The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein. Another government shutdown. The U.S. military shooting down a boat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in turmoil just ahead of flu season. And where in the world will the National Guard go next?

This is the world Congress returned to this week. If your head is spinning, you're not the only one. This week on The Intercept Briefing, we break it all down with host Akela Lacy and politics reporters Jessica Washington and Matt Sledge.

"The biggest thing hanging over everybody is this looming shutdown," says Sledge, as Congress needs to negotiate a budget extension before a potential October 1 shutdown. And, as Sledge notes, there are a handful of expected fights this session that could hamstring Congress. "There are a million other things happening on Capitol Hill. There's a big defense bill working its way through the House and Senate. And then there's this whole Epstein situation," he says, "which threatens to derail everything else."

On Wednesday morning, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., held a press conference with Epstein's victims, where they announced a bill to force a vote to release the full Department of Justice investigation into the late Jeffrey Epstein.

"Democrats are saying, well, this is something we should do regardless, it is very clearly also a political issue in the sense that Trump has a real weakness with his base," says Washington. "Democrats perhaps were slow to understand how much of a political liability this was for Trump. But they're waking up, and this does very clearly seem to be an issue that is, if not partisan -- obviously we're seeing Republicans join in as well -- deeply political in nature."

Many of us returned this week to reality, but the end of summer feels a little different these days. Things are eerily more unhinged. Coming off a holiday weekend of speculation that the president died, Donald Trump held a press conference where he claimed without evidence that Colorado is engaged in mass voter fraud

Donald Trump: The problem I have with Colorado -- one of the big problems -- they do mail-in voting. They went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections and we can't have that.

AL: Then he announced that the U.S. shot down a boat, allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean, acknowledging the administration's efforts to deploy the U.S. military in its fight against narco-traffickers.

DT: We just, over the last few minutes, literally shot out a boat -- a drug-carrying boat. A lot of drugs on that boat.

AL: And then he threatened to deploy military troops to not just Washington, D.C., but Chicago and Baltimore.

DT: If the governor of Illinois would call up, call me up, I would love to do it. Now, we're going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it, because I have an obligation to protect this country and that includes Baltimore.

AL: The mask is no longer slipping; it's off. The threats aren't threats. They're policies. And my question is, does anyone really have the power to stop it?

As Congress returns to session, they're faced with avoiding fiscal free fall, preparing for fights on Trump's nominees and a congressional stock trading ban. There's also been talk of a looming "crime bill" with few details. Meanwhile, despite House Majority Leader Mike Johnson's best efforts to avoid in-fighting among Republican congressional members over releasing Department of Justice sex trafficking investigation files on Jeffrey Epstein, a bipartisan effort to force a vote is gaining steam.

Ro Khanna: Less than 1 percent of these files have been released.

Thomas Massie: If you've looked at the pages they've released so far, they're heavily redacted. Some pages are entirely redacted, and 97 percent of this is already in the public domain.

RK: We are demanding today on the discharge petition that all of the files be released.

AL: So, today we're going to break it all down with my colleagues Intercept politics reporters, Jessica Washington and Matt Sledge. Welcome back to The Intercept Briefing, Jessie and Matt.

AL: As always, this is a fast-moving news environment. So just a note, we're speaking on Wednesday, September 3.

Congress is back from their August recess, and we're coming off of a weekend of conspiracy theories that Trump died and jumping right back into the "crime emergency," a showdown at the CDC and another looming government shutdown. On top of that, it feels like we're hearing about a new congressional retirement every other day.

There have been more retirements announced at this point in 2025 than at the same point in any year since 2018. Matt, let's start with you. What is the mood in D.C.?

MS: Well, I think you have the D.C. where ordinary people live and they're coming off of several weeks of facing off against National Guard officers and FBI agents just on ordinary residential streets. And then you have the mood on Capitol Hill where lawmakers are coming back after this long August recess and looking at what is going to be just a frenetic period of legislative activity.

I think the biggest thing hanging over everybody is this looming shutdown: this intra-party debate among Democrats over what to do, and this pressure from the White House that seems aimed almost at forcing a shutdown.

