As Federal Rights Rollbacks and Cuts Hit Home, Seattle Council Forms Crisis Response Committee

Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes | Seattle City Council

Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes | Seattle Channel

“Seattle and King County Grapple with Federal Disinvestment and Threats” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“Seattle Gears Up to Fight Back as Trump Eviscerates Funding, Rights” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“Trump Shreds Social Safety Net, Creating Perfect Storm for Homelessness” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“Washington's libraries face 'deep and dramatic' funding cuts as Trump abruptly terminates federal grants” by Katie Campbell from KUOW

“Grim Outlook for Local Homelessness Programs Under Trump’s Slash-and-Burn Cuts” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

“New Council Committee Shines a Light on Bleak Impacts of Trump Funding Cuts” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

“Seattle Must Repeal Mass Surveillance Expansion To Protect People from Trump” by BJ Last and Julia Buck for The Burner

FINAL REPORT OF THE REVENUE STABILIZATION WORKGROUP | August 7, 2023

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I’m your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what you can do about it.

Today, we're digging into how Seattle is preparing for the local fallout from sweeping policy changes and funding threats at the federal level. Just weeks after the start of the Trump administration's second term, Seattle City Council and Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck created the new Select Committee to track and respond to shifts in federal funding, executive orders, and civil rights rollbacks that could deeply affect city services and vulnerable communities. Joining us today are two people with a very close eye on what's happening: Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who chairs the new committee, and journalist Amy Sundberg, who covers public safety and local policy for The Urbanist and publishes the newsletter 'Notes from the Emerald City,' and is also a noted author. Welcome to you both.

[00:01:25] Amy Sundberg: It's great to be here.

[00:01:27] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Thanks for having us for this important conversation.

[00:01:29] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, I want to overall explore what's already changing on the ground in Seattle and what City Hall can or can't do. But just starting off - Councilmember Rinck, you introduced the Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes just weeks into the new presidential term. What made it clear to you that Seattle needed a special committee like this now?

[00:01:52] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: While I was campaigning last year, it dawned on me - over the summer - that there was a potential outcome that I could win my election and Donald Trump could win his election. And that's when I spent some time with Project 2025 and read major chapters throughout it, namely the Housing and Human Services chapter, chapter on HUD [Housing and Urban Development] , energy policy - and started realizing quickly the ramifications that it would have for Washington state and Seattle specifically, assuming that Project 2025 was the plan. And that seems to be the case from what we've seen so far. And who knows what could happen by the time this episode airs, candidly, compared to what we'll be sharing today.

But I came into office and actually a couple days into my term - in November - convened our first meeting of some internal partners working in the space of immigration and refugee resettlement, along with our county partners, because I knew that immigrant communities would be hit immediately by the administration. And so started those discussions with 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, it became very clear that my colleagues were getting information from community leaders - there was information flying all around - and realizing we need a space as a full Council body where we are all getting the same information at the same time and making it accessible to the public. And luckily, we have the amazing Seattle Channel, which offers that opportunity to really record those council meetings. And then that serving as a tool to get information out to the public as well. And so that's a bit about what was the core concept behind that. And that vehicle, as a committee, will serve not just to receive information, but serve as a space for me and my colleagues to discuss - what are we going to do about this? What are the actions that the City needs to take up? And how are we going to make plans to backfill for losses in federal funding that will show up across the city? And those losses are already showing up.

[00:03:46] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, Amy - from your reporting, what's the broader context behind this? Have we seen city governments or other governments respond to federal policy shifts in this way before?

[00:03:58] Amy Sundberg: I don't know exactly this way. I do feel that this is an unprecedented time in some ways. But we've certainly seen Seattle City Council pass resolutions and policy in the past that are responding to the national climate - so in that way, there is precedent. And during Trump's first term, for example, there was something about reproductive healthcare that was passed just to make sure that it was very clear to the public, to Seattleites, that that is a value that we hold dear here - is that access to reproductive healthcare.

