Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger.
Erin Phillips: And filling in for Daniella Gibbs Léger, I’m Erin Phillips.
Seeberger: Erin, this weekend it’s here. Are you excited for the Super Bowl?
Phillips: I am. I do actually watch the Super Bowl. Listeners may know I’m not a sports person, but I always make plans with friends to watch the Super Bowl. I love the snacks.
Phillips: I like the commercials. I like the halftime show. I’ll be looking for the Taylor Swift cam.
Seeberger: No doubt, no doubt. And very sad news for Drake that Kendrick Lamar, of course, will be headlining the Super Bowl halftime show this year. But I am really hoping that the Chiefs can get their third Super Bowl victory in a row, and then we can just stop talking about the Kansas City Chiefs. That would be great.
Phillips: Yeah, you don’t think it’ll be four?
Seeberger: Uh, hopefully not.
Phillips: Well before we get to the biggest sports event of the year, we’ve got our own show to do, and I did hear that you had a friend of the pod and a CAP Action colleague on this week.
Seeberger: That’s right. I spoke with Allison McManus, managing director of National Security and International Policy at CAP Action, about Trump’s meeting with [Prime Minister Benjam] Netanyahu this week, his outrageous comments about displacing Gazans, and his dangerous shutdown of USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development].
Phillips: A really timely conversation for a really hectic week. But first, we have to get to some news.
Seeberger: We do. And with all the noise that Trump is creating, you may not have heard about how quickly his big tariff plans dissolved last weekend when it came time for him to actually enforce them. Look, Donald Trump is a great TV producer, but he’s a terrible president.
Which world leader is he going to pick a fight with next? Which dictator is he going to cozy up to? Which country might he try to steal next? These are the storylines he wants us to talk about. The only problem is that we’re not living in an episode of “The Apprentice.” Government is not reality TV. His decisions, including this first round of tariffs, could have real consequences for ordinary Americans.
He’s willing to play games with people’s retirement security. He’s willing to stick us with even higher grocery bills and make us do things like shell out $3,000 more if you’re buying a new car. It’s obvious this guy who’s got so much money in his ear—whether it’s Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, whatever—he doesn’t care about us.
Trump picked a pathetic fight with America’s closest neighbors, and he was willing to tank our economy so that Canada, for example, would recommit to plans that they already announced in December, including a new, quote, “fentanyl czar,” close quote.
Phillips: Whatever that means.
Seeberger: Yeah, right? I mean, it’s weak. It’s pathetic. It’s embarrassing. World leaders are literally laughing at him and how easy he is to manipulate. He’s not scoring any real concessions here, right? He’s being coddled and throwing tantrums to look tough.
That’s why I thought that Ezra Klein at The New York Times this weekend had a great column that I think had some real good advice for folks as they’re thinking about what Trump is doing, all of his bluster—it’s not actually a sign of strength; it’s actually a sign of weakness that he’s really been floundering these first few weeks, not actually proceeding methodically and leveraging the Republican majorities he has in Congress to go make the structural changes that he promised.
He’s proceeding basically with a post-constitutional presidency for which he doesn’t have the power to do the things that he’s trying to do—things like, oh, “shut down the Department of Education” or “shut down USAID,” which, of course, would require an act of Congress, or strip away things like birthright citizenship that are very clearly spelled out in the 14th Amendment. He postures like a strong man because he’s weak, and we need to call out that difference.
Phillips: Absolutely. We also, though, need to call out the real impacts of this chaos. Even though he is not going by the book, it really does have consequences for the everyday lives of people like you and me.
Phillips: And you don’t just have to take our word for it because his own treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said a year ago that his tariffs could drive up inflation and are bad industry-building policy. He described them as a loaded gun that should rarely be discharged. And while the gun didn’t go off this time, what happens when it does? Ordinary Americans will be left footing a $1,200-a-year bill if Trump goes forward with his latest tariff threat, as his billionaire donors and the corporations they control pass on those higher costs to consumers.
While tariffs can be an effective tool to protect American jobs and spur domestic manufacturing when used strategically, the widespread ones Trump has been threatening would be devastating to the American economy. They could also hurt our workers, including the ones who work in vital sectors like auto manufacturing or those critical to our national security.
