Transcript:
[Soundbite begins]
Christina Henderson: I’ve seen federal agents outside of football games. I’ve seen federal agents outside of Metro stops—and not just standing around, but now outside of Metro stops asking everybody who’s leaving the Metro to show them some ID. That’s what you would expect to happen in an authoritarian country, not in the nation’s capital.
[Soundbite ends]
Colin Seeberger: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger, your host. That was Christina Henderson, at-large member of D.C. City Council.
It’s been a few weeks since [President] Donald Trump announced that he was sending National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., to tackle crime he claimed was out of control. Since then, Trump has only ramped up his rhetoric, and recently he suggested he’ll send National Guard troops into other major cities in blue states, regardless of whether governors or mayors want the U.S. military on their streets.
So we wanted to talk about what’s really going on here. Why is Donald Trump sending federal troops to blue cities? How do you really solve crime? Is Trump trying to create a personal paramilitary force, as some have suggested? Is he trying to normalize the use of the military to police American cities? And if so, why?
We had a really good conversation with Councilmember Henderson. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And stick around after the interview, because we have a very big episode of “The Summer I Turned Pretty” that happened last week that we need to break down.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: Christina Henderson is an at-large member of D.C. City Council. Before being elected to serve on the council, she was a legislative assistant for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer [D-NY]. She’s a proud D.C. resident and lives in Petworth with her family.
Christina Henderson, welcome to the pod.
Henderson: Thanks for having me.
Seeberger: So, I’m really excited to talk with you. There’s been so much that’s been going on in the district over the course of the last few weeks. I want to start by talking about what we’ve seen recently over the course of the last two weeks since Donald Trump announced that the National Guard was going to be deploying to the District of Columbia. He said specifically that he was bringing the National Guard to D.C., roam the streets, because crime was this huge emergency that we were seeing in D.C. That’s despite the fact that we know that over the course of the last few years, we have been seeing a significant downward trend in crime, in violent crime, throughout the district.
So really, what is this all about? Can you break it down for us?
Henderson: Well, that’s the confusing part. Because D.C. is a major urban American city. Like most major urban cities that have large populations of individuals, yes, we do have incidents of crime and violence that take place here, largely driven by guns. We’ll put that to the side for a second.
But nothing here at the time of the emergency, in my view, necessitated us having thousands of National Guard troops deployed on American streets. Right? There was no unrest. There was not a natural disaster. These are typically the types of things that occur when National Guard troops are deployed in other states. But here, it more seemed like a PR move, if you will.
Seeberger: From this president?
Henderson: Well, if you looked at where National Guard troops were actually deployed around the city—and one morning I rented a scooter and took a little trip around downtown, Washington Monument, in front of the White House, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, guarding the Tidal Basin. Anybody who is in these frequent high-tourist areas would tell you this is not where these incidents of violence and crime are occurring.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: But also, here you are deploying American troops who were essentially, at the time, very hot, very bored looking, in terms of the work that they were doing. And now just recently, I think the White House put out a press release talking about all of the accomplishments of the National Guard troops, including they’ve now had them doing landscaping and collecting trash. Which, as a daughter of an Army veteran, I would say, I don’t feel like this is a mission worth the deployment of these troops.
Seeberger: Well, I’ve got to say, as somebody who was sending their kid to school, to a child care program in D.C. just a few weeks ago, my daughter’s field trips had never been canceled before. But the staff is really weighing these difficult decisions about what are our young kids seeing as they walk the streets? Are they seeing troops posted up with military-style assault rifles strapped to their bodies?
And so I’m curious, can you talk a little bit more about not just what are these National Guard troops actually doing, but how is their deployment impacting people in the District of Columbia?
Henderson: Yeah. I mean, I think, again, because we live in D.C.—and I say that, for those of us in the post 9/11 generation—
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: In a place like the nation’s capital or even in New York City, you are used to seeing higher levels of deployment of security.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: Whether it be in the Metro, subway areas, around the Capitol, the White House, et cetera. High targets. Quote-unquote, “high targets.”
Seeberger: Sure.
Henderson: But usually that’s associated with something, right? A higher terrorism threat level, or there’s some sort of explanation from the powers that be that say, “this is the reason why this is occurring.” We’ve had none of that.
And so I can imagine for individuals who are—let’s say you’re taking Amtrak, and you’re coming into D.C. for the first time. You walk out of Amtrak station, and now you see MRAPs, military officers with military-grade weapons. You’re probably wondering, “What exactly is going on here as I’m just trying to get my Uber to get home?”
