Lindsey McLendon on Public Safety in America

Lindsey McLendon, senior fellow for Criminal Justice Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, joins the show to talk about public safety, including crime trends, drivers, and evidence-based solutions to improve accountability and justice.

Part of a Series

Lindsey McLendon, senior fellow for Criminal Justice Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, joins the show to talk about public safety, including crime trends, drivers, and evidence-based solutions to improve accountability and justice. Daniella and Colin also talk about MAGA Republican election denialism and Trump’s efforts to get $1 billion in campaign contributions from oil executives.


Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.

Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, have you heard about the beef between Drake and Kendrick?

Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I’m only a little bit obsessed with it.

Seeberger: Where’d you fall down?

Gibbs Léger: I fell down in that no one should ever try to beef with Kendrick Lamar. You’re going to lose.

Seeberger: Massively?

Gibbs Léger: Yeah. Massively, spectacularly. Like, oh my goodness, if I’m Drake, I’m leaving the country—I guess going back to Canada—and I’m never coming back.

Seeberger: Yeah, I think that’s right. I’m not even sure why we’re even calling this a beef, because pretty much everybody I know all agrees that Drake got totally served.

Gibbs Léger: He got eviscerated. And the last song—I think it’s the last one—that Kendrick put out, it’s the song of the summer, almost.

Seeberger: Oh, yeah.

Gibbs Léger: It’s like, oh, you guys want something to dance to? Here you go.

Seeberger: Let’s do it. Let’s do it.

Gibbs Léger: A danceable beef, we appreciate.

Seeberger: We absolutely do.

Gibbs Léger: Well, politics this week is almost looking tame in comparison.

Seeberger: Uh, almost.

Gibbs Léger: Well, at any rate, I heard you did have a great interview this week.

Seeberger: I did. I chatted with Lindsey McLendon, senior fellow for Criminal Justice Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. We talked about public safety in America, including crime trends, drivers, and evidence-based solutions to make our communities more safe.

Gibbs Léger: I know it’s definitely an issue that’s top of mind for a lot of people.

Seeberger: For sure. I mean, everybody in America cares about the safety of their community, so it was a really great conversation, and [I] can’t wait for you to hear it.

Gibbs Léger: Great! But first, we’ve got to get to some news.

Seeberger: We do.

Gibbs Léger: And I hate to say it, but we have to talk about Trump this week, Colin.

Seeberger: Unfortunately, we do, Daniella. So last week we revisited the January 6 insurrection, which was obviously fueled by rampant election denialism.

We heard about some of the horrific violence it caused and how it pushed our democracy to the brink in ways that we haven’t really seen since the Civil War. Well, you’d think Donald Trump and the other members of the Republican Party might have learned by now that their words really carry power and that spreading disinformation and misinformation endangers our democracy and American safety.

But of course, they don’t care about any of that. All that they care about is winning and holding on to power by any means necessary. And many of them have made that abundantly clear by refusing to commit to accepting the elections—excuse me, the results of the election—in 2024.

Over and over again, Donald Trump and those vying to become his running mate, in particular, have all declined to say whether they’d accept November’s election results. Folks like Sen. Tim Scott (R) of South Carolina, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL), and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) have all dodged questions on this subject in recent days.

It’s just the latest proof we need that the Republican Party has fully embraced Trump’s hostility toward democracy as well as his penchant for lies and conspiracy theories. It’s especially concerning to hear these election denialist narratives ramping up once again since a third of states out there have someone overseeing elections—like a governor or attorney general or secretary of state—who openly questions the legitimacy of the last presidential election. Think about what that means for the next one.

Gibbs Léger: Yes, it is terrifying and something I think about a lot. And of course, in hinting that he may not accept the 2024 election results, Donald Trump has flirted in recent interviews with instigating political violence if he believes the election is somehow unfair.

Let’s not forget, folks. He said the same type of crap in 2020, so we need to take this threat seriously.

Seeberger: We do.

Gibbs Léger: The 2020 election was one of the most secure in our nation’s history, according to Trump’s own officials—Republicans, I might add—and yet MAGA extremists fought tooth and nail to overturn the legitimate votes of the American people.

Election officials have continued to build off the security successes of 2020. So this talk of “election security” isn’t actually about the process or the procedure; it’s about perception. MAGA Republicans are starting to lay the groundwork for what may be yet another attempt to undermine or even overturn our free and fair elections. We need to make sure the American people understand that they can and must trust the voting process and that these narratives are nothing more than tools that MAGA extremists are using for political gain.