[00:04:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, Councilmember Rinck, your committee looks at both direct federal funding to the City and federal dollars flowing into other institutions in Seattle, like hospitals, universities, nonprofits. Can you break down why that distinction matters?

[00:04:52] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Absolutely. We're tracking right now at the city level all of the different direct grants that the City receives from the federal government. The City has joined, alongside a number of cities in a sanctuary city lawsuit. And to date, as far as I know, we have not lost any direct federal funding. But that's easier for us to track because it's coming in and shows up in our budget. What's harder for us to track and why we're using this committee space to bring in so many community partners and other entities. It's because we're already seeing the impacts 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 to just keep things clear and understand what is within the City's direct purview and what shows up in our budget is easier to track and different from the ways in which federal funding shows up in our city. And that's something that we're trying to unearth - that's a task that we haven't had to take up because I think we always assumed that federal funding would be a more stable source and would continue to serve our neighbors. But now we're trying to play a quick catch up to figure out all the ways in which federal funding is showing up, whether it be in meal programs, getting diapers for low-income families, whether it be in the arts space.

The other committee that I chair is City Light, Sustainability and Arts and Culture. Each of those sectors has been deeply affected when we're talking about our sustainability work, our energy policy, and the arts and culture space. I would speak to actually an event I was just at last night with the Seattle Asian Art Museum - the launch of a new exhibit - which I would say it's important to keep joy at this time. And so certainly go see some art if you can. But this amazing exhibit that really featured an artist who is exploring the intersections of her identity as an Indian woman and a family history tied to Guyana - just really important art. But, the director of SAM was there speaking and speaking out about the ways in which his start in the arts career was made possible through a federal grant. And how important it is to be using our voices at this time in celebrating the arts. That was a little bit of a side tangent, but again, like things that we just haven't thought about or spoken about directly, or connect the dots on - federal funding impacts so many of us in different ways. And the other piece of this is the ways in which we see programs like Medicaid - and particularly Medicaid reimbursement - which I imagine we'll go into a bit more when we talk about our recent meeting that we had at the Select Committee. That is a major fund source that supports a lot of people within our city. And just unpacking the impacts of what would happen if we lost that is huge.

[00:07:26] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - we will get more into that. Amy, you've been tracking the impacts of federal disinvestment and rhetoric in your reporting. What kinds of local disruptions - financial, civil rights, or anything - have you seen already take root?

[00:07:43] Amy Sundberg: There's a lot, so bear with me. And I have been trying to track some on the county level and on the state level as well, so it gives you a different picture when you zoom out a little bit. But in terms of civil rights impacts, we're seeing a lot of especial impacts, I'd say, on the immigrant and refugee communities. I'd say that's top of my mind and just - there are a lot more raids, the population at ICE's detention center in Tacoma has grown much larger over the course of the last couple of months. We're seeing people being arrested. There have been reports of ICE going to restaurants in Seattle. There have been reports of ICE arresting workers who are part of burgeoning labor movements or labor activists. So, while I think probably ICE would disagree with this characterization, it seems like it could be targeted in that way. That's certainly how it comes across to the public, in any case. And that has the effect of chilling labor organizing, right? As well, immigrants are afraid to ask for their labor rights, so they're more likely to be exploited in all kinds of ways by their employers, which is really unfortunate. As well, we're seeing a lot of fear in the LGBTQ+ community, especially, I would say, transgender community. One of the noteworthy things that happened there was with Seattle Children's Hospital - at the last minute canceling some gender-affirming care surgeries, which is obviously very traumatic for the patients and their families. So far, I don't think we've seen any real quelling of protests that I've heard about. But that's something that I think we have to watch out for in the future, especially depending on what happens later in this month in terms of whether President Trump decides to enact the Insurrection Act, which I think could escalate a lot of what I was just talking about.