And so what has happened is it has definitely put a lot of people who are not used to the district on high alert. I’ve heard of a lot of school groups who have canceled their trips to the district, or tourist groups who are saying maybe it’s not time for us to do our association meeting in the district because of all of the things that are going on.
But what I want to stress, to emphasize to folks is that all of the things that are going on were all manufactured, if you will. There was no need for American troops to be deployed, and yet we have folks who are walking around. When Secretary [of Defense Pete] Hegseth then approved for the troops to now start carrying weapons, it was like, OK, what happened? There was nothing that happened in the two weeks prior that would say, yes, weapons are necessary, except for if you’re trying to up the heightened threat of it all. Or my other theory, which luckily didn’t come out to be, was that they were essentially trying to provoke an incident to be able to justify the presence of the troops being there in the first place.
In L.A., when [the Department of Defense] sent troops in, it wasn’t because of civil unrest. You remember, it started because of protests around ICE enforcement taking place in neighborhoods. And then troops were deployed to essentially have confrontations with protesters. Well, in D.C., we didn’t have the protests that had happened at the beginning. And so essentially, you have troops that are sitting around.
I think that the Trump administration was hoping for something else to happen here in order to, one, justify the deployment of troops, but also, two, use this to go on and show to other cities in democratic areas where they wanted to do this as well.
Seeberger: Sure. I mean, this also, though, is not just theater. This is also a real trampling on people’s rights, people’s freedoms. We are seeing these spots all over the district where there are pop-up, going through people’s cars, stopping people, right? That would be unthinkable even to a lot of people in this post 9/11 world in places like New York, in places like Washington. The fact that you’re just driving down a street, and because you’re driving down the street, you’re going to get stopped and pulled over and questioned about where you’re going, what you’re doing, what’s in your car.
Henderson: Well, so I think it’s important, then, that we distinguish between what’s happening with the National Guard versus what is happening with the federal agent search. Because they’re two separate things. National Guards are not law enforcement. They have no authority to arrest anyone, in general.
So they haven’t been used in the same way as, say, the DEA agents or the ATF agents or Park Service, et cetera.
Seeberger: DHS, yeah.
Henderson: Right. So they’re separate. I think combined, you do have a heightened sense of anxiety for a lot of people who are currently in the district who normally wouldn’t have a reason to be. They’re not committing crimes or doing all those different things. They’re just trying to walk their dog in the morning. But you go out, and now you see DHS agents who are coming at you or snatching a neighbor or knocking someone off of their delivery vehicle and barking orders, if you will.
What I think is so sad and frustrating about everything that’s happening here is that it’s making no one safer. In fact, it’s probably breaking down years of trust that some of our legitimate law enforcement have been trying to build out of this feeling that community policing is actually a good thing. And that’s going to make it harder.
The checkpoints aren’t new. Most people don’t realize that Chief [Pamela] Smith, who is the chief of [the Metropolitan Police Department], she started doing the checkpoints about two years ago when D.C. started to see a higher spike in terms of incidents of vehicular accidents and deaths. We were basically hustling backwards in terms of our vision-zero goals.
And so they started doing the checkpoints. They were usually in high entertainment, nightlife corridors in the evening times, on the weekends, where you would have a likelihood of more people who were driving under the influence. That’s what it started as: Let’s have a deterrent to get people to either take public transportation, take a ride from a friend, walk, scoot, whatever—just do not get behind the vehicle after you have drank.
And now these checkpoints have turned into something completely different where, one woman I talked to who was stopped by a checkpoint on Benning Road, you have an FBI agent who is not used to doing these types of stops at all. And their first question was, “What’s your business in the district?”
Seeberger: I’m sorry?
Henderson: I’m sorry, what? What is my business in the district? First, the District of Columbia is not closed.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: This is not a border town.
Seeberger: This is an American city, mind you.
Henderson: This is an American city.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: Do I need business, whatever that is, for me to be able to traverse through the nation’s capital? I shouldn’t.
Seeberger: No, not in a free country.
Henderson: Not in a free country. So you add the checkpoints. I’ve seen federal agents outside of football games. I’ve seen federal agents outside of Metro stops—and not just standing around, but now outside of Metro stops literally asking everybody who’s leaving the Metro to show them some ID.
Seeberger: What?
