The Opinions - Three Opinion Writers on Whether Congress Can Rein in Trump

Episode Date: September 6, 2025

Congress is back in session and there’s a lot on the agenda — from a potential government shutdown to the ongoing battle over the Epstein files. On this episode of “The Opinions,” the Opinion national politics writer Michelle Cottle is joined by the columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French to talk about whether the Democrats should shut down the government and Congress’s weakening role under Trump.Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail].  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is The Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it. I'm Michelle Cottle. I cover national politics for New York Times Opin, and I am here today with my fantastic colleagues, columnists David French, and Jemel Bowie. Hello, friends, and welcome back from the Labor Day weekend, which sadly signals kind of the last legs of summer. Hello, Michelle. Hey, Michelle, and now being newly in Chicago, the last legs of summer sort of hit harder, I think. Oh, this will be your first cold season coming up in Chicago. That is fantastic. Washington, it doesn't get cold here for a long time still, but I do love fall with all the kids walking back to school in my neighborhood.

They're not being escorted by the National Guard yet, but I'm going to give it a couple more weeks. Jamal, are you ready? Are you ready for this? Yeah, I mean, my kids are back in school. We start school a little earlier here in Virginia, and so it's like it's, it feels like the fall already. It's been cooler, too, so, you know. There you go. Well, this week, I think we're going to tackle one of my very favorite subjects, which is Congress. They're back from their time off, and they are all geared up to defend our democracy or not.

Well, you know, however they choose to roll. On the docket, they have a lot to do. It's a huge to-do list. There is government funding, a policy. possible government shut down, a bill that would force the White House to release everything it knows about Jeffrey Epstein, and then the bigger question that is always looming. Amid Trump's bulldozing of checks and balances, does Congress even have any power anymore? Which I think we're going to get into a lot. So I want to start with federal funding,

because this is the big kind of ugly fight we've got coming up. The government is only funded through the end of this month, so, you know, I've got maybe two weeks to get this done. There are, of course, all the usual rumblings about a government shutdown. But the chance of that happening is never zero, especially with the sour mood in Congress, and a heavy-handed Trump administration making things all the more complicated. So with the upcoming battle, what are you guys hoping for? what's making you really nervous. Jamel, you want to go first? Sure, I'll go first.

I think Deborah Kretsch will let the government shutdown. You're pro? I'm 100% pro a shutdown. Not because I think it'd be good, like a government shutdown was bad, but because the administration has shown basically its total contempt for the idea of Congress having power over the purse,

the administration has engaged in all kinds of shenanigans to either avoid spending money that Congress has appropriated to treat all appropriations from Congress, is a little more than recommendations for whatever the president wants to do. And frankly, if there is no guarantee that the White House is going to adhere to congressional appropriations, which I got to remind everyone, you know, Congress gets Article 1 in the Constitution and like Congress's power of the purse is sort of like its most important power.

It's really the whole ballgame. So if the administration is just not going to take seriously what Congress has it ought to spend, I think that the best option is basically to say, listen, shut down the government until we can get guarantees that the White House is going to obey the law. David? Yeah. Pro-Cong. I don't think ransom shutdowns work. So, for example, if you go back to sort of the early Tea Party era, and do you remember the Ted Cruz initiated a government shutdown that was...

Green eggs and ham, my friends? Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them. Sam, I am, I do not like green eggs and ham. Would you like them here? That was really designed, one of the goals was, okay, we're going to shut down the government to hold up the Obama administration to repeal slash defund, to do something about Obamacare. That A, did not, absolutely did not work.