And then in terms of funding, there have already been funding impacts. I'll just give a couple examples. But I just read yesterday that there is a State Library of Washington State - it's just had some funding cut. It supports, in particular, very small, rural libraries. So that's not going to impact Seattle as much, but it is going to impact people's access to even having the ability to go to the library in their community, which is actually a pretty big deal. As well, in King County, we've had some funding cut for various public health services, and the Community and Human Services Department has also experienced some cuts. I would say, on the whole, public health is in particular just being decimated across the country. So while we are very lucky here in that King County Public Health is known to be one of the best public health departments in the country, it's already getting losses and I expect those to grow over time. In Seattle, we haven't seen that many direct cuts, but there have been a few public works projects in Seattle that have been affected. There is a Native American Carving House project, which is going to be building a Northwest Native Canoe Center. And they've been having trouble getting some of their federal funding, so it's causing hitches in the process. Hopefully they've gotten it by now, but as of a month ago, they were having trouble. The Seattle Center Monorail station reconfiguration is supposed to be scheduled around the World Cup next year, and they've been having trouble getting some of their funds. So it's kind of messy and unpredictable in terms of where and when the cuts are happening. And I think also the future looks like it could be a lot worse because there's going to be new contracts, new grants, a new federal budget, and a lot of cuts potentially coming down to impact the local landscape.

[00:11:45] Crystal Fincher: Following up on that, Amy - do you think the public, or for that matter, most policymakers here in our region fully understand the scale and scope of Seattle's dependency on federal funds? What surprised you most, as you've considered that?

[00:12:06] Amy Sundberg: I would say some elected officials seem to really get it and others not so much - so I would say that really varies. But occasionally, I've been pleasantly surprised, so there is hope in that arena. But what surprised me most - I guess I wasn't really trying to predict what was going to happen. I was just bracing myself and then saying - I'm just going to wait and see. I didn't expect quite such a brutal attack on a lot of the federal level institutions that - a lot of them then give grants to the local level, so that is going to have the trickle down. And also, the electricity thing - I really didn't see that coming at all.

[00:12:50] Crystal Fincher: When you say "the electricity thing," what are you referring to?

[00:12:53] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, it's Bonneville Power - it is a power station that provides a third of the Pacific Northwest electricity energy. And they've had about 14% of the workforce laid off, I believe. So there is concern that there will not be enough of a workforce to keep everything running smoothly. And if you're talking about a third of the region's power, the failure mode of that is bad. So we're thinking about - are there going to be rolling blackouts? What is going to happen with that? And then, of course, I immediately think about people who are going to have extra issues because of that. What if you're disabled and you have a machine that depends on electricity to keep you functional, and suddenly the electricity isn't reliable anymore? So obviously, rolling blackouts will be hard for all of us and can affect everything from how people 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 about people who will be especially impacted.

[00:14:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, Councilmember Rinck, I wanted to talk to you about some feedback sometimes we hear from different people in the community who - some people look at this and they hear numbers like we just heard about the Bonneville Power Administration. And hey - 14% of this workforce is being cut, or 10%, or 18%. And they hear those numbers and they think - That's a relatively small number, and you know what? There probably is a lot of waste, fraud and abuse. They're just streamlining and working on things. And that means that there are fewer people 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?

[00:14:45] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Yeah, let's talk about Bonneville as an example in particular. And I've learned a lot about Bonneville also - because as Chair of City Light, City Light purchases power from Bonneville. And City Light, as a committee, is usually considered the rookie committee because it's usually stable - it's a utility, right? Nothing spicy should be going on. Lo and behold - it is a spicy time for energy policy. BPA is the Pacific Northwest's largest grid operator. Seattle cannot have a functioning utility without it. And we have the benefit of having - as City Light, we have our own hydroelectric dams, a lot of own generation, but we still buy power from Bonneville. And what's important to note about the loss of some of these positions within Bonneville, these cuts - there were 120 firings, but they were later reversed. But they also offered retirement packages for a ton of really qualified longtime employees. So still trying to sort out the staffing levels and where things land there. But Bonneville does not receive 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 and government efficiency really falls flat, because you're firing positions that were not getting government subsidy at all. In fact, because Bonneville as an institution - it generates its own funding, because it's a part of the energy market. And that's one example of just the illogical nature of DOGE and some of these actions.