Henderson: That’s what you would expect to happen in an authoritarian country.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: Not in the nation’s capital. And for no express threat level being raised. Does that make sense? I feel like Americans, for better or for worse, we recognize that there’s some trade-offs in terms of the greater interest of national security, right?
We all got to take our shoes off when we get on an airplane because one person decided that one time to try to blow up the plane using their shoelaces. But over 20 years later, we’re still doing it. And people just take it as in, this is part of the national security apparatus for us all to do the thing. It’s not happening here.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: I think they are just picking and prodding. Picking and prodding. And they chose a place like D.C. because of our uniqueness being the federal district. I don’t have a governor. I don’t have a [Illinois Governor] JB Pritzker who’s going to stand by me. I don’t have a [California Governor] Gavin Newsom who’s going to stand by me or who can file these types of legal challenges in the courts.
Because of the way that the law is written about D.C., it’s so broad. But you could drive a truck through Section 740 of the Home Rule Act in terms of what it allows or what it doesn’t allow. And then I have Congress on the side here who’s just like, “eh, I’m on recess. Y’all figure it out.”
Seeberger: Y’all good. Y’all good. Yeah. I could come up with a few more ideas as to why I think that Donald Trump chose Washington D.C., but I am curious to hear a little bit more—all of that sounds extremely dystopian.
Henderson: Yeah.
Seeberger: Don’t get me wrong.
Henderson: Oh, yeah.
Seeberger: But I am very curious to get your take on what actually concerns you most about sending in troops who fight foreign wars to do what is effectively patrols, policing in residential neighborhoods. And what do you see as a worst-case scenario for how this could spiral out of control?
Henderson: Colin, you’re asking me to go to that dark place?
Seeberger: I mean—I hate to say it, but I’m afraid we may be living in it.
Henderson: I mean, on its face, yes, you’re correct. The very dark places that we think about, that you read about in Octavia Butler or in Margaret Atwood, in The Handmaid’s Tale, I think for some of us we’re able to say we’re not quite there yet, but we’re certainly—
Seeberger: We’re within striking distance.
Henderson: We are very much in striking distance. We’re very much in striking distance. And I think in some ways, I’ve been thinking about it in combination with the other things that are going on. So, on one hand I feel like the shock and awe of American troops on American streets in some ways is a distraction from all the other terrible things that are going on. But when you put it all compounded together, you’re like, oh, wait a minute.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: Are we not paying attention in the way that we should have paid attention to Project 2025 when we had a chance? So, you have this happening here. You have threats of him going to do something similar in other major American cities. Chicago and Baltimore seem to be the next two cities in the crosshairs. You have the Department of Health and Human Services essentially grinding down the institutions and infrastructure of public health. No vaccines. No advisory committees. The scientists who have degrees, that’s not good. All of that.
You have the Department of Education basically being like, eh.
Seeberger: Education? Who needs that?
Henderson: Who needs to learn how to read? That’s a parent’s responsibility. But in the course of their work, making it incredibly difficult for anyone to be able to afford higher education across the country. So you have that happening.
Then I’ve got the secretary of transportation. We can’t forget our good friend from “Real World” in terms of the work that he’s doing—
Seeberger: Let’s get real.
Henderson: They have changed the requirements on grants to prioritize jurisdictions where people are having more babies.
Seeberger: Make it make sense.
Henderson: There’s different parts that are going on there. But then you add on some of these other things and you’re like, OK, you are pushing for distrust in institutions. There are systematic attacks on free media. The FCC has now become an arm of the Trump administration, if you will.
Seeberger: Yep. Yep.
Henderson: You’re making it harder for the institutions that provide support to Americans every day to exist. Is this to impose something further? Lest we forget, now I’ve got all these governors who’ve decided to redistrict in the middle of a decade. It feels like somebody never wants to leave power, and democracy be damned.
Seeberger: Well, on that note—
Henderson: Hey, you took us here.
Seeberger: That is a very interesting pretext for my next question, which is the fact that last week we saw D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser say that she “greatly appreciates” the additional assistance that the administration has provided to help fight crime in the District of Columbia. Though, she did note that an additional 500 police officers in D.C. could have done the same job. This is 500 officers that the department is short.
But I am curious to get your take on whether the mayor was right to credit the president. And if not, what do you think she’s missing here?
Henderson: I think the mayor is walking her own tightrope. I mean, I can’t imagine, but I can imagine what it is like to be in that position at this particular time.
Seeberger: A very unique one.
