Three Opinion Writers on the L.A. Protests and Trump’s Spectacle of Control

Summary

Podcast Summary: Three Opinion Writers on the L.A. Protests and Trump’s Spectacle of Control

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Opinions
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Description: You've heard the news, here's what to make of it.
• Episode: Three Opinion Writers on the L.A. Protests and Trump’s Spectacle of Control
• Release Date: June 11, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Opinions, host Michelle Cottle engages in a critical discussion with esteemed New York Times columnists David French and Tressie McMillan Cottom. The conversation centers around the recent deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles to quell protests against ICE, evaluating President Donald Trump's strategies and the broader implications for American democracy.

Current Crises and Trump's Influence

Michelle Cottle opens the discussion by highlighting the pervasive influence of President Trump, describing the current political climate as "Trump's world." She references the administration's extensive use of executive orders and its significant impact on both short-term and long-term national policies.

Key Quote:

• Michelle Cottle [01:12]: "We are truly living in Trump's world."

Deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles

The focal point of the episode is the President's decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles amidst protests against ICE. Michelle seeks to understand the gravity of this move and its implications for national stability.

David French's Analysis:

• David French emphasizes Trump's dissatisfaction with the 2020 response to protests, noting, "He's regretted not deploying troops more quickly into American cities in 2020" [02:35]. He draws parallels between Trump's actions and aggressive military rhetoric, suggesting a potential escalation in the use of federal forces.

Notable Quote:

• David French [04:18]: "It was a moment where Xerxes the emperor... reminds me, did either one of you see the movie 300 Rise of an Empire?"

Trump’s Pursuit of Political Spectacle

Tressie McMillan Cottom delves into Trump's strategic use of political spectacle to manipulate public perception and advance his agenda. She argues that the National Guard deployment is less about addressing the immediate protests and more about creating a narrative of chaos that Trump can control and exploit.

Key Insights:

• Trump is portrayed as a "skilled political opportunist" who leverages moments of crisis to enhance his image as a strongman.
• The timing of the deployment aligns with Trump's broader objectives, including pushing through significant legislation and diverting attention from other issues, such as his breakup with Elon Musk.

Notable Quote:

• Tressie McMillan Cottom [07:03]: "He's a particularly skilled political opportunist... wants to align political spectacle."

Implications of the "Big Beautiful Bill"

The conversation shifts to Trump's legislative efforts, referred to sarcastically by Michelle as the "big beautiful bill." Both French and Cottom express deep concerns about the bill's contents and potential long-term damage to American society.

David French on Budget Deficits and AI Regulation:

• French criticizes the bill's approach to deficit spending and a decade-long ban on AI regulation, stating, "It's hard to overstate in some ways how silly this is" [18:59]. He warns against centralizing AI regulation in the hands of a dysfunctional legislature, which he deems "utterly nonsense."

Tressie McMillan Cottom on Education and Medicaid:

• Cottom highlights the bill's aggressive stance on private education vouchers and the expansion of work requirements for Medicaid, arguing that these measures undermine public education and essential social programs.

Notable Quotes:

• David French [18:59]: "A 10 year ban on AI regulation... potentially, potentially dangerous."
• Tressie McMillan Cottom [21:07]: "This is administration that is obsessed with the expansion of work requirements for benefits."

Impact on Civil Liberties and Rule of Law

Both guests emphasize the threat the administration poses to civil liberties and the separation of powers. They discuss how Trump's actions could erode the rule of law and fundamentally alter the balance of power within the government.

Key Points:

• The restriction of contempt proceedings against the judiciary undermines the courts' ability to enforce judgments, potentially providing Trump with immunity against legal challenges.
• The expansion of work requirements for Medicaid could devastate social safety nets, exacerbating poverty and straining public resources, especially for the elderly.

Notable Quotes:

• David French [23:02]: "They want to take what little power the judiciary has and diminish that."
• Michelle Cottle [25:08]: "Hundreds of millions of dollars will get pulled out of Medicaid over the next decade."

Short-Term Developments and Future Outlook

As the episode progresses, the situation evolves with the unexpected deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles, highlighting the fluid and rapidly changing nature of the crisis. Tressie and David express heightened concern over this escalation, viewing it as a significant indicator of the administration's willingness to use force.