And B, you know, it's very debatable often how these things work out. The people get mad about government shutdowns, and they don't always blame the party that we want them to blame when it comes to a shutdown, although I do understand, absolutely, totally positively understand the impulse to shut down because there's so few things that an opposition party can do when they don't control Congress. And one of them, one of the things they can do is a filibuster. And so I feel like when you are in the opposition, when you don't have the House, when you don't have the Senate, you're really often grasping at straws and you have a lot of the public out there saying fight, fight, fight, do more to fight, but your tools are so limited when

you're in the congressional minority. And so I understand the impulse. I just don't think it always works out, or I don't know that it has ever quite worked out the way the architects of a shutdown have wanted to do it. And so I would be against, I don't see the upside to it. I see a lot of additional chaos. And I'm very leery about creating more power vacuums that Trump can fill. So consider me to be in the against category. Two quick observations. The first is, I think, I'm not sure one can draw an analogy between this shutdown and like the 2013 shutdown

with Cruz, running the Gingrich ones, in part because the demand here isn't that Trump repeal the big, beautiful bill, right? It's not a demand for the administration to back off any of its lawful priorities. It's a demand to follow the law. to treat congressional appropriations as the law, right? If we're going to give you votes to pass a continuing resolution to continue funding the government,

and we're going to negotiate things, right? We're going to negotiate things that we want to see. And then you're just going to treat this as a recommendation that you can blow off. It's like, what's the point, right? Like, it's loosely holding the football. It's Charlie Brown trying to kick it. It's just you're going to pull it away. And I do think that in this case, because it's not so.

so much the Democrats need to filibuster or anything. It's just sort of like, I mean, Republicans have the majority. Republicans figure it out, figure out a budget. And if they need Democratic votes, then the guarantee they have to give is the president doesn't ignore the appropriation. And if he can make that guarantee and act on it, then I say Democrats, please, upon the government. But if there's not going to be any kind of reciprocity here, if it's just going to be, you're going to give us the votes and then we're going to, we'll do whatever we want. I just don't think that Democrats should engage in that, just for the sake of Congress's own powers, if nothing else.

So, David, yeah, how do you view the whole issue with the complete disregard for checks and balances that the Trump administration is kind of? I mean, I absolutely hear what Jamel's saying. I would feel more comfortable with his recommendation if I believed that a guarantee from Trump in his mini-meas and Congress meant anything. I would feel that a Trump guarantee would have exactly as much weight as a Putin guarantee. So I think even if you ended up with guarantees, Trump's still going to do what he wants to do. And the only thing that is going to stop him is either acts of Congress that are so crystal clear that they're going to be backed up by the Supreme Court of the United States or, quite frankly, electoral losses in the midterms. And even then, so long as he is president of the United States, I have a lot of questions as to what can slash will realistically be done that he would view as binding him. Okay, but by those standards, there's no good option, right?

You fund it and he's going to blow it up. You don't fund it and he's going to blow it up. So at that point, then, I think Democrats are weighing kind of people's response to how they handle this. And I am quite certain that Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in the Senate is remembering just how much abuse he has taken over letting the last funding measures go through, right? Like, in part, Jamel has mentioned the fight. I think a lot of Democrats and a lot of Trump skeptical folks are a little bit concerned about just the Democratic resistance lying down or the Democratic opposition lying down and saying, sure, just come on. on through. So is there an argument that the fight in itself is worth something? I mean, okay, but you're going to hurt regular people. Okay. And so that is why people don't like government

shutdowns. And then they go and blame somebody for it. And if you're going to be broadcasting, because you have a base that is a minority of America that is saying, fight, fight, fight, or you know, you better do something. And then you do something that doesn't actually change Trump, and hurts regular people, that strikes me as a unwise decision. The problem is the fight, fight, fight instinct has to be channeled in a way, I would say, that is, A, not going to hurt regular people would be one very big component of fight, fight, fight, don't hurt regular innocent people. And number two, do it in a way in which there isn't a very high likelihood that you're going to receive the blowback for the action.