Henderson: It’s a very, very unique one. But it is still one that it can’t be taken away from you without an act of Congress. If we’re going to get to this point of saying there’s not going to be any limited home rule in the district any further, that requires an act of the House and it requires an act of the Senate. And it also requires to be signed by the president. So you can’t unilaterally make that decision. But it’s different.
I would say that when I look at the data from what is coming from the White House versus what is also coming from MPD—because our statistics are one in the same in what has been happening over the last few weeks—is that, am I glad we’re taking illegal weapons off the streets? Yes. Do I feel like MPD could have done it? Perhaps. Do I also feel like, are we addressing the root source of where all these illegal weapons are coming from? Absolutely not. MPD will tell you, for every one gun that they have seized, there’s probably three more that’s entering the district that week, if not more.
And so, should the federal agents be doing this type of one-off, one-off, one-off? Or should our federal agents be deployed doing the large-scale interstate investigations to stop the flow? I think most people would say that’s a better use of their time. That’s a better use of their energy.
Seeberger: Yeah. They’re not preventing this from occurring in the first place.
Henderson: Correct.
Seeberger: They’re trying to disrupt activity that’s ongoing in a way that’s diverting and taking their eye off the ball from, say, deploying National Guard troops in the state of Arizona to capture drugs that are flowing over the border or something like that.
Henderson: And I’m not even sure that’s the appropriate mission for National Guard. You know what I’m saying?
Seeberger: Yeah, it may not.
Henderson: But to your point around taking your eye off the larger piece of what is supposed to be the role of the federal government and the federal agencies in the democratic ecosystem—an FBI agent is not supposed to be doing a traffic stop.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: They’re not supposed to be giving a ticket for somebody who has a suspended license. That’s not what they’re trained to do.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: They’re supposed to be doing the larger investigative work. They’re supposed to be handling the larger cases that the local enforcement can’t really handle.
The other thing I would say, too, that we really haven’t gotten to in terms of interrogating some of the numbers that are coming out, and even some of the numbers that the mayor mentioned in her situational update is, OK, you’re doing 1,500 arrests or 1,600 arrests. No. 1, you’re not telling me how many of those are for immigration enforcement. So we don’t have that particular breakout.
No. 2, they have yet to tell us what any of these individuals are being charged with. We haven’t gotten a breakdown in terms of what the charges have been since that very first weekend when the federal surge. And if you recall in that very first weekend, they were arresting people for riding a dirt bike in the park or driving with a suspended license. Again, against a law.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: These are crimes.
Seeberger: And those are crimes that people should be held responsible for.
Henderson: Sure, but I don’t know if I need 450 federal agents in order to be able to accomplish some of that. I will be very curious to see what happens in the courts. How many of these 1,500 people who have been arrested is the U.S. Attorney’s Office actually going to charge and actually going to pursue? And of those, how many is the grand jury actually going to indict?
Seeberger: Yeah, I mean, we did see Sandwich Man became a national celebrity, for—what was it? Was it outside Subway?
Henderson: Outside of the Subway on 14th.
Seeberger: Outside 14th and U, yeah. Threw the sandwich at the officer. Yeah, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in D.C., not off to a strong start. Didn’t get that grand jury indictment.
Henderson: I think they often used to say, what, that grand juries would indict a ham sandwich? I don’t know.
Seeberger: Apparently not in 2025.
Henderson: But in that case, it was very clear that the prosecutors overcharged.
Seeberger: Sure.
Henderson: Felony assault for throwing a sandwich? What jury was going to say, yes, that is—
Seeberger: The Cheetos.
Henderson: Come on.
Seeberger: Yeah, yeah.
Henderson: Come on. And so I feel like, in some ways, it feels like they’re trying to reach a quota. I want to get to a certain number of arrests, but at what cost?
Seeberger: Sure.
Henderson: Certainly at what cost to the individual lives, because as you and I know, arrests follow you regardless of whether or not there was a conviction, regardless of whether or not you were actually prosecuted. Unfortunately in this country, we require people to either disclose that information or it could stop you from getting housing or from getting a job or even qualifying for student loan assistance. There are very real consequences to arrests, regardless of what the particular outcome is. And for us to just treat it so cavalierly, right? There was a guy who was—
Seeberger: Oh, you talk about that as if that’s not part of what is the intent here, right? I mean, I think this is very clearly part of the intent on the administration’s part.