And the stakes have never been higher. As the president recently said, this election will be a defining momentin American history. It could very well determine whether America’s nearly 250-year democracy crumbles under the weight of MAGA Republican disinformation and violence.

Seeberger: When you put it like that, Daniella, it just really drives home how heavy and scary all this stuff is. Unfortunately, we have to also talk about another messed-up threat from Donald Trump and MAGA Republican land. So The Washington Post actually reported last week that at a recent private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump asked Big Oil executives to donate a combined $1 billion to his campaign. In exchange, he promised to roll back environmental regulations.

I mean, when we’ve said time and time again that Donald Trump values special interests over the American people, this is the most obvious example. It doesn’t get more crystal clear than this. At a time when we desperately are trying to pull humanity back from the brink of a climate disaster, Trump is openly offering up hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs and rules that have been put in place to keep us safer and our planet more secure, in exchange for $1 billion in campaign cash. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has rightly called this a “quid pro quo” and wants the matter investigated. I saw earlier today that it sounds like there are actually going to be congressional hearings on this report, which is very welcome news.

Gibbs Léger: Good.

Seeberger: It’s just abysmal and dangerous, but it’s not really surprising, though. Trump has always put a premium on his own personal power than the safety of the American people. I mean, hello, COVID. That said, during his time in office, Trump regularly denied the reality of climate change, he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords, and he killed former President [Barack] Obama’s clean power plan. And he’s already planning to push back these policies even further if elected to a second term. Trump has said that if he’s elected, he’ll ramp up oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to Big Oil companies.

He’s also promised to gut climate components of the Inflation Reduction Act, such as provisions that encourage the adoption of clean cars and clean energy, which would destroy the domestic manufacturing renaissance that is already underway thanks to those clean energy initiatives. And he’s promised to reverse new lifesaving pollution limits, things like rules to prevent you from being poisoned by lead or PFAS to be in your—forever chemicals to be in your water. So, these are exactly the kind of protections that he’s offering up for whoever the highest bidder is. It’s just outrageous that he continues to distort American politics and policy for his own corrupt means.

Gibbs Léger: Yeah. It’s really disturbing, and his plans would be really devastating to the climate movement, especially when we’ve seen so much progress over the last three years under the Biden administration. His plans not only take aim at key environmental regulations, but he’d eliminate the checks and balances that government relies on to function and advance the public interest by gutting the independence of government agencies, including those tasked with protecting our environment.

Seeberger: Oh.

Gibbs Léger: Yeah, yeah. Great.

Seeberger: Imagine that.

Gibbs Léger: He put those decisions in the hands of the president alone. Terrifying. His allies’ radical policy agenda, Project 2025—something you will be hearing us talk a lot about—plans to replace the independent career civil servants, including scientists, at these agencies with political appointees, people who fall in line with the MAGA agenda. And, spoiler alert, the MAGA agenda does not include climate action.

Seeberger: Really?

Gibbs Léger: Yeah, fancy that. Look, if MAGA extremists get their way, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of the Interior, which manages public lands, could be staffed by radical people who don’t even think climate change is real.

And here’s an example of just how devastating that could be. The Federal Trade Commission [FTC] just found out that Scott Sheffield, the former CEO of an energy company called Pioneer [Natural Resources Co.], which was recently acquired by ExxonMobil, colluded with OPEC to curb the supply of oil in order to try and raise prices on gas, diesel, and other products.

Seeberger: So he could make more money.

Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Raise prices on who? Us, the American people, right? This is a really serious abuse of power that has probably directly impacted every American who drives a car. And we rely on agencies like the FTC to regulate these kinds of abuses. Project 2025 would turn those agencies into puppets for Donald Trump, the same guy who just asked people like Scott Sheffield to give him $1 billion, as you mentioned, in exchange for favorable policy outcomes.

And speaking of abuses—because I’m not done yet.

Seeberger: Go on, Daniella. Go on.

Gibbs Léger: In case you weren’t fully convinced that Trump intends to sell off our climate policy to the highest bidder, let me pose this: Jared Kushner’s equity firm received $2 billion from Saudi Arabia.

Seeberger: Oh, that’s a lot of money.

Gibbs Léger: With a B. Exactly. Right after the Trump presidency ended.