The story here isn’t about Trump standing up to bad actors in support of American jobs and livelihoods. It’s about him putting our jobs at risk so he can bully and sabre-rattle our friends, our allies.
Phillips: Yeah. I also have to ask, why are partners like Canada and Mexico facing tariff threats at higher rates than China, our competitor?
Seeberger: It makes no sense.
Phillips: Well, it could be because Elon Musk has a lot of business interests in China, perhaps.
Seeberger: That’s true. That’s true.
Phillips: Donald Trump wants to pick a fight with Canada, while Democrats want to pick a fight with Big Pharma over the costs you pay for your prescription drugs. And they have to draw that contrast over and over in the months ahead.
Seeberger: That’s totally right, Erin.
Now, you mentioned Elon Musk, who we may as well call President Musk at this point given the rampant unchecked power Trump’s given him. I mean, I really can’t tell who the President of the United States is these days. Nobody elected Elon Musk, but he seems to be calling all the shots on pretty much everything.
Donald Trump has handed over the keys to the federal government—not to mention your personal financial information—to his biggest billionaire donor. I wonder why Trump wants to share the spotlight with Elon, right? I mean, we know this is a guy who’s so self-absorbed, and that he’s going to give this kind of attention and power over to the wealthiest person in the history of the world? Hmm, makes you think.
But government isn’t a social experiment, and this isn’t an episode of HBO’s “Silicon Valley.” What’s happening has real life consequences. It’s telling that the administration has chosen not to go the legal route—which would be to make reforms through Congress—but is instead making moves that are clearly very likely illegal, enforcing rapid change that wouldn’t actually get approved by our elected representatives.
And now Elon Musk is sharing his access to systems that contain the sensitive information of the American people with a bunch of 19-year-olds. We’re talking about people who were interns at big tech firms like X or Palantir and others, right? Or who recently just graduated high school and were camp counselors last summer.
For some reason, these kids—who are reportedly walking around federal buildings without so much as a security badge—now have access to our most sensitive personal financial information? It’s terrifying. We’re talking about Elon and his cronies seizing control over the payment system the U.S. government utilizes to send out roughly 95 percent of funding that is paid out by the Feds, including people’s Social Security checks and tax refunds.
That’s horrifying, and it’s dangerous. And it’s why people who have worked hard and are counting on their Social Security checks to be there when they retire are panicking at the idea that just because they don’t support Donald Trump, or they don’t support Elon Musk, that they may have their retirement security put in jeopardy.
It is outrageous, and it’s panic-inducing, and it’s got to stop. President Musk—I mean, Elon Musk; sorry, I keep having that problem—likes the image of moving fast and breaking things. But if you focus on what he’s actually breaking, it gives a window into what his motivations actually are, which is growing his wallet, growing his influence at the expense of everyday Americans.
Phillips: Yeah, it’s like, if you break it, you should have a plan to fix it? I don’t think breaking just to break the government and then leaving it broken is really the solution, but that seems to be sort of Musk’s modus operandi. So—
Seeberger: You know what? You break it, you buy it, Elon. You break it, you buy it, Donald Trump.
Phillips: Well, it sounds like maybe he already did buy it.
Phillips: Speaking of which, Elon, as we mentioned, has a lot of business interests in China. And that’s why this past fall, he pushed Republicans in Congress to pass laws that would help him make more money in the country or threatened he would fund primary challengers for them in 2026. Now Elon got what he wanted, and his worth has grown by hundreds of billions since the election.
Phillips: So that’s just a little taste of what he can do. And now, he’s gutted one of the key agencies we use to fight back against Chinese influence across the globe. I’m talking about USAID. Hmm, what an interesting turn of events.
Phillips: Over the weekend, he also got access to reams of our private, personal, and financial data at the [U.S.] Treasury Department, not to mention entire government agencies. It’s hard to think of a more classic quid pro quo. Elon gives money to Mr. “Art of the Deal,” Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, and in return, Trump gives him our personal financial information.
Why on earth would Musk need this data if not to make more money and exercise control over anyone who stands in his way? And Elon has also worked to gut other agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which won tens of billions of dollars back from greedy corporations for American consumers.