Anticipated Developments:

• Observing whether the situation in Los Angeles escalates or stabilizes.
• Monitoring the administration's response and the broader societal reactions to federal intervention.

Notable Quote:

• Tressie McMillan Cottom [30:17]: "It is very odd for me, particularly as a black American, to watch the federal government's intervention at the state level."

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a sense of urgency and apprehension about the future trajectory of American politics under Trump's influence. The guests stress the importance of civil society standing firm against political violence and excessive use of force, advocating for the preservation of democratic principles and civil liberties.

Final Thoughts:

• The deployment of the National Guard and the aggressive legislative agenda are seen as pivotal moments that could redefine the balance of power and threaten the foundations of American democracy.
• The necessity for public awareness and active resistance against these overreaches is emphasized as crucial for safeguarding democratic institutions.

Notable Quote:

• David French [32:13]: "This is a very, very dangerous moment. We are in a tinderbox right now."

---

Key Takeaways:

• Trump's Aggressive Tactics: The administration's deployment of federal forces in Los Angeles is perceived as a strategic move to control the narrative and assert dominance.
• Legislative Threats: The "big beautiful bill" poses significant risks to AI regulation, public education, and social safety nets, with long-term implications for American society.
• Erosion of Civil Liberties: Actions taken by the Trump administration threaten the separation of powers and the rule of law, challenging the integrity of democratic institutions.
• Urgent Call to Action: The guests urge civil society to recognize and resist these threats to maintain the democratic fabric of the nation.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Michelle Cottle [01:12]: "We are truly living in Trump's world."
• David French [04:18]: "It was a moment where Xerxes the emperor... reminds me, did either one of you see the movie 300 Rise of an Empire?"
• Tressie McMillan Cottom [07:03]: "He's a particularly skilled political opportunist... wants to align political spectacle."
• David French [18:59]: "A 10 year ban on AI regulation... potentially, potentially dangerous."
• Tressie McMillan Cottom [21:07]: "This is administration that is obsessed with the expansion of work requirements for benefits."
• David French [23:02]: "They want to take what little power the judiciary has and diminish that."
• Michelle Cottle [25:08]: "Hundreds of millions of dollars will get pulled out of Medicaid over the next decade."
• Tressie McMillan Cottom [30:17]: "It is very odd for me, particularly as a black American, to watch the federal government's intervention at the state level."
• David French [32:13]: "This is a very, very dangerous moment. We are in a tinderbox right now."

---

This detailed summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights shared by Michelle Cottle, David French, and Tressie McMillan Cottom, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding the L.A. protests, Trump's political maneuvers, and the potential ramifications for American democracy.

Transcript

[Oracle NetSuite]

Tariff and trade policies are dynamic, supply chains squeezed and cash flow tighter than ever. You need total visibility from global shipments to tariff impacts to real time cash flow. That's NetSuite by Oracle, your AI powered business management suite. Trusted by over 41,000 businesses. NetSuite brings accounting, financial management, inventory, HR into one suite to help you know what's stuck, what it's costing you, and how to pivot fast if your revenues are at least in the seven figures. Download the free ebook Navigating Global 3 Insights for Leaders at netsuite netsuite.com NYT.

[New York Times Opinions]

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.

[Michelle Cottle]

I'm Michelle Cottle, I'm a writer in opinion, and I'm here with the fabulous columnist David French and Tressie McMillan Cotton. Guys, welcome. And I am so glad you are here to help me make sense of the latest crises.

[David French]

It's great to be here with y' all.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Well, I'm not sure I promised to help make sense, Michelle, but I am here.

[Michelle Cottle]

Well, trustee, you can at least explain to me what is happening. This is really what I need. Because at this point, I think we all have to agree there is no denying that we are truly living in Trump's world. First, there was all that flooding the zone with executive orders, and now he's reshaping both our short term and our long term futures. And by our, I mean all of us. Because the administration is doing many things that many people said that they would never do, which we will get to the long term and that big beautiful bill in a minute, which could have a generational impact. But first, I want to talk about what's happening right now. And specifically, over the weekend, President Trump deployed the National Guard to quell protests against ICE ICE in la. Now, one big caveat, we are recording this on Monday afternoon, so God only knows what will happen before people actually hear this. But, David, you've written about these protests and it seems like you see them as a very troubling sign as to how unstable America is becoming and how willing Trump is to do anything he feels like to achieve his political goals. So can you talk about this for a bit? Why should we be worried about this?