The Saudis are leaders in OPEC, not to mention notorious for sabotaging climate negotiations. For example, at the COP28 [Conference of the Parties] climate convention this year, they claimed wind and solar power somehow threaten our global climate. And Jared Kushner, son-in-law and adviser to Trump, is in their pockets.

It is important for us to understand what each candidate in the 2024 election is planning. And in Donald Trump’s case, it’s higher gas prices for the American people and a complete elimination of environmental protections and regulations—an effective end to climate policy altogether.

Seeberger: It’s chilling, Daniella. Or maybe it’s warming, if Trump gets his way.

Gibbs Léger: Hey, that was funny—good dad joke—but also very dark.

Seeberger: Thank you, Daniella. I know, I know. Well, that’s all the time that we have. I’m out of dad jokes. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod. And stick around for my interview with Lindsey McLendon in just a beat.

[Musical transition]

Lindsey Carlson McLendon is a senior fellow for Criminal Justice Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. She previously served as deputy director with the Black Women Forward Action Fund, where she helped support Black women working to change the criminal legal system. Prior to that, she served as director of research and senior legal counsel with The Appeal and also worked for the Pew Charitable Trust’s Public Safety Performance Project.

Lindsey, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”

Lindsey McLendon: Glad to be here, Colin. Thanks for having me.

Seeberger: So, you just authored a report with our friends at the Center for American Progress about crime in the United States. Can you talk a little bit about what crime trends are looking like right now? Obviously coming out of the pandemic, we saw things really surge in 2020 under the last year of Donald Trump’s presidency. What are things like today? How have things changed?

McLendon: Yeah, you’re right. So there was a really big homicide spike in 2020, and crime has fluctuated a little bit since then, but what we’re seeing today is actually quite encouraging. In 2023, there was a likely historic drop in murder, and early signs of 2024 is that murder is continuing to decline all across the country, not just in a few cities. And we’re also seeing property crime and violent crime generally go down. So definitely heading in what we hope is the right direction.

Seeberger: We absolutely love to hear that. Since we’re in an election year, can you talk a little bit about how voters are perceiving the differences between the political parties and the vision that they’re offering on the issue of public safety? Who do they trust more? Are those perceptions necessarily accurate? And what do you think is shaping or informing those opinions?

McLendon: Well, first of all, it’s important to recognize that voters don’t actually think that crime is going down, and in fact, they increasingly think it’s going up.

Seeberger: So you’re saying that there’s a disconnect between the data and what voters are actually thinking reality is.

McLendon: That’s right, that’s right. But it’s fair to say that over the past few years, crime has been a legitimate concern. There have been legitimate increases. And even though it’s going down, voters aren’t seeing it that way. So they’re really looking to see from any of their elected officials, right, a sense that their public safety is meaningful to their elected leaders, that their leaders care, and that they’re responsive to their crime concerns to begin with, right?

And so going back to your question about what they think about Republicans and Democrats—well, it’s not great for Democrats right now. Right now, they are quite behind in terms of voters’ perceptions on which party is better at crime and public safety. Generally, voters trust Democrats a little bit less to care about public safety but then also to have solutions to improve it.

Seeberger: Well, I mean, that’s fascinating given the fact that we’re seeing Republicans on Capitol Hill put forward a budget plan that would actually gut one of the primary programs to help localities actually be able to hire police officers. We have seen the Biden administration, through the American Rescue Plan, provide resources to local police departments to be able to hire, train, retain officers on the beat and support things like community violence intervention programs that are really important for stopping crimes from happening before they even do, right?

So, it seems like there’s this disconnect between what the policies Republicans are proposing, what the policies Democrats have championed, and the data is beginning to show are quite effective.

And so I’m curious to zero in on this question about guns, though. We know that guns are playing kind of an increasing role—if you look at violent crimes, right, they’re actually playing an increasing, aggravating role in undermining public safety. Can you talk a little bit about what types of gun reforms the evidence suggests would actually address violent crime? And can you talk about pushback we’ve seen on these solutions from Republicans? Are they paying any consequence for standing in the way, either pushing these radical proposals or undermining efforts to address them?

McLendon: So, you’re spot on that while Republicans seem to have a better public perception around crime and their ability to address it, quite frankly, the solutions on offer have almost little to no impact on improving safety and actually can worsen it. So to your point about guns, we’re still piecing it together, right, what happened in 2020 that caused such a high spike in homicide. But we know one of the drivers was a huge increase in gun sales and the proliferation of guns, right? Especially in the hands of people who want to use them for violence.