The other piece of this, and I think we're all learning quickly, the ways in which federal agencies show up in our day-to-day lives - there's the realities of some of these cuts in staff positions in agencies that do much more direct services for folks directly in need. And so at our last Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes, we had a focus session on housing and homelessness policy. But I think it's also important to uplift some of the recent cuts that we've seen here locally, like with Head Start - the Health and Human Services Office closed the downtown Seattle offices last week - 200 staff being terminated. That office oversaw Head Start, a federally funded program to promote school readiness for low-income families. What does that mean for that generation of kiddos and their access to opportunity? Those are just two examples where we may see 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 families and their kiddos not being ready for school is really frightening and will have ramifications for years to come.

[00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, at your committee's first meetings, we heard about the risks to the LGBTQ+ community and immigrant communities, and about gender-affirming care being canceled. What specific actions, if any, are you pushing for to address these civil rights impacts?

[00:17:39] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Absolutely. We had two fantastic panels - and really beefy panels - it was a long meeting because there's a lot to discuss. There's so much happening and I could probably bring all of those organizations back to provide updates, and we'd probably have an even longer meeting. So our first panel was focused on immigration and labor rights issues. We heard directly from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network. We had MLK Labor Council at the table, GSBA, alongside the Fair Work Center and One America - talking about the most pressing concerns related to mass deportations, the chilling effect around 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 explored the increased fear of exploitation from employers for utilizing immigration status against employees.

In our following meeting - I'm working on introducing a Welcoming City Resolution to address some of the critical needs that were uplifted from that first panel discussion. And within that resolution, there's maintaining commitment to a lot of bodies of work that are currently happening with the City, and we want to make sure are actually continued. It's a good moment to say that the City does do a lot of good things when it relates to some of our departments in terms of intentional outreach to immigrant refugee partners, language access - things happening within the Office of Labor Standards, Office of Economic Development, as well as our Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. We want that to continue, and there's going to need to be funding to continue that work. So the resolution includes this commitment to continuing that work and maintaining it, especially as we head into a challenging budget environment where we're going to be making some really hard decisions this year. But maintaining those commitments, keeping the coordination with states' Keep Washington Working policy - we have some directives in there around the City Attorney's Office exploring legal avenues to be able to do this work. And we include language in here that actually puts some investment and puts forward a stated commitment to $150,000 to $300,000 directly to community-based organizations that would continue to provide legal defense work.

And the focus on legal defense work is really derived from some of the immediate impacts that we've been seeing from some of our organizations. Kids In Need of Defense, also known as KIND, and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project - these are two organizations - they provide legal representation to over 200 unaccompanied minors in Seattle who are going through legal proceedings. So, as you can imagine, having a lawyer accompany a six-year-old who's needing to defend themselves in front of a judge and in front of an ICE attorney is a really important service. But because of the loss in their federal funding, KIND is winding down - and that's just heartbreaking. What they've been able to state, though, is that $300,000 translates to about 60 cases. Knowing that there's funding available and having Council make that commitment to putting forward some funding would allow some of these organizations to plan what their caseloads could be. This could be the difference between 60 kiddos who are not deported into countries they may not know or have family connections to, and so on. And so - this is language that is within the draft version of the resolution, along a whole slate of things that we want the City to continue to do. And additional work for the City Attorney's Office to create more legal protections. And certainly, I am fully aware - $300,000 is not enough. We know this is not enough to fill the entire gap created by a cruel administration. And this is a small step we can take to try and meet this moment and create some amount of certainty so these organizations can plan. That's just one piece of what we're trying to do in this moment to address the needs of our immigrant and refugee community members.