Henderson: Well, then we need to stop saying that it’s about public safety.
Seeberger: Yep.
Henderson: We need to stop saying that it’s about crime.
Seeberger: That’s correct.
Henderson: Because in fact, some of the actions that we are doing are making it more likely that some individuals will be locked out of legitimate sources of income that they would have to turn to criminal acts, perhaps, in the future due to some of these things. You arrested someone for selling water without a permit.
Seeberger: Yeah. Yeah. Make it make sense.
Henderson: And you’re charging them in federal court?
Seeberger: For a felony.
Henderson: Are you kidding me?
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: OK.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, I also saw that Trump a few weeks ago was saying that he wants to make, I think it was, any murder committed in the District of Columbia—
Henderson: Oh, a capital offense. Yes.
Seeberger: —a capital punishment case. Which is quite scary. But, I think, don’t put it past him. Because I think we have learned time and time again that we should take him at his word. Other folks, though, I’m not sure we should take by their word, and that is Republicans in Congress.
Earlier this year, we saw Republicans in Congress cut over $1 billion in funding for the District of Columbia. That was money that was meant to support D.C. police, D.C. firefighters, other vital city services including, of course, keeping the district vibrant and clean, that our National Guard troops are now doing.
I’d love for you to talk a little bit about this irony of Republicans in Congress decrying crime in D.C. and at the same time, in the same breath, cutting $1 billion in funding for essential city services. Can you help us break that down? Where’s the continuity in their train of thought?
Henderson: It’s missing. It’s missing.
Seeberger: To say the least.
Henderson: So is the rationale. In some ways, it’s like one of those weird, abusive relationships where you essentially ask me to do something. You take away the tools and resources. So you’re asking me to do the thing with one hand tied behind my back. And then when I’m not successful at accomplishing it, you say, “See, this is why you need more punishment.” That is kind of what I feel like here.
The three biggest areas where we spend most of our budget—and this is local dollars, to be very clear—is public education, public safety, and human services. These are the three areas where the Trump administration claims that they want to focus their attention. So, public safety. That’s not just us paying police officers. That’s making sure that we have full coverage on 911, that Department of Corrections have what they need, that the Fire and EMS Department have what they need to be successful. Sometimes this is overtime. Much of it is personnel spending. We’re not talking about lavish—
Seeberger: —conferences.
Henderson: No, we’re talking about actual people—
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: —and their benefits. And so I think that for a lot of members of Congress, they made a mistake. But they could not admit that it was a mistake.
Seeberger: They work for Donald Trump.
Henderson: I want to thank the United States Senate, because at least they had the knowledge or, at least, I would just say the bravery—
Seeberger: They gave a damn.
Henderson: —to say, you know what? No, this is wrong. This was not intended. And also, let’s give the district its money back.
And I want to underscore for your listeners the timing of all of this. They decided to say six months into the fiscal year, “No, no, you can’t spend the money that we already approved. You need to cut.” This is right before summer. So this is right before we are about to host the Fourth of July national celebration. This is right before we’re supposed to host one of the World Cup club games were coming here. This is right before the Army decides they want to do a parade through the District of Columbia for their 250th birthday.
Seeberger: World Pride?
Henderson: World Pride, yeah. But all of these things which require public safety apparatus. And you’re going to say, “No, no, we need you to cut.”
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: You want me to cut summer camp? Y’all say the kids are a problem. You want them running around? We’ll drop them off on the Hill and let them have summer camp up there all summer. These types of things.
And I think what’s so frustrating is that it still hasn’t been addressed. We still have these funding challenges. And the money is literally just sitting in our bank account. And we can’t touch it, because members of Congress who are part-time residents here didn’t think it was enough of an issue to give a damn. Am I allowed to say that?
Seeberger: Yes, you are.
Henderson: OK. Well, there we go.
Seeberger: Go off. Go off, councilmember. Well, I think that brings us to a really important conversation. And that is, D.C. is not a state.
Henderson: Yeah.
Seeberger: Right? And all this talk of the National Guard—we don’t have a governor who oversees the state National Guard. At the same time, Congress is not cutting $1 billion from the state of South Dakota’s local budget for policing, for human services, for education. There’s a unique aspect here that this is happening specifically to the district because of a lack of statehood.
Can you talk to us a little bit about why D.C. statehood is so important and how actually enfranchising D.C. in that way could help address some of these challenges that we’ve talked about?
