroy families and communities.
And I am disappointed by that.
But paired with that, I think aboutthe message that we've sent to our
community about passing this kind ofa policy, especially in the wake of
what is going to be a time where thereare going to be a lot of protests.
I know I've participated in therally that happened over the
(41:08):
weekend, the Hands Off rally.
I've certainly seen many protests- and we're going to continue to have
protests, just as we did duringthe first Trump administration.
And the message that I know many communitymembers heard from the passage of that
legislation is that - now that we have agovernment that's already taking away our
rights, our local police force is goingto be cracking down on our ability to
(41:30):
voice our discontent with that government.
And that was the headline that manycommunity members received or reached out
to my office about, and I think that'sdeeply saddening that that is the message
that people have taken away from this.
And it is deeply concerning, I would say,as a City leader, to not be holding SPD
to the absolute highest possible standard,especially during times like these.
(41:52):
Absolutely.
So what should residents expectnext from your committee?
More hearings, proposedlegislation, budget interventions?
What's next?
We have a lineup of sometopics for continued briefings.
As we've talked about, thereare so many different aspects
in which our lives are impacted.
(42:12):
So some of the upcoming briefingswill be focused on transportation.
And we know that the transportationsector and all the projects that
have been planned will be deeplyimpacted by losses in federal funding.
Paired with that, we have been indiscussion with talking about trade
and the impact of the trade war.
And we are deeply connected - we are aport city, we have the Port of Seattle.
And so talking about whatkind of ramifications that
(42:33):
will be for our local economy.
We've also been in discussion withthe Attorney General's Office and
are looking at partnerships andways to talk about some of the state
level litigation and do an explaineron what's happening on that front.
As well as some coordinationwith King County.
So trying to pepper in these briefings,so we're continuing to be appraised
of these different sectors andchallenges that may be coming up,
(42:55):
but also taking up some legislation.
Our first trial run will be with thisresolution related to seeing if we can
move towards maintaining our commitmentsto our immigrant refugee community.
And seeing if we can alsocommit to an initial increase
in investing in legal defense.
And we'll be working with officeson subsequent legislation.
The big thing here is, of course,what is our plan to backfill?
(43:18):
The losses in federal funding are coming.
And so starting these conversationsnow, where we are still ahead of budget
season - to really understand what isit that we're working with and what
are our options - that work begins now.
And it's going to be areally interesting time.
And we're going to need a lotof partnership to get through it
and a lot of candid conversation.
And intending for the committee tobe the space where we can have those
conversations and really just have agood spirit of - we got to work on this
(43:41):
together for the sake of our residents.
And Amy, what stories or signalswill you be watching in the months
ahead to track how Seattle isreally responding to instability or
changes from the federal government?
I will definitely be attendingCouncilmember Rinck's committee meetings.
(44:02):
As well, there is going tobe regular monthly updates
for the King County Council.
So that will give me the insideview from that standpoint.
But a lot of it is just going tobe tracking what happens at the
federal level and what that actuallymeans for the people that live here.
So when the library funding getscut, who does that actually impact?
(44:25):
If we're having rolling blackouts,who is really suffering from that?
Looking at protests, I feel like I haven'tseen a huge amount of news about protests.
But there's been research done thatshows that there actually has been a
huge uptick of protests in this periodof time in Trump's second administration,
(44:48):
compared to the same period oftime in his first administration.
So just getting the word out, right?
People are out there.
People are doing things.
People are moving.
And I feel like seeing what peoplecare about and are uplifting in
their own communities is somethingthat I'm going to be very interested
in following and trying to uplift.
(45:11):
Well, big thank you to CouncilmemberAlexis Mercedes Rinck and journalist
Amy Sundberg for joining us.
We'll keep watching what happensas Seattle responds to this new
federal landscape, and how localleaders are responding to their
communities and how they're impacted.
Thank you both so much.
Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks,which is produced by Shannon Cheng.
(45:34):
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on everypodcast service and app - just type
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed.
(45:57):
If you like us, leave areview wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next
time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com