[00:21:29] Crystal Fincher: Now, Amy - one point in an Urbanist piece that you wrote is that we're already seeing immigrants detained under worse conditions and workers afraid to speak out. What kind of ripple effect does this have on trust in government?

[00:21:46] Amy Sundberg: That is a good question - I think it lowers trust in government. But I think if you zoom back and look at the big picture - maybe part of the landscape of why we're here in the 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 government all over the world today than there was, say, 20, 30, 40 years ago. And obviously, we can speculate about why that might be - I think inequality, income inequality in particular, is certainly going to be high on that list. But at this point, I was hearing stories of immigrants who were worried they would be targeted - and so they just don't leave their house. They're afraid to go to the grocery store. They're afraid to go to the food bank. They're afraid to go and receive any of the services that they may be eligible for. And frankly, given the current climate, I don't blame them. I think it's very scary. And I think they're correct not to trust the government at this point. There is a distinction between the federal government and the city government, say, or the county or state government. 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 getting that wrong are so high that one could see that you would just not trust any government at that point.

[00:23:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. I've, in other reporting, seen reports - lots of schools reporting lower attendance, employers reporting lower attendance and people no-showing, being afraid what's happening. People missing medical appointments - 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 experiencing violence, experiencing crime - afraid to report that and seek justice because they don't know if they're going to be penalized are things that we've seen reported and certainly are concerning to a lot of people. Now, Councilmember Rinck - Seattle has received, I believe, $157 million in ongoing federal funds in 2023. If even a fraction of that is lost, what are the options? Can the city backfill it? Is there a stabilization fund? What are the options, and what would the plan be?

[00:24:14] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: I really appreciate that question because it's front of mind for me. And I know at the time of filming this, we are waiting for our revenue forecast to come out. And I imagine by the time this episode comes out, we'll know what that looks like. I don't have a number of what that looks like - I'll be finding out alongside the public when that comes out. But it's not lost on me that that number is not going to be good. So, the double challenge of losses in federal funding on top of the City having an existing budget challenge, the state having a budget challenge, the county having a budget challenge. We have to, for the sake of our city 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 realistic solution to what is before us.

[00:25:04] Crystal Fincher: That's a pretty prescient - it's a point that's top of many people's minds. One, you just look at the election results - and certainly those look pretty overwhelming and convincing, not just in City elections, but even in the statewide referendum vote 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 lot of hard data, including that Washington state is 49th out of 50 states when it comes to how regressive taxes are. Or meaning the people who make the least pay by percentage the most - they're being the most impacted, they're asking to bear the greatest burden. The people at the very top of the income ladder are being asked to carry the least burden. And so lots of people are feeling - this is not quite fair, and we don't have everyone paying their fair share. So at these times when we're discussing revenue, it seems like it's hard to get away from that kind of conversation.

[00:26:09] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Absolutely. Working families - so our bottom 60% of Washington state - pay up to 13.8% of 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 exploring every legal avenue to ensure that the wealthy are paying their fair share. What I refuse to accept is balancing a budget on the backs of working families and cutting our essential services, especially at this time, and especially as we're seemingly headed into a recession. Who knows what the stock market is doing in this moment? Could be in a very different place - again. And I keep emphasizing the time between when we're filming and when this comes out - because it is so volatile right now. And we knew this was a part of their strategy - to flood the zone. But it is hard to keep track, we're going to keep doing our best to keep track - but this is a really unreliable, inconsistent time. And so much is changing day by day. And we're going to keep following what's going on and trying to understand the impacts for our residents. My office is committed to protecting our residents, and that's going to mean a serious move towards progressive revenue.

[00:27:25] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County's been open about its inability to backfill major losses, especially in public health and human services, or challenges that they would experience with that. What are you hearing about - what the City could realistically do to protect essential programs? In the case of a loss of revenue, what specific types of progressive revenue are on the table that look like they could realistically make it through this council and get the signature of the mayor?