Elon has also cozied up with one of the key regulators at the Federal Communications Commission so he can make even more money there. And—surprise, surprise—the Trump administration’s first legislative priority is to cut taxes for rich billionaires and their large corporations, which will also benefit Elon Musk.
Seeberger: I’m shocked, Erin.
I mean, all of this just reeks of corruption, right? And Americans don’t support our government being mortgaged to the highest bidder. It really raises a lot of questions. Is President Musk—I mean, Elon; I keep messing that up—working to better our behalf or better his own bottom line and make more money? Because it sure looks that way to me.
Phillips: Yeah, it sure does. Well that is all the time we have for today, unfortunately. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram, or Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Seeberger: And stick around for my interview with Allison McManus in just a beat.
Seeberger: Allison McManus is the senior director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress Action fund. She previously served as the managing director at the Freedom Initiative, where she advocated for political prisoners in the Middle East and North Africa. She also served as the research director at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy from 2014 to 2019.
Allison McManus, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Allison McManus: Thanks for having me back.
Seeberger: Lots to chat about.
Seeberger: So at this point, Trump and our other president, Elon Musk, have pretty much shuttered the U.S. Agency for International Development, also known as USAID. Can you talk about what USAID is, the work it does, and why these attacks are really so devastating not just to people abroad, but people here at home?
McManus: Absolutely. So USAID, as we call this agency, it’s an agency that is responsible for a lot of the United States’ humanitarian assistance abroad, but it does work beyond just purely humanitarian assistance. So it’s pandemic response. It’s HIV/AIDS response. It’s some climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. It’s antitrafficking efforts. It’s preventing terrorism. So it’s a wide variety of different U.S. foreign assistance programs. It’s a way that the United States works with foreign partners and with communities on the ground all over the world.
We need to understand this attack on USAID in the context of a broader attack on foreign assistance. USAID happens to be the agency that administers a lot of our foreign assistance. But really, if we look over the past couple of weeks, this started with an executive order that put a pause on all foreign assistance. That also included foreign military financing to security partners that the State Department administers.
So really this is part and parcel of the Trump administration—and really with Elon Musk in the driver’s seat for much of it—trying to look at different aspects of federal spending and identify areas that they can cut to, of course, make space for tax cuts later on.
Why USAID has come into the crosshairs, there’s a couple of reasons for this. One, we can say that USAID is a more vulnerable program, as we saw when Trump Musk tried to put halts on other kinds of federal spending that may have prevented people from bringing their kids to Head Start or being able to access medications. They needed to reverse that pretty quickly.
Because USAID isn’t necessarily impacting Americans in the immediate, Trump and Musk think that this is a program that people won’t care about here at home. So this is one thing. They see this as vulnerable, and it’s become proving ground for how they could actually take over very quickly an agency—and we can get into that.
Second is that this really fits into a longer-term agenda that we’ve seen on the part of the Republican Party to target programs and spending that help people access reproductive health care, that may have diversity components to them. And so it also fits into part of this anti-woke agenda.
The travesty of it is that even with all of these wide variety of programs, really what we’re talking about is less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
McManus: So this is like a rounding error, if you think about your tax payments, to deliver all of these benefits. And as you said, Colin, this is not just about some noble idea of helping people overseas—although genuinely people will die because of this. And I do think Americans care about that.
But also, this is a way to make the world safer and more stable. We don’t want pandemics. Pandemics cross borders. Trafficking crosses borders.
McManus: The effects of climate change cross borders. Maybe we don’t feel it today in the same way, again, you might feel attacks on Head Start, but we will feel this. Absolutely.
Seeberger: I mean, I personally have friends who—they’re not in Washington, D.C., they live in Texas, for instance—who is a contractor for a recipient of USAID that helps prevent millions of people in Africa from being infected with HIV, right? And my friend—a mom of three kids 3 and under—now has been placed on administrative leave for her job. So there are real consequences also to working people, too, in our country that are asking, “What is the safety and security of my own job?”
But speaking of the safety and security of not just U.S. workers but around the globe, we know that the United States, while a wealthy country, is not the only country that is making strategic investments across the globe. We know China through its Belt and Road Initiative, we know Russia—who has been making an increasing number of investments in places like Africa—are doing so to try to boost the influence of authoritarian governments in some of these developing countries.