I feel like it's sort of like deja vu all over again. This fight was in the Republican side throughout much of Obama's two terms. And the government shut down throughout in the Clinton era. And there was this constant refrain of we got to do something. We're going to shut down the government. At least that on the Republican side, there were those who could turn around and say, well, look, this is consistent with our more limited government ethos. We want to pare back federal government anyway.

but I'm very leery of a fight, fight, fight that will hurt regular folks. So, Jamel, I mean, David's point is, you know, spot on in terms of this is the reason shutdowns are so unpopular because they do hurt people. How much are you worried about blowback? So if the path towards a shutdown were a democratic filibuster, I think there might be like real concerns about blowback. But if a path towards a shutdown, it's just Democrats saying you have the majority in Congress, you have the White House,

we'll let you figure out a budget deal. We're just not going to participate. I don't think there's blowback there. I really don't. Because in that situation, it's Republicans who wouldn't be able to figure out how to get things done, right? Democrats are under no obligation to fix Republicans' problems for them. And this is going to sound callous,

but there's an extent to which I think that maybe voters ought to feel some campaign if the Republican Party cannot get it together enough to pass a continuing resolution. I think one of the dynamics over the past decade of America, past 15 years of American politics, it's been a profoundly irresponsible Republican Party, a Republican Party that is almost completely abdicated any serious attempt to govern the country and then being bailed out by a Democratic Party that feels, rightfully, I suppose, an obligation to govern the country. And the effect of that in terms of the message it sends to the public is that there are no cost involved in electing anti-government maniacs. There are no costs that you can elect them in an affective way, right?

Sort of I want to express my anger and disdain at the system, knowing that the other side is going to feel some responsibility to make sure things don't get too out of hand. But what if you just let them get too out of hand? What if you say, you know what, this is what you voted for? This is what you wanted, and this is what you're going to get. And don't try to bail out the Republican Party from its dysfunction and its inability to govern. Will that hurt regular people? Yes, it will. Does sometimes, you know, in the same way that sometimes your kid has to fall off their bike to learn how to write it better,

does the public need to touch the stove, to borrow a phrase that went around earlier this year, in order to figure out not to put these people back in the office. I think so. Well, I think we might be talking past each other here a little bit because if the statement is just Democrats don't vote for a Republican budget and you're in the minority and the Republicans who have a majority can pass it and you're not filibustering anything that you can filibuster. To me, you're not engineering a government shutdown. That would be a Chip Roy Thomas Massey shutdown if three or four, enough of Republicans in the House dissented from the party line. And that's a, to me, that's a very different thing.

And that's what we're talking about here. That's the envisioned scenario, not so much that there'd be a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, but simply that Republicans, because of the Massey and Chip Roy and all those guys, Republican leadership is like, we're going to need Democratic votes to do this. And so I think Democrats just shouldn't give them the votes, just say, you know what? Not our problem. I think the outcome is going to be that they won't need Democratic votes, that they'll allow one or two, one or two, get to stand up in front of their constituents and say, look how independent I am. But simply not voting for Republican budget resolution when you're in the minority, to me, is not engineering a government shutdown.

It also just got made more complicated last week because President Trump announced that he's going to be pursuing the path of pocket recisions, which basically is his way of unilaterally clawing back congressional funding. And in this case, it would be like around $5 billion. and foreign aid, which even Republicans who would be happy to cut that money are a little bit nonplussed about the fact that this is a just blatant slap at Congress and just has no respect for the idea of, as Jamel is talking about, the power of the purse. And what it does is it makes it that much harder for the Senate leader, John Thune, to get Democratic votes for any kind of

bipartisan bill for funding the government. Everybody on both sides are pretty confident that this has just made their fall that much uglier. So here's one of the things that's also on the docket that is a little bit, a little bit more complicated, especially because there are a couple of Republicans who've thrown in with the Democrats on this, which is the Epstein files. So the House Oversight Committee has already released files from the Justice Department. argument's investigation into Jeffery Epstein's sex trafficking ring. But it's not like this was some big reveal. Most of these documents had already been out there. And so Trump has done everything possible to distract from this. And yet we see Thomas Massey, Congressman from Kentucky and,

you know, one of Trump's chief antagonists in his own party, not that there are very many, out there this week hosting a press conference with Epstein's victims. So I wanted to get your take on if you think this is going to continue to be enough of a problem

that it's something the White House has to further deal with. I mean, I think so. You can't explicitly run on we're going to release the Epstein files and then when you're there,

be like, you know, on second thought we don't want to anymore. On second thought we're not going to do it. It's all good. That is the most straightforward violation of a promise you can possibly imagine. And the fact that this isn't just, this isn't like shadows, right? This is a real thing, right?