Henderson: Yeah, I mean, at the crux of it all, statehood is the goal. And I feel like the last three weeks, it’s been heartening to see some individuals who had been on the sidelines before being like, “Oh, whoa, wait a minute. Hold on. Yeah, maybe D.C. should be a state. Maybe they should be able to control their own National Guard and be able to have the full rights.” We already have the responsibilities. We get none of the perks though, right? No representation in Congress, no votes, et cetera.
But it also, I don’t think that people understand, especially as an elected official here, yes, I create and craft laws to address the challenges that folks are facing on the ground. I think each and every day about the 700,000 residents who I represent. But then I also now have to think, oh shoot, is this going to make a congressman from Arizona upset? Oh shoot, is this going to gain some attention from somebody from South Carolina? I don’t know.
And I never had to think about that before, of like, I have to now legislate with 535 people who don’t live here also in the thought pattern of what I’m going to do. And also, they don’t even have the specific context to understand why are we doing the thing that we’re doing. You’re just taking a headline or a talking point and applying it here.
If D.C. had statehood—there’s sometimes I think back in my head like, oh, remember that time when Democrats were in control and they had 60 votes in the Senate? And Nancy Pelosi was speaker?
Seeberger: And what the hell were they doing?
Henderson: You know, they made—
Seeberger: Besides making sure that people had health care, yes.
Henderson: They made a decision. And the Affordable Care Act is an excellent decision on that front. But think about if they had done statehood then. You would have two additional votes in the Senate. You would have an additional vote in the House of Representatives. And you would have 700,000 people who feel like full-fledged participants in this experiment we call democracy.
Because right now, I feel like I’m yelling into the void. I’m calling members of Congress and they say, “What’s your ZIP code?” And I say, “I’m living in the District of Columbia.” And they’re like, “Well, you’re not a constituent of ours.”
Seeberger: Click.
Henderson: On some days. On some days, you say you represent me.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: Who else am I supposed to call? How else am I supposed to get folks to pay attention and to focus on this? And it’s interesting when you go back and read when D.C. did gain home rule. It was under President [Richard] Nixon in ‘73. And some of the interviews that he gave at the time, he was like, “why do I care about trash pickup? Why am I focusing on potholes? I’m the president of the United States.”
Seeberger: Let me be the president, right?
Henderson: Let me be the president and let the local folks on the ground handle the local issues. But I pay my taxes like everybody else. And I don’t get a chance. I think sometimes even—I think the mayor talked about on January 6, it was the D.C. police who went in on January 6 to regain order on Capitol Hill, who stood guard outside to allow for that certification vote to take place. And we didn’t have a vote in that, but we were the ones that made it possible for it to occur safely. So yeah, that’s why I’m wearing the shirt. It’s because some days it feels like the District versus Congress.
Seeberger: Sure does. Well, speaking of the District versus Congress, we have seen Congress do very little in the face of this administration, through its DOGE efforts, has fired hundreds of thousands of civil servants in this country—or sought to, at least. And we’ve seen lots of people have lost their jobs, especially impacting residents in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area.
I am curious to hear a bit more about, what impact are these firings having on the District of Columbia? And what is D.C. doing to support these workers and ensure that they can continue to live in the district?
Henderson: Yeah. This is the hard part, because I feel like everything that has taken place with the National Guard troops in this faux emergency is compounded upon the economic impacts that we already had. I know that the president’s claim is, oh my gosh, the restaurants are packed and people are going out to eat for the first time in four years.
But the truth of the matter is, when you talk to our businesses, they’re feeling it. People are not leaving their homes. They’re not coming out. And again, that’s on top of thousands of individuals who lost their jobs. So they don’t have the same type of disposable income.
So, it is definitely hitting the economy of the district harder. And we see it in our revenue forecasts for where things are. When I talk to people about what is happening financially here in the district, I just remind them, in December we had a triple A bond rating. We had a surplus. We weren’t growing exponentially, but we were doing fine.
Fast forward to February, I’ve got credit agencies who are shaky, who are putting warnings on us because of Medicaid. Again, something that we don’t control. And all of these different things. And I have, now, a higher unemployment rate rivaling, in some ways, a little bit of what we faced around the pandemic time where folks were downsizing and otherwise.
Seeberger: Particularly for Black women, especially.
Henderson: Yeah, I saw that article in The New York Times this weekend.