And then there are a million other things happening on Capitol Hill. There's a big defense bill working its way through the House and Senate. And then there's this whole Epstein situation happening as well, which threatens to derail everything else.

Akela Lacy: On the Epstein files, let's just jump into this.

This might be the number one topic the Trump administration wishes would go away, but has yet to: releasing DOJ investigation files on Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in his cell in 2019 while under investigation for sex exploitation and trafficking underage girls.

On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 33,000 pages the Justice Department had turned over in August, but it was only a portion of the investigation file. Much of it was already public. And then on Wednesday morning, Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna held a press conference with Epstein's victims.

Anouska De Georgiou: If Ghislaine Maxwell were pardoned, it would undermine all the sacrifices I made to testify and make mockery of mine and all survivors suffering.

Marina Lacerda: My name is Marina Lacerda. I was "Minor-Victim 1" in federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in New York in 2019. I was one of dozens of girls that I personally know who were forced into Jeffrey's mansion on 9 East 71st Street in New York City when we were just kids.

Anouska De Georgiou: That is why the Epstein Files Transparency Act is so essential.

AL: They announced a bill to force a vote to release the full investigation. Jessica, can you bring us up to speed? What are Massie and Khanna proposing exactly and do they have the votes?

JW: As you've already said, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California are teaming up to force essentially a full release of the Epstein files, which is essentially just the investigation from the DOJ into Jeffrey Epstein, who I think as most people know, is a convicted sex offender, who committed suicide in prison in 2019. So they need 218 signatures at least to force a vote. This is what's known as a discharge petition.

So Khanna told NBC News that he was certain that the entire Democratic Caucus -- which just for its math is 212 members -- would vote yes. He also believes that he has six Republican votes, meaning in theory they do have the votes to force the vote, which is kind of a funny way of saying it.

The White House has been fighting this discharge petition saying that anyone who supports it -- it would be considered a hostile act if anyone supports it.

So it's a little less clear when they actually would get to a vote to pass the discharge position to the actual vote. And that would not be likely for another two weeks at least. It's a little less clear whether or not they'd actually have the votes to release the files, but it does seem that they have the votes to at least get this discharge petition through.

AL: So if there's only really like a certain pathway for success on the discharge petition, what is the end game here? Is it actually to get these released? Is it to make a statement to Trump? I mean, the press conferences you have Khanna praising Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, and talking about how strongly they feel that this is not a partisan issue.

I mean, in the backdrop, Democrats are internally fighting over whether or not to cooperate [with] Republicans over this government shutdown. I mean, what is the play there?

JW: Yeah, I mean I think it's twofold. I mean, you could argue that there the Democrats are saying, well, this is something we should do regardless.

I think it is very clearly also a political issue in the sense that Trump has a real weakness with his base, which is that a decent amount of his base is deeply committed to conspiracy theories and many of these theories center around Jeffrey Epstein and child exploitation more broadly. So that's really at the center of a lot of his supporters' worldview, and Democrats perhaps were slow to understand how much of a political liability this was for Trump. But they're waking up and this does very clearly seem to be an issue that is, if not, partisan, obviously we're seeing Republicans join in as well, is deeply political in nature.

AL: Why do you think it's causing a split with some Republicans? I mean, particularly with like, you know, people, these are what is considered the fringe members of the Republican Party, whereas more traditional conservative Republicans are not being visible on this issue. Is that because they're afraid of Trump, or is it something else?

JW: Yeah, I think fear of Trump is definitely a motivator for the Republicans who are trying to avoid, I mean, obviously we saw House Speaker Mike Johnson send Congress home early just to avoid even having to take a vote on this. So we know this is a messy, messy issue for the GOP.

I think on the one hand, you definitely have Republicans who are afraid of Trump, but then you also have Republicans who are afraid of their own base, who recognize how deeply unpopular it is to try and prevent these files from being released. They've been selling their supporters for a very long time, you know, "We're going to release the Epstein files." And so they're really at a tricky area where they can either support Trump and not vote to release the files. But then that brings them into a very messy fight with their own base. So it's a real complicated issue for Republicans.

AL: Matt, the most looming issue for this congressional session is negotiating a budget extension before a potential October 1 shutdown. What can you tell us about this?