And so, trying to adopt solutions—generally they’re going to be at the state level, right? Trying to adopt solutions that would limit access to guns by people who want to use them to cause harm, but also people who just shouldn’t have them, like children, right? And also trying to, I think, tamp down a little bit on just the numbers of guns available. And the higher numbers of gun[s] you have, the more likely they are to be stolen and trafficked and then used for illegal purposes.

So the report that we did featured a number of solutions that would help do that. One of them is making sure that you’re safely storing your guns so that they’re both kept out of the hands of kids, and they’re also kept out of the hands of people who would use them to commit violence and stealing them. When I spoke with the Milwaukee mayor recently, he said one challenge they’re seeing is that people come to the city, and they bring their guns with them, and they don’t store them properly in their cars. Their cars get broken into, guns stolen, and probably off to be used for not a good purpose, right?

Seeberger: Sure. These things just kind of layer on to one another in terms of aggravating levels of crime, the proliferation of incidents. So that definitely makes a lot of sense. You talked about your report—I think a key thing that you underline there is, there are really these two different strategies to fight crime: One is accountability and two is prevention. What do each of these two strategies entail, and how are they different, and why do we really need both of them in order to actually achieve true public safety?

McLendon: Right. So the report is titled “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention” because it recognizes that right now, we need a two-pronged approach.

So people can’t be allowed to go and harm others with impunity, right? But accountability, we talk a lot about changing the way we think about accountability because we mostly think of it as a form of punishment. That almost never helps anybody change direction. It doesn’t repair harm to victims.

So we talk about accountability in a broader way that A) will improve accountability and improve the rate at which people are being identified for causing harm because the solve rates of crimes are incredibly low.

Seeberger: So crimes happen and basically they’re never solved. Is that what you’re suggesting?

McLendon: Right. And across the board, murder actually has some of the highest solve rates, and that’s less than 50 percent across the nation.

Seeberger: Wow.

McLendon: Right. And then property crime is somewhere around a 13 percent solve rate. So you just have a lot of things happening that people are not being held accountable for. But in part, it’s because a small number of people drive serious crime, right?

Seeberger: Sure.

McLendon: So there’s these cycles of violence and networks of violence that continue sort of unabated when crime’s not solved. But then also there are a lot of other things we need to do to improve the way we hold people accountable so that we get them off the track of reoffending, right? So that we’re reducing future crime. There are a lot of underlying issues that can drive the choice to commit a crime, right?

Seeberger: Sure.

McLendon: —we call it a choice, but can drive criminal activity. And so addressing those underlying issues as well. Like, making sure that the way we hold people accountable stops the cycle of offending. That’s really the core.

But then simultaneously, we’ve got to be investing in the things we know that prevent crime to begin with. And this is something that’s going to create a lot longer-lasting safety, right? If you’re investing in the people and the institutions that create safety and the neighborhoods who have been disinvested, crime is going to become less prevalent because it’s just not an interesting option. It’s not available to people who otherwise right now might be suffering from scarcity or caught up in cycles of violence. Prevention is a really core piece to this.

Seeberger: So you’re saying that Republican efforts to defund things like helping people be able to get substance use treatment is not actually going to promote public safety?

McLendon: Right. No, I mean, stripping the resources from the communities that need them the most won’t do anything for anyone’s safety. But I will say that the Biden administration has been really great at making sure that communities are getting the kind of resources they need for things like community violence interruption strategies. And a lot of people don’t know what that means, but it’s simply this: You have people who are rooted in the community, who engage with others who may be at risk of violence, either because they themselves have been traumatized, something’s happened to them, they’re in a scarce position. So they engage with them and try to help improve their circumstances, help them get a job or have access to the kind of resources that prevent violent crime.

And that is much, much, much more effective than simply responding and reacting to crime. So the funds under the American Rescue Plan have been instrumental in helping improve that in cities across the country. And I do believe that’s a big part of why we’re seeing—especially in the larger cities that have embraced those strategies—we’re seeing crime reductions.

Seeberger: That’s great. So, I have to ask you, police play a key role both in preventing crime before it happens as well as holding criminals accountable. Can you speak to the fact, though, that we’ve seen in recent years that they aren’t always reliable in dealing justly with different types of communities? Can you talk about some of the reforms your team suggested in the report that you released about how we can have more accountability in a way that’s more equitable and more just?