Can you talk about what cutting USAID potentially does to American influence across the world at the same time that we’re seeing China and Russia kind of double down in these spaces?
McManus: You’re 100 percent right. China and Russia have been very explicit that this is a great move for them.
McManus: They welcome this. China, as you said, either through Belt and Road Initiative investments and infrastructure projects around the world or in other development areas, is actively seeing the USAID model as one that it wants to replicate in order to exert its influence.
The problem is that when we think about this —and I’ve seen a lot of critiques of USAID that, oh, this is just an instrument of soft power, including what we’ve heard from some government officials, including Marco Rubio and others who say these are programs that don’t work, that there’s something nefarious going on.
So I do think it’s important to clarify when we talk about this. When we talk about USAID and U.S. foreign assistance as being an instrument of U.S. influence, again, this isn’t necessarily about power for the sake of power. This is about ways that the United States can show up as a partner in places that other countries and other people desperately need this kind of partnership.
When they get this type of partnership from the Chinese or from the Russians, maybe China and Russia say this doesn’t come with strings attached, but what we’ve seen time and time again is it absolutely does. So, we’ve seen many other nations that end up becoming terribly indebted to China, that end up defaulting on debts. We shouldn’t be so naive to think that China and Russia are showing up in these places just out of the goodness of their hearts.
McManus: The only other thing I would say about that is there are many areas, actually, where we see China investing, for instance, in health care, in climate response, in science and technology, that we should welcome cooperation.
McManus: But that doesn’t mean walking away from the table and completely giving up our ability to cooperate.
So it’s not that, OK, because China is investing, this is knee-jerk just a bad thing. But to cede that ground to say, “the United States doesn’t really care about partnership, the United States doesn’t really care about making meaningful differences in people’s lives around the world,” is harmful to U.S. interests, and it’s harmful to the interests of Americans.
Seeberger: You referenced the fact that USAID official came out and said that thousands and thousands of people are going to die because of the suspension of the assistance. What does that reveal to you about Trump and Elon Musk—who Trump has empowered to carry out much of his agenda? What does it say to you about their priorities?
McManus: We should be very clear: What they’re doing at USAID is proving grounds for how to take over agencies, get rid of the civil servants, and get rid of those who have dutifully performed their job functions, again, in the U.S. interest and in the interest of Americans and people around the world, and replace them with loyalists.
They put Pete Marocco in charge of USAID de facto. He is somebody who is filmed on January 6 at the Capitol. This is who is now in charge of USAID, while they’re dismissing thousands of employees—not to mention the contractors, like the friend you mentioned—all across the country and world.
They’re doing this. They’re challenging our laws. They’re challenging the constitutional system. They’re challenging Congress’ ability to provide a check on not just executive authority, but, frankly, the authority of unelected, unappointed officials.
McManus: If they’re able to do this at USAID, why won’t they try and do this at the [U.S.] Department of Education?
So I think we need to be, again, very clear about what the priorities are here. They are talking about efficiency. This is highly inefficient. Laying people off without just cause is not efficient.
McManus: Saving less than one penny on a dollar for programs that bring great benefit to the American people and people around the world is not efficiency.
This is about looking for ways to cut pennies to be able to give dollars back to wealthy donors.
McManus: This is a way to get rid of civil servants who are doing their jobs and bring in loyalists.
Seeberger: I’ve got to ask you on a different topic. On Tuesday night, President Trump welcomed Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, to the White House for his first foreign visit as president in Trump 2.0. And in some remarks that he made that evening, he said the U.S. will, quote, “take over,” close quote, the Gaza Strip and relocate Palestinians.
What would it look like if U.S. troops actually tried to forcibly take and occupy the Gaza Strip? And I’m curious for your thoughts on whether international law provides for the forced removal and dislocation of people from their own land.
McManus: There’s a few things going on here to parse through. And I’ll say I don’t want to put too much oxygen into every time that Trump comes up with a crazy idea and there’s a microphone in front of him.
McManus: But I do think it’s important that if he’s talking about takeover and talking about placing troops overseas, we have to engage with it somewhat seriously.
So, to the question of what authority does he have to do this, he did not articulate under any authority that he would be intervening with American troops, so real questions not just about the international laws that would be broken, but what U.S. laws even allow for this. And of course, ethnic cleansing is a war crime. Saying that you want to depopulate a land of its people who are rightfully present on that land—that is ethnic cleansing that he’s calling for.