Like Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, the victims had Nancy Mace, the Republican Congresswoman, in tears. Right. But there are literally hundreds more victims beyond those that testified. There is all these unanswered questions about the president's relationship with Epstein, previously. I mean, this is going to be a thing the White House is going to have to deal with. It cannot wave this away or distract this away, right? They can try to instigate a war with Venezuela, which they're doing, and this will still be something they have to account for.

You know, I stand by the way I assess this at the beginning, which is this is a bit of a problem for Trump, but he's still going to keep his hold. But what's really interesting about Epstein to me, is what does this mean for MAGA more broadly? Because all of the conversation right now, and it's super understandable because we're less than a year in to this second term, gosh, less than a year in to the second term, let's just say that again. Stop. That all of the conversation, or 90% of it, is really focused on what does this mean for Donald Trump? And I'm of the opinion that, look, We've been through this about the every scandal that arises so far doesn't dent Trump with the Republican base, including January 6th, including in the days right after January 6th. McConnell's approval rating plummeted and Pence's approval rating plummeted with Republicans and not Trump's.

But I think what's really interesting about this is the divisions that's exposing in MAGA. And we've seen a lot of divisions arising in MAGA in the last two to three months. you bomb Iran, do you not bomb Iran. And so I'm very interested about what the Epstein files represent going forward as far as what is MAGA? What is this thing after Donald Trump is gone? Because it looks to me like you have unity around Trump, but you have disunity just spreading across the rest of the Republican coalition on multiple important fronts. And I think Trump has kind of kept the lid on this coalition, and that when Trump is gone and you lift the lid, it is anybody's ballgame at that point as to which faction emerges, how much can this sort of

bag of scorpions stay together? And I think the Epstein incident is sort of a leading edge indicator of that. So in terms of damage, like enduring damage, is it worse if the files come out? Obviously, we don't know what's in them. Like, if there was something like, blew up, that would be one thing. Or if they continue to hide them and feed that suspicion that they used and exploited so well for so many years. I mean, this is all assuming that it's not in there that Trump did something truly illegal and appalling. But I mean, that's the thing. If there's something in there, then, I mean, obviously that's, obviously that's the thing that's more damaging. But even then, I feel like in the history of American scandals, it's worse for

it to be a steady drip, right? I mean, that's honestly kind of Trump's ability to withstand scandal has a lot to do with the fact that it's never been a steady drip. It's always been right in your face. He's always been quite unapologetic about it. And that kind of short circuits, not just the public's response to scandal, but also the press's response to scandal, where there isn't a story to follow over time, but just like one thing. And even if it isn't dislodging Trump's base from him, it is certainly harming his approval with like the rest of country. And I find myself saying it's important to remember, right, that Trump lost about half the voting public in last year's election, started off his administration, relatively unpopular for a new

president, and has only dipped below that since then. And although Trump may not believe that he has to maintain any particular standing with the public, I think it is true. that the worst they perform with the overall public, just the weaker their position is. Well, he's a very special boy, but his congressional members are not necessarily, right? Right. Yes.

And how much of a problem is it for Congress that they've just basically, you know, except for a handful of members on the Republican side, they've just basically lay down in the street and they're like, yeah, just we'll take whatever kind of nonsense you're going to spout about this and we're not going to demand anything even after years of you saying, oh, I'm going to release everything.

That's got to make Congress, cannot reflect well on the Congress. You raise a great point, and that is MAGA is making a huge mistake if it thinks that it and all of its members are as Teflon as Donald Trump is. Because what we have seen time and time and time again is that when the primaries produce MAGA candidates in swing states, and when I say MAGA candidate, I mean, somebody who's sort of all in on Trumpism doesn't have much normie Republican in them at all. The record there is pretty grim. Yeah.