McLendon: Yeah, absolutely. So police continue to be well-respected and popular across demographics, but we also see a high appetite for reform, for the changing of the way that police engage with communities, especially Black communities who have historically been overpoliced, subject to overenforcement and overincarceration.

So, a couple of things. One, we propose several strategies to change the way that police interact with the public. Instead of treating the public as an enemy that they have to be on guard against, they are instead taking care of the communities, and they’re engaging with people respectfully.

We also talk about emphasizing community and police collaborations a lot more robustly. So community organizations tend to be as invested in their own safety as anyone else.

Seeberger: Sure. They’re on the front lines, right?

McLendon: Right. And so working with police to, instead of cast a broad net of enforcement strategies, to do a lot more preventive engagement. And then quite frankly, we need to reject these strategies that rely on police violence first and foremost, right? So, the kinds of things that—chokeholds and no-knock warrants and all of that actual policing tactics—they need to be minimized as much as possible and banned as much as possible. But then we also need to try to find, I would say, training strategies, but also close collaboration with the communities who are suffering most from crime to help map out what they want. What are they looking for from the police, right? What is it that they would like to see different from law enforcement? And so making sure that those communities are at the center of any kind of policing strategy.

Seeberger: That’s interesting. Your report suggests a number of different really exciting policies and potential reforms. Which ones are you most optimistic that we may actually be able to get done in the next few years? And why is now the time to act on these policies? We talked about the changing crime landscape. Why is now the time that policymakers should be looking at making some of these changes?

McLendon: So, I think I’m pretty optimistic that one thing that we could work to improve immediately is improving our crime clearance rates, because there’s a robust set of evidence pointing to how law enforcement can do that. And not just focusing on, for example, homicides, but on nonfatal shootings.

It’s a matter of increasing the time and attention that law enforcement are giving to each individual case. Denver proved really great results when they dedicated a detective unit just to solving nonfatal shootings. And that also helps reduce that cycle of violence, right? Going back to that notion that a few people are driving the majority of serious crime. Well, if you’re getting at the root of who’s shooting, then you might be able to prevent further shootings.

Seeberger: Makes sense.

McLendon: And so the strategies are known. You don’t have to increase a lot of resources to get it done, you just have to shift your resources toward doing that. So I’m optimistic that could make a big difference.

It also helps, I think, build community confidence that police care—that they’re there to help, not to enforce, but that they care about people who’ve been harmed. I’m also optimistic that—because we’re seeing some of these changes, most recently in Maryland—that we can do better to support victims, people who have been subject to violence.

Seeberger: What does that look like?

McLendon: So, what Maryland recently did is they changed their victim compensation law to make sure that there are a greater number of resources available for victims because I think it’s approximately 96 percent of victims never receive any financial assistance at all.

Seeberger: Wow.

McLendon: It’s a hard system to navigate. They don’t know what’s available to them. They don’t understand. There are a lot of exclusions, unnecessary exclusions, and folks who’ve been exposed to violence often become involved in violence again later in their life, so getting them the resources they need early on and expanding the pool of people that we make those resources available to, I think, could have a pretty immediate impact, and we could do it pretty immediately.

Seeberger: Well, that is an optimistic note that I will be happy to conclude our conversation on. Lindsey McLendon, it was so great to have you on.

McLendon: Thanks so much, Colin. It was great to be here.

[Musical transition]

Gibbs Léger: As always, thanks for listening. Be sure to go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go, Colin, I feel like there’s something you want to talk about.

Seeberger: Daniella, I have to get it off my chest. I am obsessed with the new “Wicked” movie trailer that came out this week.

Gibbs Léger: Yes.

Seeberger: I immediately watched it, and I was just overcome with emotion because it has taken, like, 15 years since they started talking about producing this movie to finally get to this point. And this was the first extended trailer that they’ve released. It’s about three and a half minutes or so.

And I cannot underscore enough how beautiful it looks, how incredible the acting appears that it’s going to be, the music sounds great, the sets are gorgeous. I’m so, so, so excited, and I know what I will be doing this year on Thanksgiving—that’s going to see “Wicked.”

Gibbs Léger: So I will confess that I have not seen the musical.

Seeberger: Daniella!

Gibbs Léger: I know, and I am someone who likes musicals, but I’ve never gotten around to seeing this one. I will see it at some point. But I am excited for the movie as well.

Seeberger: Well, I think that means that “The Tent” needs to go on the road to Broadway.