Trump, during his campaign, tried to say that he was going to be a president for peace. He said that he’s a president who cares about the working class and who’s going to fix the economy. In what world is spending potentially billions of dollars—
Seeberger: Billions of dollars!
McManus: —to put troops on the ground in a place where they’re not wanted, they’re not needed—again, if we think about this in the context of what we’ve seen in the past weeks, there are ties to, again, what he’s doing with USAID. This is an idea of America first is looking like American imperialism—
McManus: —regardless of what the cost is to the taxpayer, and frankly, regardless of what the benefit is to the American people or people worldwide.
Seeberger: You bring up imperialism. And of course, the Gaza Strip is not the only place that President Trump has made news in recent weeks about talking about wanting to seize other territories and nations across the globe. Of course, I’m talking about Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada.
What do you think is motivating Trump’s comments? Is it sort of a negotiating tactic to try and gain concessions? When he says this stuff, what does it do to our relations with other countries? And why do you think it should matter to ordinary Americans?
McManus: I think first we do look at all of these things together and say that this does add up to what we could call an imperial vision.
McManus: Trump sees himself as an emperor. He sees all of this land as land for the taking and that he should be the one to take it. Why not? He has all of this power. He clearly doesn’t care about law. He cares about power and force.
Trump looks around the world, he sees places that he thinks might benefit his own narrow interests, and he decides to throw whatever he can at the wall and see what sticks.
McManus: So I think if he says, maybe it’s off the cuff, “Oh, we want to take over Gaza,” if enough of his lackeys come back and say this is actually a plan that’s viable, it may be something that he tries to pursue.
So again, I don’t think that we need to take all of these statements seriously and that they’re going to come to pass, but I think we take them seriously in that in some part of his brain he sees this as desirable and enough people say yes to him, then these are plans that he may actually pursue.
In the meantime, maybe some of this is a negotiating tactic. Maybe he thinks that if he says, for instance, with Gaza that he wants U.S. troops, then maybe people think Israeli troops is a less bad option. Maybe he thinks if he says he’s going to place high tariffs on Colombia, and Colombia comes back and says, “we’ll take a plant,” right? So some of this is a negotiating thing.
The damage happens regardless. How serious he is, whether it’s a negotiation tactic—the United States within the period of two weeks has already lost credibility that we cannot gain back with some of our key partners and allies. The damage is going to be real, whether that’s in Gaza, whether that’s in Canada, whether that’s with Denmark. You name the country, there are places here where we are doing irrevocable harm.
Seeberger: Yeah, yeah, that’s right. Well speaking of Israel and Gaza, I know that you just returned from the region. This is taking place after the ceasefire deal that we saw go into effect and has led to the release of dozens of hostages at this point. And I’m curious, from what you’ve observed, do you think that this ceasefire can hold? And what have been the benefits so far and some of the complications, including increased violence in the West Bank? What do you think are the long-term prospects for peace in the region?
McManus: I’m really glad that you asked this, Colin, because I think while Trump’s statements about potential U.S. takeover in Gaza are going to take up a lot of space, a lot of airtime, a lot of media attention this week, we really need to look at what is actually happening on the ground.
As you said, I was in Israel. I was in the West Bank just weeks ago when the ceasefire deal and the hostage return was taking place. To be frank, I did not hear a lot of optimism. Yes, people were excited to see hostages finally coming home to their families. Of course, people were excited to see a halt in the incessant shelling that’s been taking place in Gaza. What everybody asks is, “Why is this happening too little too late? And what are the real prospects that this could be enduring?”
So while Trump is making these, let’s say, crazy remarks here in D.C., negotiations around a second phase of this deal are taking place—very difficult negotiations, and ones where we know that the far-right government in Israel has a real interest in seeing that this doesn’t continue. They’re very interested in making sure that Gazans are not able to govern Gaza, and that actually it’s Israelis that maintain presence, security and political presence in Gaza.
We know that there are those in Israel who would love to see—including some of the ministers like [Bezalel] Smotrich and [Itamar] Ben-Gvir—who would love to see settlements in Gaza. As you said, in real time, we are seeing villages being attacked in the West Bank, including in Susya, where I was. I met with folks who lived there, activists who were there protecting their land for many years against efforts for forced displacement. There are settlers, violent settlers, right now who are attacking them. They told me directly, “We are worried about our erasure.”