But one other thing you said, you said it, Jamel said it. That drip, drip, drip, as Jamel was saying, like, is really, really important for people understanding that something is a problem. It's bad. It takes a while for it to seep into the system. And then if the drip, drip, drip, drip is followed by a big reveal, that's the most catastrophic kind of scandal. But what Trump does, I mean, if I can be a little crude, if we remember the drip, drip, drip of the Lewinsky scandal culminated in the blue dress, right? Yep. And so then all of a sudden Clinton's lie was exposed, et cetera.

Trump runs around in public wearing the blue dress. Like there's no drip, drip, drip. His corruption is just right there. It is just out there. And I think there is this interesting thing where the public, it's like if they're not trying to hide it, it doesn't feel corrupt to people. Does that make sense? In other words, if I'm just— Maybe it feels like reality TV on some level.

I just think that he operates on such different standards, and people are like, oh, it's just Trump, you know, playing a role. I think that's right. I don't think it's just the public. I think it's the press, too. I honestly think that Trump being so openly corrupt, basically. recalibrate everyone's expectations about what is normal behavior. And so this is not Epstein, but right? Like the Trump family has made like $5 billion on some crypto coin.

And it's like that's so wildly corrupt. Like corrupt doesn't even feel like the right word for it. It's insanely corrupt. Yeah. But everybody just nods and they're like, oh, yeah, yeah. He's a great businessman. Right. And it just recalibrates expectations.

And part of it is that Trump himself does not behave as if he has anything to hide. And Epstein is sort of the one time where he is acting as if he has something to hide. Yeah. They all look very shifty. But all of this speaks again to what we were talking about, which is that Congress has basically just abdicated another area of its responsibility, which is accountability for the executive branch. Can I ask you all a question? Yeah. This is a question I've been asking myself. Should we cover Congress less? Okay. And here's what I mean. Because it doesn't matter anymore? Correct. Okay. So, How many resources do you think that typical large-scale media operation

dedicates to covering Congress versus the courts? Which one of those two branches is actually doing work that's more relevant to people? It's the courts, right? It's the courts. Right now, I fear that a lot of the attention we're pouring into Congress is fueling congressional dysfunction in this sense that a lot of those guys are now being elected and they view their job as I'm just a pundit. I'm a spokesperson for the cause.

Yeah. Oh, 130%. I just talked to a bunch of senators, and it's not even the way it used to be where you've got a basic kind of timeline where you're performing over weeks or months. It's like they're operating on a social media, quick hits. They're going to have two seconds of fame on this

and three seconds on that, and they're going to get a beat down on Twitter if they don't. It's insane, and they're all excruciatingly aware of it. I see your point, David. I think that every mainstream media organization could stop covering Congress the way it has. And this would still be a problem in part because for Republicans at least, that's not the media ecosystem they necessarily care about. Right, right. It's Fox.

It's, you know, OAN, Twitter. It's Twitter. It's all of that. The podcasters, the radio. Yeah, it's the ability to parlay, right? Like some notoriety as a congressman. into a podcast where you sell, you know, like brain supplements. Michelle, you said earlier just a minute ago that Congress isn't even doing its role

of providing accountability. This might feel like a little esoteric. But I even increasingly feel that that kind of language about Congress is itself reflective of part of our larger problem when it comes to Congress, which is that like in the constitutional text, Congress's job isn't to provide accountability. for the executive branch, it's to lead the government. Like, that's Congress's job. Congress, and I think in a fair reading of the text,

is the leading branch of the government. And arguably, it is the job of the court and of the executive to bounding Congress somewhat by design, right? Congress can do all these things. And there's scholarship on, you know, notions of what enumerated power is and what that's inclusive of, and whether, in fact, that Congress, by the text has, like a much broader set of powers than even we traditionally understand.