[David French]

Well, yeah, there's a lot of reasons to be concerned about this. Let's back up a little bit. You cannot understand right now without understanding how Trump feels about 2020. And he has said this out loud. He's regretted not deploying troops more quickly into American cities in 2020. He's regretted not putting troops under his command because there were National Guard soldiers in streets in 2020, but they were under the command, not of the president. Between 2020 and 2025, you had a lot of folks allied with Trump making plans during the interim between his two terms to prepare to invoke the Insurrection act more quickly and more rapidly in the event of violent protests. So against this backdrop, you get a sense, and you've long had a sense, that the administration is spoiling for a fight. And when I say a fight, I don't mean a political fight. I mean a literal fight in the streets. And so when the protest kicked off in Los Angeles and they devolved from peaceful protest into violent protest. Look, violent protest is utterly unacceptable. It has to stop. But California, this is a very small scale protest at the moment, and California has immense resources. This is not out of California's control. And California didn't ask for or want any federal intervention. But almost as soon as it kicked off, you saw this rhetoric, this explosion of language across the online space that reminded me, did either one of you guys see the movie 300 Rise of an Empire? It was the sequel to the movie 300.

[Michelle Cottle]

David. Really?

[David French]

I mean, maybe we don't have the same movie taste. I'll just go out on a limb and say that. But there's a moment where Xerxes the emperor comes out in front of a giant crowd and he yells, for glory's sake, for vengeance sake, war. And the crowd just rises in a thunderous roar. And you felt like that was the online version. You had Steve Miller going insurrection. You had J.D. vance calling it an invasion. You had Pete Hegseth in a very frantic post saying, the Marines stood ready. And so you're thinking, okay, wait a minute, are they about to just bring down the hammer? And then you find out he nationalized about 2,000 members of the National Guard, which is a relatively modest deployment. But he did it without invoking the Insurrection Act. He did it under a much more modest legal authority that essentially allows the president to defend the federal facility from an attack. So on the one hand, there's some comfort in that. This was not a broad invocation of the Insurrection act that could theoretically impose control over all of Los Angeles. It was much more modest. But I think. I think it's a, as I wrote, that's a small comfort. It's a very small comfort because you feel like the predicate is being laid. There's a very easy A to B. If after a day or two or three, you don't see the violence stop, you could imagine easily that Trump would use that as a pretext for much more sweeping assertion of power. And so we're at a very, very dangerous time. The rhetoric is maximal rhetoric. The deployment is relatively minimal. But I'm worried it's only a matter of time before the deployment matches the rhetoric.

[Michelle Cottle]

Trustee, what about you? How are you viewing all this?

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Well, I view it very similarly, obviously, to David, with a couple of things that I think of as just being unique to this administration and how President Trump governs. I think to the extent that we can call it governance, which is one, this is a president who is keenly attuned to the power of political spectacle. I think it matters for readers and listeners to understand that it probably did not matter what happened on the ground in Los Angeles. I mean, the case here is pretty cut and dry. This is a governor who has not asked for federal intervention. As David points out, they seem to be handling what is people's First Amendment rights pretty well there on the ground. But this is a president who is attuned, again, to the opportunity of political spectacle, who has a bill that he needs to push through, and that is on the eve of his sort of celebratory theater he has planned for himself here, where the military will come and pledge field to him.

[Michelle Cottle]

Oh, dear God. You mean the parade, right?

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

The great parade. I mean, I don't think that any of this timing is accidental, not to say that Donald Trump plans things. I think we give him a little bit too much credit for that. But what he is is a particularly skilled political opportunist. Right? And here is a moment, I think, for him to align political spectacle. And so my concern isn't just the sort of legality or the extra legality of his actions, but that ultimately, with Donald Trump, it does not tend to what is legal. It is what is possible and what fuels his desire for political spectacle. He's got the military standing at the ready, lined up to do his march at the very time when he now has what I think is a political sort of dream for this administration, which is the quintessential urban America, the one that they like to villainize so much in conservative rhetoric as being the place that incubates all of this nation's ills as it relates to diversity and inclusion. And a violent immigrant wave, you know, threatens to overtake white American hegemony. Right. You've got all of that in the case of Los Angeles. And I don't think a President Trump has the impulse control to avoid the opportunity there for political spectacle, which is to go in and use a demonstration of force on an urban landscape that is very easy to demonize, in particular in the right wing media. I will say that the people on the ground in Los Angeles and to be very well trained at protest, and I think we are seeing what happens when those types of forces meet each other on the ground. But my fear remains that this is not an administration that is inclined to let the chance for spectacle pass it by.