And so I think, again, while we’re maybe focused more on some of the crazy stuff that Trump has to say, what we need to recognize is that in the meantime, we are going to continue to see forced displacement. We are going to continue to see efforts to break any tenuous peace and ceasefire, and that this is rapidly foreclosing any of the prospects for Palestinian sovereignty, for equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, for the dignity of Israeli and Palestinian people, and also, it needs to be said, for some of the embattled pro-democracy movements as well in Israel.
So we’re really in this shared fight, we could say, for what the future of Israel and Palestine looks like, and that’s changing moment to moment right now.
Seeberger: Allison McManus, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
McManus: Thanks for having me.
Seeberger: That’s all we have for today. Please go back and check out previous episodes.
Erin, it has been a lot over the course of the last few weeks, and I know that people are scared, they’re feeling exhausted, right? I mean, it’s like you can’t get to 8 a.m. in the morning and not be already beat down by what the Trump administration is throwing at you.
And so we need to find some joy, right? We need to find an outlet, find something that brings us happiness, that helps us find community with one another. And I know for myself, music is a big part of that. And this past Sunday was the Grammy Awards.
Phillips: Music’s big night.
Seeberger: What did you think?
Phillips: It was awesome. I mean, red carpet looks were fun. It’s nice to see your favorite artists dressed up. My mom was sending me pictures of Chappell Roan’s look. My mom’s a costume designer—
Phillips: —and she was obsessed.
Seeberger: Looked like a wizard?
Phillips: Yeah, just some amazing red carpet looks, some amazing wins. What were some of your highlights?
Seeberger: I mean, the Lady Gaga dropping “Abracadabra,” which is taking me right back to Obama-era Gaga, “Fame Monster,” “Art Pop”—
Seeberger: —“Bad Romance.” Oh my god, it was so good, and I’ve been jamming it nonstop pretty much the last few days. I love it. I’m so excited for “Disease” to drop in just a matter of a few weeks, and I’m sure I will be keeping that on repeat as well. What about you?
Phillips: Yeah, that was a big standout for me. I am really excited about this sort of return to form. I’m a big fan of older Gaga stuff. I understand her journey and her desire to do other stuff—
Phillips: —but I feel like now it’s even better. It’s more authentic because she’s come back to this sensibility after some time away, so I’m really excited.
Seeberger: We need to dance. We need to dance.
Phillips: Yeah, we need it. I was also really excited for Beyoncé.
Phillips: Amazing. Loved. I mean, we got a great GIF out of that, so we’ve been using that a lot internally, but also just really happy for her moment. It was ladies’ night. It was ladies’ night at the Grammys.
Seeberger: Sure was. Yeah, I mean, Kendrick may have won Song of the Year, but man, between Sabrina, Chappell Roan—
Seeberger: —Doechii, Gaga, Taylor—I mean, people were just loving all the art that these wonderful musicians have gifted us with over the course of the last year, and it was really exciting and really special.
I also have to say: Darn it, Beyoncé. If Donald Trump does not take all our money from his tariffs that he’s threatening, you will be taking my money for your upcoming “Cowboy Carter” tour. She is coming to D.C. July 4 and July 7. I will be spending my federal holiday going to go see Beyoncé, so help me God.
Phillips: I can think of no better way to celebrate the USA.
Seeberger: Yes. Can you imagine her—
Phillips: The cowboy Carter.
Seeberger: —riding in with that American flag on the white horse? It’s going to be epic.
Phillips: Now you and I were debating, do we think she’s going to bring a horse on tour? And the logistics of that? We’ll have to see, but if anyone could do it, it’s Beyoncé.
Seeberger: It’s Beyoncé. I mean, she’s from Houston. Texas girl. We are passionate about our horses.
Seeberger: Yeah. Well that’s all the time we have for today. Please take care of yourselves. Again, we know things are a lot right now, and we’ll talk to you next week.
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Colin Seeberger, and co-hosted by Daniella Gibbs Léger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer and guest host for this episode. 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.
Views expressed by guests at “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.