[00:27:55] Amy Sundberg: That's a tough question. I would say this council and mayor have not been overly friendly to the idea of adding new, progressive revenue options. I also will just remind everyone that the council had a chance to pass a capital gains tax for the city during the last budget cycle last November - and they failed to do so. And if they had done so, we would be in a slightly better position - because the other thing you have to remember is that when you start adding new, progressive revenue options, it takes a little while for them to roll out. So it's not like you're like - Okay, we're doing a capital gains tax 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 is much better to plan ahead. And the City of Seattle, in my opinion, has failed to do that. They had a huge deficit that they were filling last year, and yet they still added over $100 million in new spending by just taking the JumpStart Tax money that had been allocated to certain 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 think that was not the best idea, but now we're seeing one of those reasons already coming home to roost - because JumpStart did not bring in as much as they thought it would for 2024. So there's now a new deficit that's going to need to be bridged. And there was a deficit already projected for 2027. So there's just deficit after deficit after deficit. And yet we're not able to even pass a capital gains tax, which we feel like probably would survive legal challenges - like, what are we doing?

So, you know, obviously, I think the capital gains tax - that's low hanging fruit - that should be a no-brainer. It doesn't bring in necessarily a huge amount of money. But I think at this point - as we heard, $300,000 is enough to save at least 60 kids. At this point, any amount matters. So I think it's definitely worth doing that. The other one that I think is easier to do quickly would be to adjust the JumpStart Tax. And there are various wonky ways that you can do that - there's not just one set way. And we've seen the council do that - they raised it a very small amount to cover student mental health investments. So it is not unprecedented that that would 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 another deficit on top of a deficit. That's why it was originally designated for things like affordable housing - that is easier to kind of move your investments based on what's happening with the funding source. So while I think that wouldn't be a bad thing to do, I do think that that still would not necessarily provide all the stability that we would want in the City budget going forward.

[00:30:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think there were a number of people who were hoping that we would more meaningfully address structural forces behind the deficit and rely less on one-time transfers that left a lot of the structural problem in place that we now have to deal with - on top of the rest of the volatility. But in some ways, it looks like - councilmembers, and perhaps the mayor, may have noticed how widespread public sentiment is in favor of progressive taxation and may be reconsidering some of their previous stances. Have you seen any of that willingness to have or review some of those conversations, Councilmember Rinck? And what do you see as the path forward to getting to revenue?

[00:31:40] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Well, I'm happy to share that my first council meeting - when we were taking up our state legislative agenda - I successfully got an amendment on there to include language essentially pushing the State Legislature to consider progressive revenue options first when it comes to addressing the budget challenge, instead of regressive options that have a disproportionate burden on working families. That is on our City's state legislative agenda - that amendment did go through - some indication from my colleagues, at least, to acknowledge on the state level that pursuing progressive revenue is the step that we'd like to see.

And of course, when we approved that agenda - a lot has happened, a lot has changed. And with the revenue forecasts that are coming in, with the cuts that we're hearing about from community members. And I really do think with what our community partners are presenting to us, especially in the realm of housing - I'm sincerely hopeful that my colleagues are seeing the writing on the wall when we're talking about things like when KCRHA shares with us that they've received $23 million from HUD and that's an impact of keeping 4,490 people housed. Losing that money means those people do not have housing - that is a huge issue for already our region experiencing homelessness. We also have HUD continu- COC [Continuum of Care] funding - $66 million for Washington state could be lost. When we have DESC, Downtown Emergency Services Center, which is one of our service providers who serve our community's most vulnerable - folks who have behavioral health, physical health challenges, and experiencing homelessness. They receive about $35 million in federal funding, primarily through Medicaid reimbursements. What does it mean if Medicaid goes away and we're unable to fill that gap to serve folks? These are programs that include outpatient behavioral health, case management, mental healthcare, substance use disorder care, crisis stabilization, mobile outreach, opioid treatment, foundational community supports. So I bring these things up to say - this is the value of really being able to present these issues and really demonstrate the impact. And as we're doing work to evaluate what options are on the table - and right now truly we're looking at - we have to put every option on the table when it comes to seeking new revenue and continue these discussions because our fundamental role on City Council is to serve the people. And when we're talking about our community that is at risk of going hungry and going unhoused more than already the challenges we've had in being able to house and feed our community, that's a huge issue. And I sincerely hope that it is taken with the level of seriousness that the situation requires, because what we're facing is just - candidly - dire.