And the text suggests that Congress is just as dominant and domineering institution that itself has to be bound in by other actors. But we, not just because of Trump, but for the last half century, have existed in a world where it's the president that leads the government. And yeah, Congress exists to put limits on executive authority. And I think Congress people have internalized that idea as well, that their job is not so much to lead the nation, but to be kind of like a support position for the executive branch. And so all of that has like left us with the situation where you have a Congress right now that because it sees itself in a support role has effectively like dissolved itself for all intents and purposes and has abdicated most of its authority to the presidency. And there doesn't appear to me to be any countervailing force, right? Like, nerds like me will complain about it, right? But like, can anyone, like, imagine a future Congress that says to itself,

irrespective of who the president is, we have all this power and we wouldn't use it. We have all these resources to become, you know, individual members can learn a great deal. And we're not that far removed from a time when individual members weren't just doing TV hit, but we're like actual experts on actual issues and capable of like writing complicated and complex legislation. Are we ever going to get to a point where members of Congress, the typical member of Congress, sees themselves as someone doing an actual job that requires expertise that they're going to build versus where we are now, where it's sort of like, yeah, we're just junior partners to whoever's in the White House.

To be very clear, I am not at all saying don't cover Congress. But I'm saying we have a massive imbalance right now. You can have a member of Congress who's walking through the halls of Capitol Hill and they got a gaggle around them of media, right? And yet, if I was going to describe to an average American who is more powerful, who has more influence over your life? Is it one of these cast of congressional characters? Or is it the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals? It's the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by 5,000. and miles, and nobody knows who that is. Okay. And so what we're doing with following these people

around, hanging on their every word, listening to them writing new stories about their stupid posts, is that we are contributing to it. You know, I've reached a point, like, I'm not even exaggerating. If I'm at dinner and I meet a bunch of people from different walks of life, one person's an accountant, one person's a lawyer, somebody's a construction worker, somebody's, you name it. And one, one of the people on the introduces themselves that I'm a member of Congress, Republican member of Congress from your district. He is immediately the least interesting person to me at the table. I'm not joking. Like, that sounds weird. That is so harsh. He's the least interesting person because I'm looking at somebody who in many ways is a non-entity as a separate human professional being. They are an extension

of somebody else. That's Donald Trump. So, Jamel, you were you were talking about the power that they used to have and that they haven't wielded in decades. This is not all about Donald Trump. So I always like to point out that this was a big crusade for someone who has studied this in the Senate a great deal over the years, whose father used to argue before the Supreme Court all the time, and that is Senator Mike Lee.

Senator Mike Lee had an Article I crusade right before the 2016 election. Because he saw Hillary Clinton coming to some degree, and he was trying to scare his Republican colleagues into clawing back. Now, I have made very clear over the years that Mike Lee has been a big disappointment in terms of his just complete giving up and bowing before Trump. But he's a crank now. He is someone who, when you mention his,

his name, people roll their eyes because whatever he stood for, he has essentially put that on the back burner to keep Trump happy. But yes, there tend to be occasional members that pop up and want to do this, but then it kind of runs counter to their partisan interests and they'll abandon it. I don't think it's going to be something that comes from individual members. It's really, it has to be like a sea change in attitudes within an entire political party, right? It has to be the partisan project of a political party. And I can kind of envision a pathway to it, right? Like, if one of the stories of this administration, it's just like the destruction of the administrative state and the gutting of the federal bureaucracy, it's simply the case that liberals progressives,

what everyone I call them, have like a vested interest in rebuilding the administrative state and rebuilding the federal bureaucracy. And that might encourage some creative thinking about the role of Congress in reconstituting both of those things. And that's not something that can really come from the executive branch. It's like it has to come from Congress. I'm an 100% agreement with Jamel. Individual members of the Senate, for example, are not going to be able to shift the course of this train.