Seeberger: Wall Street Journal had the same one. Yeah. We’ve seen the Black unemployment rate in this country has skyrocketed over the course of the first six months of this year from 4.1 percent to 7.2 percent, which is the highest that we’ve seen since the pandemic, like you said.
Henderson: Yeah, I mean, I think if you think about the history of Black folks, particularly in the DMV, it was sort of like, let me go get this good government job.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: In a lot of ways, the federal government delivered a lot of Black families to the middle class. It was a direct driver. And because of labor protections and otherwise, you had some job security to be able to put down roots and to grow your family and buy a home and do all of these different things. And so when you start to downsize the federal government in a way that is not taking a scalpel, but I feel like they’ve been taking a hatchet in a variety of different ways.
Seeberger: For sure.
Henderson: Black women are the natural—particularly in the DMV area, have been the hardest hit—
Seeberger: Collateral damage.
Henderson: —collateral damage to some of these cuts. And that’s what happens, I think, a lot in terms of the economic pieces that occur. But it’s always so interesting to me when I see these videos of folks who are like, “Well, I didn’t know that this was going to happen. I didn’t know that this is what I voted for.” OK. I don’t know if that’s incumbent upon us.
Seeberger: Did you take 2024 off? Or 2023?
Henderson: What didn’t we do in terms of explaining to people what the real-life risk and impact would be?
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: I felt like we were being very clear. But I feel like one of the dangers—and this goes back to even the conversation that we were having about National Guard troops and authoritarianism—is that too many of us disregard what Donald Trump says and throw it away as a shrug. Like, oh, he’s just exaggerating. Oh, he’s just doing this for ratings. Oh, we can’t really take him seriously.
Seeberger: Or it’s, that’s a little too dystopian.
Henderson: It will never happen.
Seeberger: Well, I don’t really want to engage with that. I need to set that aside over here and protect my own peace.
Henderson: That too, yeah. But at what point does—
Seeberger: Is it your family? Is it your child?
Henderson: Yeah. When it comes close to home, then there’s this question, I feel like a lot of where we’ve gotten in this country is because nobody decided to take this man seriously and believe the things that he said he was going to do. Most of everything that has happened thus far has been written down.
Seeberger: Has been telegraphed.
Henderson: It was telegraphed.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Henderson: And maybe we didn’t communicate it well enough. I think someone said before that Americans, we really suffer from historical amnesia, which I think is in some ways true. We compartmentalize trauma, so we don’t want to have to go through it again.
So the last, Trump 1, was chaotic. And the same things are happening now. People getting fired by a tweet. Random stuff happening each and every day. Every day feeling like there was 20 news cycles. And for whatever reason, people compartmentalize that to be like, oh no, no, Trump 2 will be different. And here we are. It is what? September 2? I feel like August was a blur.
Seeberger: We made it through eight months? Or seven and a half months?
Henderson: It’s only been that long.
Seeberger: It’s only been that long.
Henderson: We’re not even at year one.
Seeberger: No, we are not. We are not, but we are still standing. We are persevering.
Henderson: This gives us an opportunity to do something different.
Seeberger: Yep.
Henderson: This gives us an opportunity for folks to plug in and start paying attention. I don’t know what it will take for Congress to take back some of its power, because they’ve given so much of it away. I don’t know what it will take for the Supreme Court to wake up. Robert’s Court, I don’t know what it’s going to take for them to wake up and be like—
Seeberger: Maybe we shouldn’t just give Trump unlimited power?
Henderson: Everything that he wants.
Seeberger: Use the shadow docket to an infinite degree?
Henderson: Yeah. And I don’t know. I feel like maybe, am I too hopeful to feel like our institutions are going to wake up and realize one day you will not exist?
Seeberger: Well, I think they may find out that they’re next on the list if they don’t. But on a more positive note—
Henderson: Can we end on a higher note?
Seeberger: We can. We do love to do that here. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about why should they come to the District of Columbia? What is happening here that is so special? Why do you continue to call it home?
I think that people have not gotten a fair picture of D.C. if they’ve been turning on cable news or tuning into a congressional debate. Because of course, who doesn’t do that? Or may have been scrolling on their algorithm and seeing something that actually doesn’t reflect the full picture of D.C. What’s your sales pitch?
Henderson: Oh my gosh. OK. D.C. is home to the nation’s capital, but home to 700,000 residents who are just doing their best to live the American dream. The beautiful thing about D.C. is that you’re always steps from history, but you’re also always steps from arts and culture, whether it be one of our theaters or arts venues, or also the street artists who truly bring out the vibrancy of the district.