[00:34:18] Crystal Fincher: Now, you've been critical of recent Council moves like expanding surveillance tools and approving less lethal weapons. Councilmember Rinck, do you see contradictions between those decisions and the City's effort to protect vulnerable communities?

[00:34:36] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: Yeah, certainly. I'm particularly concerned about surveillance as it stands, and my team has been putting forward a lot of questions to City departments to really examine our current contracts, the use of that technology, the vulnerabilities in that technology - as well as it relates to then, even potentially state law with Keep Washington Working. And some of the ways in which that data is stored through cloud-based technologies being susceptible to not being covered by state law. With that being said, we're looking at - and think we need to have a discussion about surveillance technology, and how it has been deployed, and how it could be potentially making people more vulnerable during this time. It's certainly something that we're keeping up and having conversation about and something that I think we need to bring back this year - now we're in a different context - we have to bring it back for a serious discussion.

[00:35:26] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, Amy - Councilmember Rinck, wasn't yet in office during a lot of those votes. But do you think the City's recent public safety decisions undermine its credibility on protecting civil liberties from federal overreach?

[00:35:42] Amy Sundberg: Yes. The short answer is - yes, I do. I watched both of those decisions you referenced in terms of the less 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 the election was going to happen. And certainly, at least I knew there was a possibility that Donald Trump would win. And while the context has changed, I do feel like we knew this was possible. It wasn't like this is a big, big shock, right? So the fact that the Council was unwilling to take some of these safety and privacy issues more seriously at that time was fairly disturbing to watch, to be honest. And one of the things that really stands out to me when I reflect back on it is that they have a Surveillance Working Group, whose job it is, is to review any new surveillance technologies. They tend to be technical experts. And then they compile a report to assess these new technologies and the impact they might have, and whether or not they would recommend these technologies to be implemented in the city. And the report that finally came out about CCTV and the Real-Time Crime Center specifically did not recommend that the City utilize either of those technologies. And one of the main reasons was because there were a lot of civil liberties concerns in terms of the privacy of that data. So, like Councilmember Rinck said - because Washington law doesn't necessarily protect data if it's held in another state, which data center could be anywhere. Or if the company is not incorporated in Washington, which the company Axon that is contracted to do these technologies, is not a Washington-based company.

So there are holes in that data. And what that can mean is that, for example, ICE could get a hold of that data so it could compromise immigrant and refugee safety. It also means that potentially other states could get that data if, for example, they were trying to track people that live in their state who are coming to Washington to get reproductive care that perhaps is illegal in the originating state, but obviously is not illegal here. And it makes it, frankly, a lot less safe for everyone. I will say that the additional context that we have learned this year about that surveillance is that we're seeing the Trump administration being very comfortable just ignoring laws. So I would say, frankly, even if you had this surveillance and the data was more securely stored - so it was stored 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 seeing that these norms are being just thrown out the window, that the rule of law no longer has the weight that it once did. And even if you can do a lawsuit about these things, that might be too late. Harm will already have been done at that point. So the thing I think that people don't consider 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 least not in our current political climate.

The other thing I'll say is that in terms of the less lethal weapons - to pass that at that point, it was pretty clear how things were going to go. When we know that there might be more protests going forward, when we know that the federal government is likely to be trying to crack down on that - to then allow as much leeway as the Seattle Police Department was allowed by this new legislation seems dangerous. As well, SPD's mutual aid partners are given a huge amount of leeway in the new bill, which seems dangerous. And I really hope that we don't see the consequences of these decisions later this year or next year. But frankly, it seems more likely than not to me that we probably will.