[Michelle Cottle]

I think you're so spot on in terms of this was almost a crisis that seems created in a lab to play to Donald Trump's lack of impulse control, but also just kind of his dream. I mean, we're talking about Californ, so it's not just politically useful, but it's personal for Trump. He has a real issue with Gavin Newsom, the governor, who he refers to as Gavin Newscomb. He makes no bones about, like, wanting to paint the entire state as an urban hellscape run by progressives. But it also lets him change the channel, change the narrative on everything awkward that has been happening with, say, his breakup with Elon Musk, which had dominated the news for a few days. Also, it kind of puts him in this position of strongman. All of this as we're watching Congress debate Trump's bill and try to come up with reasons why they need to push this through. And so I think it just puts Trump in a role that he loves, which is pugilist fighting against the invading hordes and as a way to kind of wipe every other concern off the table. But more broadly, I worry about the point of in order to crack down and exert further executive authority on society in general, you look for these moments where you can say, oh, well, things are spiraling out of control. I have to be a strong man. And that worries me in the broader picture. And I'm wondering if you guys think enough is being done to make people understand that this is about more than immigration or just more than LA or any particular fight. I think this is, to David's point, like, the thin end of the wedge in terms of just kind of redefining what he can do.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Yeah, I'm not sure that I actually don't know the right way to tell or convince Americans of the scope of the threat of this moment. But that is an ongoing challenge, I think, with disadvantage administration. Part of the problem being that everything feels very urgent when there's so much chaos and there is so much sort of political overreach happening simultaneously. I think it is difficult to focus sort of the American interest and outrage at a particular moment. I will say this, Michelle. This, to me, is a moment where all of the concern, the outrage, this feels very much to me like a all hands on deck moment because of the fundamental question of the rule of law that are at the heart of it. To me, this is about how willing this administration is going to be in flouting the rule of law. I think, like many instances in the Trump administration, this is about a stress test for American democracy. And it feels like a very important moment for people to understand that it is not just about Los Angeles and it is not just about immigration, although those are very important issues. But this is about. I mean, really fundamentally, this is about separation of powers. This is about civil liberties. This is one of those where I think if they are able to get away with it, that we'll be dealing with the downriver effects for quite some time.

[David French]

You know, I think this is an important test for civil society right now. I think that whenever you see a moment like this, there is a tendency of people who are partisans red or partisan blue to rationalize excesses that they see that are on their quote, unquote side. In so doing, they provide an enormous amount of fuel for people on the other side. And here's what I mean. So, for example, we had an incident where it looked as if out of the clear blue, a police officer just turns and intentionally shoots a journalist with a rubber bullet from Australia while she was covering the protests.

[Michelle Cottle]

The LAPD moving in on horseback, firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on.

[David French]

Through the heart of la.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

You just shot the.

[David French]

Unless there's some context that we're missing from that, which it's hard to imagine what that could be. Just completely excessive force. Just completely excessive force. At the same time, there is not a reason to be burning cars. There's not a reason to be throwing rocks at police officers. Now, it's a little much to watch, Kash Patel and all of these Trump people saying, if you come after police officers, we'll come after you. Oh, really? Oh, really? Your administration just pardoned the January 6th rioters. Spare us. But civil society has to rise up right now and say political violence is unacceptable. If that political violence is coming from protesters. Unacceptable. If political violence is coming through excessive force in response to protests and sweeping excessive grabs of authority in response to protest, then that is unacceptable. Now, at the same time, we can't conflate all protests. There is such a thing as civil disobedience that does violate the law, but it's peaceful. And there is an honorable, long tradition of civil disobedience in this country. I respect civil disobedience greatly. People who engage in civil disobedience are extraordinarily courageous. I do not respect the use of violence, and I think that that has to be a line that has to apply across the board. And that's where civil society has to rise up and say, no, we're not gonna choose between violent rioters and excessive use of force. We're gonna demand application of the law, and we're gonna demand peace and peaceful responses.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