What I'm afraid of is that we're going to have a situation where the natural consequences of this administration's policies and Congress's abdication of the state. authority are going to play out in ways that ultimately end up being profoundly negative for the United States of America. In the resulting sort of blowback, you're going to have an opportunity for Congress institutionally to rediscover itself. Because this very close 50-50, 51-49, 49-59 arrangement is not the norm throughout American history. We go through periods where we do have these close divisions. But then usually the logjam is broken and one party will be the dominant party for a

generation or more. I mean, we have seen this happen. Think after Watergate, after Watergate and the Nixon Imperial presidency, you had, for a very brief period of time, a lot of congressional reforms hemming the president back in. A logjam was broken and you had some real reform. And so I think One eyes, we have to have part of ourselves absolutely focused on containing the constitutional damage that Trump is doing. But another eye, he has broken so many things that there is going to be a rebuild task. How do you rebuild? What is the vision for rebuilding? And I would say if the vision for rebuilding doesn't involve structural reforms to revive Congress,

we're just going to be doing a repeat play of this awful tragedy that we're. been enduring again and again and again. Okay, so we've got to waste no crisis philosophy here. I like this. Everybody agrees it's going to have to do something bigger than what we've been looking at. I don't want to leave everybody on a despondent, despairing note. So before we go, I want you guys to bring us all back from the holiday and roll us into the kind of encroaching fall with a recommendation.

Give us something that you're enjoying right now that you're. want people, do you want to share with people out there? Sure. Where I live, it's fall festival season. It's officially started. We went to one, the family on this past weekend. They had Sunflowers pick. They had an apple cannon, like a can that shoot apples out of.

That was pretty cool. And I'm just going to recommend that people go to fall festivals at nearby farms or whatever. They're good fun. Nice way to spend usually a Saturday or Sunday outside nights weather. enjoying the company of other people. And hopefully there's some kind of gun that shoots fruit, which is pretty cool. I went to the Maryland Renaissance Festival a couple weeks ago, and it was magic.

But there was no fruit being shot. I now feel cheated. Yeah, this was great. It was in actual canon with, like, sites, and you put an apple in it, and you could shoot it. Like, the velocity was quite intense. I definitely spent 20 bucks in a lot of time shooting apples at a rusty car. Okay, David. That's a great recommendation.

But my recommendation involves not getting off your couch because it is streaming and it is foundation on Apple TV Plus. Season three came out, but it is loosely based on Isaac Asimov's books, classic science fiction books set very far in the future. And the basic storyline is a mathematician using extremely advanced mathematical techniques, has been able to predict the future course of the galaxy. And he is predicting the fall of the empire, the galactic empire, in horrific chaos, darkness, awfulness as it falls.

This may be too close to reality. I'm sorry? No, it is close to reality, except there is some interesting. Yeah, you can see echoes, but it's true sci-fi. But anyway, he forms a foundation, hence the name foundation. It was a collection of people and their mission. is to shorten the darkness. If they can't stop the fall of the empire,

what they need to do is make the empire's fall less horrific and the period of anarchy and chaos shorter. So they want to shorten the darkness. And I've often thought of that in connection with, how do you respond to this Trump era? We can't stop the darkness. He won, right? But you can shorten the darkness.

And so it's a lot of fun. Okay, so I'm going to kind of go off. and recommend a little weird reading, which is I was a teenage slasher, and I'm just gonna come right out and say that as the summer comes to an end, I'm loath to give up my kind of trashy beach reading, and this is kind of a comedy horror book about,

it plays off like movies like Cabin in the Woods or scream that get at the tropes of horror movies, except the narrator is basically turning in, to a slasher. And so for those of you who need a little escape, I recommend picking it up. Incredibly fast, fun read. Okay. Well, I think that's it, guys. As always, thank you very much. We'll do this again with whatever hell comes down the pike next week. Thanks, Jamel. Thanks, Michelle. Always a pleasure. If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Bishaka, Christina Samuoski, and Jillis. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzick. Engineering, mixing, and original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabro, and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amon Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Audience Strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samuelski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser. Thank you.