Gibbs Léger: I’m sure we can get that approved.

Seeberger: Yes, I’m sure, I’m sure. Well, there’s also going to be a few of our favorites in there. I know you like Cynthia Erivo.

Gibbs Léger: I do.

Seeberger: I adore Jonathan Bailey.

Gibbs Léger: Did you say Jonathan Bailey?

Seeberger: I did say Jonathan Bailey. I had to work that in. Yeah, so I’m super stoked, Ariana Grande—I was extremely skeptical when she was cast as Glinda, but—

Gibbs Léger: You were.

Seeberger: —just absolutely floored me in the trailer. I don’t know what it is, but she just so perfectly embodies the character. So I’m stoked.

Gibbs Léger: All right. Well, I am happy that you are stoked, I’m going to check out the trailer. But speaking of Jonathan Bailey—something else is happening this week.

Seeberger: Oh, what?

Gibbs Léger: New season of “Bridgerton.”

Seeberger: Oh, yes. I have heard.

Gibbs Léger: Season three, I was less than excited to see Penelope and Colin’s story because I really like the other brother and I’m like, “Do him first.” But all the trailers have—I’m so excited! I cannot wait. I’m going to try not to binge it all at once. I want to savor it like a meal, take my time.

Seeberger: Do they release all the episodes at once?

Gibbs Léger: They’re going to drop the first half this week, and then I think in June they drop the second half all at once.

Seeberger: Well, that’s good. You get to kind of self-ration a little bit.

Gibbs Léger: Exactly. And we know how I feel about Jonathan Bailey.

Seeberger: Well, that is certainly true. But it’s also good because I don’t know about you, but I got lots of limits on my time during the week and on the weekends for all my sports watching right now.

Gibbs Léger: Yes.

Seeberger: I’ve got the Rangers and the Stars still battling it out in the NHL playoffs. I’ve got the Knicks are kind of their own melodrama that’s happening—

Gibbs Léger: Oh my gosh.

Seeberger: —over the course of the past week, losing by 35 points or so this past weekend after winning the first few games. It’s too much.

Gibbs Léger: It’s a lot.

Seeberger: Not only are you keeping me up until after midnight, which is a lot for a parent with a 2-year-old, but you’re also putting us through this rollercoaster of emotion.

Gibbs Léger: It’s too much stress. Although the game this week, the Knicks were back, baby.

Seeberger: Yes.

Gibbs Léger: They did very well.

Seeberger: They delivered.

Gibbs Léger: I forget if Boston, in their series, if they’re up one or two?

Seeberger: The Bruins?

Gibbs Léger: No, back to basketball. Because basically, my husband will only root for the Knicks if they’re playing the Celtics.

Seeberger: Oh.

Gibbs Léger: Yeah, because he just has this irrational hate for New York teams. And I’m like, “Oh, is it because you hate winning?” So, I want the Knicks and Boston to play, because it’s always a great match when those teams play, because I want to force my husband to root for the New York Knickerbockers. Speaking of my husband, it’s our 20th wedding anniversary today.

Seeberger: Yay! Congratulations!

Gibbs Léger: Yay!

Seeberger: Happy anniversary!

Gibbs Léger: Thank you. Happy anniversary, babe! [Laughs.]

Seeberger: You got a good one. You got a good one.

Gibbs Léger: Thank you, Colin. All right. Well, on that note, let us take our leave. I sound like I could be in “Bridgerton” with that, right?

Seeberger: You could.

Gibbs Léger: Yes, I could. I just rewatched season two, so. Anyway, y’all take care of yourselves and we’ll talk to you next week.

[Musical transition]

Gibbs Léger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, 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.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.


Daniella Gibbs Léger

Executive Vice President, Communications and Strategy


Colin Seeberger

Senior Adviser, Communications

Erin Phillips

Broadcast Media Manager

Kelly McCoy

Senior Director of Broadcast Communications

Mishka Espey

Senior Manager, Media Relations

Muggs Leone

Executive Assistant

Video producers

Hai-Lam Phan

Senior Director, Creative

Matthew Gossage

Events Video Producer

Olivia Mowry

Video Producer

Toni Pandolfo

Video Producer, Production



Explore The Series

Politics. Policy. Progress. All under one big tent. Produced by CAP Action, “The Tent” is a news and politics podcast hosted by Daniella Gibbs Léger and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Listen each Thursday for episodes exploring topics that progressives are focused on.


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.