I'd like to put a finer point here on how I understand the long storied history of civil disobedience in this country. You know, we love the civil rights movement as the paradigmatic case of civil disobedience in this country. There was a lot during the civil rights movement, this sort of romanticization that we have of it as being peaceful. This was not a strategy about moral will. Being peaceful was used to highlight how much state violence was being enacted against people. I think it's important to keep that in mind, in part because there's no equation, to my mind, between throwing rocks, while you may think it is distasteful, and just the sheer amount of violent power that exists on the other side, not just in sheer weaponry, but the legal power and the legal violence that the state can use against protesters. Having said all of that, even accepting, I think, the framing of this as being a violence sort of happening on both sides concedes a point that ultimately fuels Donald Trump's position that force demands force. Right. And when you get into that sort of equivocation, I think that you lead protesters to a space where they have no choice but to enact what I would consider sort of the violence of protecting themselves as they try to enact civil disobedience. This is not two sides, then, that are equally armed and that are both playing by the same set of rules. I've seen some activists there on the ground who work with immigrant communities there who are saying, we do this type of action all of the time. We know how to protest peacefully. We have been doing this for a very long time. I think the more important question is why that is a threat to this government.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah. I think what bothers me about this is that speaking to something you said earlier, Tracy, this is something that the Trump administration so clearly was waiting to kind of latch onto and turn into something that they could exploit and when you're talking about a PR battle for the country's support, Trump has a huge megaphone and he has just kind of a showman style. It's hard to fight back against that, even if you are in the right. And so I will be very anxious about how this plays out in the next few days. And I don't even know how you get out ahead of that with him. So as troubling as this piece is in the immediate, in the now, I want to kind of move us to the longer term, which is much less spectacle, but could be incredibly damaging and have a very long tail to it. And in this, I'm talking about the so called big beautiful bill, which, as Tressy mentioned, Trump is gearing up.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Do we have to call it that? Have we, do we have consensus on this? Do we have consensus? I mean, call it big and beautiful?

[Michelle Cottle]

I think we probably are a family show. So we're not gonna say what we really think about the bill or at least what really think about the bill. So we're gonna just put that in air quotes and express complete irony about the.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Thank you for the air quotes. That's all I ask.

[Michelle Cottle]

You can't see them, but they're there. So this is so classically Trump. He creates this huge story with major consequences. It sucks up all the oxygen in the room. Meanwhile, something equally serious, but far less sexy and less Fox News telegenic is happening in Washington that is driving Trump's agenda in the long and no one seems to understand what's in it. I'm not even sure half of Congress understands what's in it and they're the ones jamming the stuff in there. So what I wanted you guys to do is just take the big beautiful bill and pick a piece of it that you are really concerned about and that you think people don't. Even if they know it's in there, they don't really understand the scope of the impact or why it matters so much. So, David, I'm going to start with you.

[David French]

So as I understood the assignment, the assignment was to focus on something that people are not focusing on. But I'm going to cheat a little bit because I cannot talk about this monstrosity, which I refuse to refer to as beautiful in any way, shape or form, without saying what the heck are we doing with these budget deficits. We just went through a cycle where we demonstrated that extraordinary deficit spending and extraordinary government spending can lead to inflation that really hurts individual Americans. And here we're going and saying, ah, yolo here we go, let's just shoot the moon on the deficit. So I have to just say that. But I'm going to go with the 10 year ban on AI regulation. Yeah, it's hard to overstate in some ways how silly this is because you have an emerging technology, right? This AI. It's very hard to talk to somebody who really, truly, fully understands AI in all of its dimensions. Even when you have AI experts, they will clash considerably on what it means. And so this is exactly the time for the American laboratories of democracy, the states, to take a crack at figuring out how we manage this emerging technology. And oh, by the way, the states are the only places that happen to have functioning legislatures right now that actually enact bills and laws in response to emerging problems. And so to then say the working legislatures are prohibited from responding to an emerging technology and the most dysfunctional legislature in the whole United States has exclusive authority to do so. It strikes me as utterly nonsense and potentially, potentially dangerous. And a lot of this is driven by, honestly, it seems as if a lot of this is driven by the desire to use AI for propaganda purposes. And it's very strange.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Now listen, here's the thing about AI. You know, I've written about it extensively as well, and I'm like, David, it seems awfully strange to me that something that is supposed to promise so much unquestioned innovation needs such strong market protectionism to do it. You know, if it's so innovative, why does it need to be protected from regulation? We should all need it and it's gonna change our lives and it's gonna be so self evident. So I think it is also conceding the case that right now it doesn't really have much of one. And it's absolutely ridiculous. And I want every American to know about it and to care about it. I also want Americans to know and care about the continued attack on private education. Right. And one of the things that is in this bill is a transformation of subs for private school vouchers. This is a voucher enthusiastic administration. But this does something a little different, which is that this not only incentivizes people to give private school vouchers, but then reduces their tax penalty when they do. So this isn't expected to then have the pretty much rational rush on private school vouchers that this administration is hoping will be a partner in its dismantling of the Department of Education and facilitating the sort of deregulation of public education in this country. And so this is further weaponization of the private school voucher. System as a weapon against public education, which should be, to David's larger point, is supposed to be a state issue, I would point out. So even having the federal government sort of tweak the tax code in this way is arguably an overreach, but it is certainly hostile to public education.