[00:39:57] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: And just to chime in on that point - I was one of the three votes that voted against the legislation, for a variety of reasons. And I think it's important to note that just before that vote, there was a peaceful demonstration in District 1 - Alki Beach - folks protesting the Trump administration, ICE and family separation policies, community members exercising their legal First Amendment rights. And an SPD officer pointed the barrel of what looked like a pepperball gun in the face of a young demonstrator. All of our offices were emailed that video just days before we voted on this legislation. That is where we were before passing that policy - an SPD officer pointing the gun in the face of a young person protesting government that is trying to destroy families and communities. And I am disappointed by that.

But paired with that, I think about the message that we've sent to our community about passing this kind of a policy, especially in the wake of what is going to be a time where there are going to be a lot of protests. I know I've participated in the rally that happened over the weekend, the Hands Off rally. I've certainly seen many protests - and we're going to continue to have protests, just as we did during the first Trump administration. And the message that I know many community members heard from the passage of that legislation is that - now that we have a government that's already taking away our rights, our local police force is going to be cracking down on our ability to voice our discontent with that government. And that was the headline that many community members received or reached out to my office about, and I think that's deeply 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.

[00:41:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So what should residents expect next from your committee? More hearings, proposed legislation, budget interventions? What's next?

[00:42:04] Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck: We have a lineup of some topics for continued briefings. As we've talked about, there are so many different aspects in which our lives are impacted. So some of the upcoming briefings will be focused on transportation. And we know that the transportation sector and all the projects that have been planned will be deeply impacted by losses in federal funding. Paired with that, we have been in discussion with talking about trade and the impact of the trade war. And we are deeply connected - we are a port city, we have the Port of Seattle. And so talking about what kind of ramifications that will be for our local economy. We've also been in discussion with the Attorney General's Office and are looking at partnerships and ways to talk about some of the state level litigation and do an explainer on what's happening on that front. As well as some coordination with King County.

So trying to pepper in these briefings, so we're continuing to be appraised of these different sectors and challenges that may be coming up, but also taking up some legislation. Our first trial run will be with this resolution related to seeing if we can move towards maintaining our commitments to our immigrant refugee community. And seeing if we can also commit to an initial increase in investing in legal defense. And we'll be working with offices on subsequent legislation. The big thing here is, of course, what is our plan to backfill? The losses in federal funding are coming. And so starting these conversations now, where we are still ahead of budget season - to really understand what is it that we're working with and what are our options - that work begins now. And it's going to be a really interesting time. And we're going to need a lot of partnership to get through it and a lot of candid conversation. And intending for the committee to be the space where we can have those conversations and really just have a good spirit of - we got to work on this together for the sake of our residents.

[00:43:45] Crystal Fincher: And Amy, what stories or signals will you be watching in the months ahead to track how Seattle is really responding to instability or changes from the federal government?

[00:43:57] Amy Sundberg: I will definitely be attending Councilmember Rinck's committee meetings. As well, there is going to be regular monthly updates for the King County Council. So that will give me the inside view from that standpoint. But a lot of it is just going to be tracking what happens at the federal level and what that actually means for the people that live here. So when the library funding gets cut, who does that actually impact? If we're having rolling blackouts, who is really suffering from that? Looking at protests, I feel like I haven't seen a huge amount of news about protests. But there's been research done that shows that there actually has been a huge uptick of protests in this period of time in Trump's second administration, compared to the same period of time 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 people care about and are uplifting in their own communities is something that I'm going to be very interested in following and trying to uplift.

[00:45:11] Crystal Fincher: Well, big thank you to Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and journalist Amy Sundberg for joining us. We'll keep watching what happens as Seattle responds to this new federal landscape, and how local leaders 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. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on 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 every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.