The neighborhoods are my favorite place. When you find that spot for, whether it be your favorite sandwich or the good drink, and then you try to keep it quiet so it doesn’t make the “Washingtonian Problems” list. And then all of a sudden your good eats place is now flooded, so you can’t even get in.
Seeberger: Line out the door.
Henderson: Yes. But also, the natural beauty of the district. One of my favorite places is Anacostia Park, right on the river. And I hate that I’m giving it up now, but it’s a National Park Service land. Which is also so funny. But it sits on the riverbank. You can walk it. You find people who are out running, biking, fishing along the Anacostia River. There’s a roller-skating rink that most people don’t know that you can rent free skates.
But it’s built-in community. That is the beauty of the district. It is rich, diverse. And I’m not saying “rich” in terms of wealthy. I’m saying “rich” in terms of people.
Seeberger: Culture, yeah.
Henderson: Our people are our best asset. Our people are what makes the district, the district. It is not the monuments. Those are great and nice to have, and sometimes we occasionally visit them. But for the folks who live here, it is found in the bonfires that they do with their neighbors. It’s found in the school plays that they go out and support. And the desire to serve causes bigger than oneself.
That’s what you’re going to find here in the district. And so my pitch to folks is, turn off cable news. Come visit the district for yourself. I’m really excited. This weekend is the National Book Festival. I’m actually surprised they still let the Library of Congress do it, but for the book lovers out there.
But beyond that, the following weekend is Art All Night, which is one of my favorite local events where it’s literally art in every quadrant of the city, all night long. One of the big culminations is a beautiful block party out in front of the Martin Luther King Memorial Library downtown. I’m wondering how it’s going to go this year, given all of this additional—
Seeberger: Activity?
Henderson: Activity.
Seeberger: Yes.
Henderson: But for us, for D.C. folks, we’re going to dance to some go-go. And we’re going to have a good time regardless. And in fact, the music is going to be so good that for some of these federal agents, I dare you not to smile.
Seeberger: Yep.
Henderson: And just live in the joy in the midst of all the craziness that is going down.
Seeberger: Living in the joy? That is resistance in 2025.
Henderson: That is.
Seeberger: And on that note, Christina Henderson, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Henderson: Thanks for having me.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: All right, folks, that’s going to do it for us. Please go back and check out previous episodes. Muggs, it is post-Labor Day weekend.
Muggs Leone: Indeed, it is.
Seeberger: I’m not sure if you left town. Maybe you are like some of my friends and you just spent the entire weekend hunkering down in bed, binge watching—
Leone: That’s what I did.
Seeberger: —some good TV. OK, good, good. Now, what did you watch?
Leone: Well, so I have been giving “And Just Like That” a second chance. For those who aren’t familiar, that is the sequel series to “Sex and the City.” How do I word this? It’s had some challenges. It has not lived up to the original series in all of its iconic glory.
Seeberger: Hard to do.
Leone: Hard to do. A lot of things felt a little forced. But I’ve been giving it a second chance. It’s just as bad as when I tried to watch it the first time, but I am living for the campiness of it. And it’s funny to see how hard they’re trying to address some of the issues with the first one, while getting rid of all of the good parts of the first series. So that’s what I’ve been enjoying in my free time.
Seeberger: I love that for you. I was very busy over the course of the past few days. I took a trip with my family, and we’re getting ready to send our daughter off to school, which she started this week. But I did make time the end of last week to watch “The Summer I Turned Pretty.”
Leone: Of course.
Seeberger: Of course. We were all building toward a very big episode, which happened last week. Which, oh my god, was more wild and crazy than I ever could have expected. And—
Leone: Do we have a spoiler alert on the pod right now? Or are you going to—
Seeberger: I feel like I can’t do that to our listeners. But I can just say, I am so grateful things worked out the way that they worked out. However, I am not going to be content unless City of Lights, Paris, makes everyone’s dreams come true. I’ll just leave it at that.
Leone: Oh, OK. A little cliffhanger, for folks who aren’t familiar.
Seeberger: Yes.
Leone: I guess I’ll have to hop on the train and give it a watch.
Seeberger: There you go. All right, folks, that’s going to do it for us. Again, please go back and check out previous episodes. Take care of yourselves. I hope you are having a seamless transition back to work after the Labor Day weekend. And we’ll talk to you next week.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Colin Seeberger. Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer. Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Hai Phan, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.