[Michelle Cottle]

So before I throw mine in there, I wanna make sure that we have not forced you to be obscure. Is there anything that is really plaguing you about the bill that you did not bring up because you think it's too well known or.

[David French]

Yep.

[Michelle Cottle]

Go, go.

[David French]

You tag the limitation and restrictions on the power of the courts in contempt proceedings. So essentially the problem that we have right now is contempt proceedings are about the only really significant tool that courts have to enforce their judgment. And even contempt proceedings are subject to, at the end of the day, the willingness of the executive branch of the government to arrest individuals to enforce contempt proceedings. But it's about the only thing that the courts have, really. I mean, they do have sanctions which are short of contempt, but contempt is what their equivalent of their nuclear weapon would be, and it's not that impressive. And this Congress wants to restrict it even more with bond obligations. And this is purely, purely trying to provide Trump with refuge and Trump officials with refuge in the event that they ultimately do decide to flat out defy a court. That's when contempt starts to lock in and they want to take what little power the judiciary has and diminish that. So I couldn't leave that one entirely on the table either.

[Michelle Cottle]

Tracy, did you have anything that we have failed to.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Yeah. This is administration that is obsessed with the expansion of work requirements for benefits. This would expand the work requirements for people who are on Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare is one of our great anti poverty social programs in this country. The extent to which we continue to make it hostile to people who need it is a signal of our erosion of the social compact. It would dramatically increase the number of people who are living below the poverty line overnight. There's no social net positive. Right. This isn't like something where you can say, you know, we're pushing able bodied people off of the state dole and making them go out and work. There's actually no cause for this other than cruelty. And so I wish I could get more people to care about that one. But the expansion of work requirements, okay.

[Michelle Cottle]

So that tees me up for mine, which is, is I worry that people don't understand just how big a role Medicaid plays for, say, the elder population. I was having dinner with a bunch of very kind of smart, well informed Washington folks the other night. And one of them was like, are people really going to care about the Medicaid cuts if they are not impacted themselves? I'm like, yes, in part because if you have older family members, two thirds of nursing home patients rely on Medicaid as their primary form of funding. And that doesn't get into all the people who are taking care of their parents at home with long term, like Medicare does not pay for long term care for elders. That's Medicaid. We've seen what happens in a couple of states that have tried work requirements and the enrollment levels plummeted. And if, if you're talking about, one estimate says that at least $600 billion will get pulled out of that program over the next decade. If you're talking about that level of money, just like kind of the trickle down effect as clinics get closed and hospitals get closed and providers, it, it's just going to be a freak show. With an aging population that already is straining public resources, America already cannot take care of its elder population sufficiently. And the burden, if you go whacking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Medicaid is gonna be an abject disaster.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

I mean the level of punishment here of people who need healthcare is one of the crueler aspects of this big so called beautiful bill.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah, there have been many people to point out that there are an awful lot of red states and red communities that rely on Medicaid. So at the same time, you're listening to Stephen Miller talk about, well, this is the most populous, most pro American bill, the MAGA agenda and legislative form. But there are some Republicans who see some trouble coming. Like we've, we've already seen a couple of House members trash the bill after they voted for it. And then there are a couple of folks in the Senate, including Josh Hawley, specifically over the Medicaid stuff. So do either of you have some sense of optimism that maybe this could be stopped, that there will be enough kind of concern among Republican senators, or did you just think that there's no way to derail this at this stage?

[David French]

Let me put it this way, Michelle. You're always warned if you invest any money at all, ever in your life, you'll get one of these, these statements is past performance is not a predictor of future results. Right. And then everybody just blows right through that going, no, yeah, past performance is a predictor of future results. It can be pretty darn reliable. That's why people go with investment managers who Have a long track record. That's good.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Exactly.

[David French]

So if you're going with past performance as a predictor of future results, which I think is a very rational thing to do here, watch the Senate cave. Just watch it. And if it doesn't cave, if it doesn't cave, that will be a surprise. So I'm not gonna say it's absolutely, definitely, positively gonna cave. But as we've seen, the more aggressive MAGA gets towards the Senate, the more the senate capitulates. It's 180 degrees from the judiciary. The more aggressive MAGA gets at the judiciary, the judiciary stands firm. The more aggressive it gets for these senators. I mean, think about some of these confirmation battle. Well, they weren't even battles, so I'm hopeful. Hopeful is probably even too strong. I hold out some hope that reason will prevail in the worst elements of the monstrosity bill, but I do not expect it in any way, shape or form.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah, I mean my sense is that a lot of folks in the Senate, and I'm talking Republicans as well as the House, they're just afraid of him.

[David French]

Yeah.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, so before we go, let's shift back to the shorter term. What are you gonna be keeping a close eye on in the days ahead? Like, you know, let's just try for the week. In the coming week, there's gonna be a lot going on. What's gonna most get your attention?

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

I am paying attention to whether or not the Marines show up in Los Angeles.

[Michelle Cottle]

I can't believe that come outta your mouth, Tressy.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

I'm saying I'm sorry, that's what I'm paying attention to. I wanna, you know, just a threat or if it's something that they're actually willing to do. I think their willingness to do it will say a lot to David's earlier point. You know.

[Michelle Cottle]

Wait, wait, wait. They're there now. Actually, CNN is reporting that the Marines, they just.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

When did this happen?

[Michelle Cottle]

Just right now. A full Marine battalion.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Thank you.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, Tressy, you've been overtaken by events.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Not my first time.

[Michelle Cottle]

So as we're talking, 700 Marines in California have been ordered to assist in Los Angeles and they're expected to arrive over the next 24 hours or a US official has confirmed. So this situation is still extremely fluid and who knows what it's going to look like by the time you all hear this. So, you know, give us the first take.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Well, my first take was that this is what I was very afraid of. It says something about how emboldened the administration feels to David's point about what is legal and what this administration is willing to do may not always be the same thing. How much the administration continues to run roughshod over the Constitution just continues to be stunning. Whether or not this act, however, is supported by other Republicans will say a lot to me over the next day or so. Listen, it is very odd for me, particularly as a black American, to watch the federal government's intervention at the state level of civil disobedience, to be on the side of state power, when so often during the civil rights movement, we relied on it to protect the civil rights move. Right. To protest. So I feel like I'm living like I've fallen through the looking glass here. But this will be the thing that I am watching. Not only that it has now happened, but how people respond.

[David French]

I'm with Tressy on this. I think the single most important issue over the next several days or the single most important thing that we all should be looking at is does the situation in Los Angeles escalate? Does it escalate in Los Angeles? Does it spread to other cities? How does the administration respond to that? This is a very, very dangerous moment. We are in a tinderbox right now. And so that's what I'm looking at.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Yeah.

[Michelle Cottle]

All right. Who am I to buck the trend? I'm right there with you. Very nervous about the whole thing, but hopefully we will have better news next time we gather to discuss. So I guess we. We're gonna land it there. And with that, David, Tressy, thank you so much for talking through all this craziness with me.

[David French]

Thank you both.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

Yeah, it was a real pleasure to be here. Thank you, Michelle. Thanks, David.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, that's really a lie. Trust me, it's not a pleasure at all.

[Tressie McMillan Cottom]

I know, but I have manners, Michelle. I have manners.

[Michelle Cottle]

I know. Point. Unlike.

[New York Times Opinions]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberg Burger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing, and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Aman Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samuluski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.