Matt Sledge: Well, I think it's really hard to game out what's going to happen now. What is clear is that Republicans are going to need some kind of Democratic support to get a budget extension passed, and that is going to be hugely dependent on these intra-party discussions among Democrats.

As we all remember, Chuck Schumer got pilloried for providing support for the last one of these extensions. I think he's going to be very reluctant to make a similar decision now. There are a lot of Democrats -- not just progressives -- who are really angry about the idea of giving Republicans support right now.

And you know, Trump has made things even harder for Democrats -- I'm sure this is intentionally -- by pursuing rescissions and most recently, the so-called pocket rescission where he is essentially saying, "OK, Congress, you passed this bill telling me to spend this much money. I'm just going to ignore you." And so it means that any kind of deal that Republicans make with Democrats is that much harder because Democrats know that they have a man in the White House who doesn't honor deals that Congress makes on Capitol Hill.

AL: Yeah, we remember Democrats were hammered after they didn't hold the line against Trump in March. It sounds like that is changing a little bit, but what is the strategy from Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries right now?

MS: That is a great question, and I'm not sure that they have tipped their hands. Perhaps it's strategic silence. But as far as I know, I haven't heard them lay out their strategy going into this fight. That doesn't mean they haven't cooked one up behind the scenes, but I think the public at large is in the dark about what they want to pursue. I think, tonally and posture-wise, they're both trying to telegraph that they're going to take a tough posture against the Trump administration and Republicans. But whether they actually follow through on that is an open question.

AL: I know there was a Dear Colleague letter where they said that they're unified; they're describing Republicans' approach as a "go it alone" approach that is heading the country towards a shutdown, prioritiz[ing] chaos over governing, partisanship over partnership, and Trump over Americans.

That is definitely a different tone than what we heard in March, but there's also talk that Democrats and strategists want them to make any sort of shutdown an issue about health care; and try to put that on Trump's back. If health care is the number one issue that's resonating with voters, is it too little, too late? I mean, is that the right play?

MS: It's hard to say. And I think this is what critics of a maximalist strategy would say is that the party that forces the shutdown usually loses in the court of public opinion. Does putting a health care spin on it help that much? I'm not sure that's the grand winning strategy here, but it could help put the focus on all the things that the Big Beautiful Bill did in terms of cutting people's health care. So it could echo their messaging around that bill, which is going to be a huge issue heading into the midterms next year

[Break]

AL: The backdrop of all of this is Trump has flooded Washington, D.C., with National Guard troops and threatened to send more to cities including Chicago and Baltimore. We know at the end of the day this is between Trump and local mayors, but where are Democrats in Congress on this issue right now? And is this something Democrats are considering when they're debating whether to cooperate with Republicans right now?

JW: It's been relatively quiet from Democrats in Congress. I mean, you would imagine that D.C. being taken over by a Republican presidential administration would be a slightly bigger deal to them. But we haven't really heard too much. I mean, certainly there has been some action. Congresswoman Delia Ramirez, D-IL, held a press conference on Wednesday morning, along with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., Judy Chu, D-Calif., Congressman Glenn Ivey, D-Md., and Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y.

So there has been some action from congressional Democrats, particularly on the more progressive end, and obviously Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton represents D.C. although she doesn't have a vote in Congress. But we've also seen capitulation from local Democrats as well. The D.C. mayor has very much been rhetorically capitulating to Trump, saying, oh, well, maybe this'll help, or maybe that'll help -- kind of agreeing that some of this was necessary.

So, obviously that historically has not been a winning strategy with Donald Trump. Capitulation does not seem to appease him in any real way. But we have really seen congressional Democrats be very, very quiet on this issue when you would imagine with all of the talk of authoritarianism and fascism, that you would see a little more action when we actually have troops occupying the nation's capital.

AL: Right. I was reading a newsletter the other day and it was like, you know, Democrats' hands are kind of tied because crime is down since they sent the National Guard in. It's like, yeah, if there are military people patrolling the streets people are not going to be -- I just, the logic is kind of mind-numbing.

JW: No, the logic is quite mind-numbing to me. I mean, especially because we have local examples of how to actually fight crime. I mean, if you think about Baltimore, for example, they heavily invested in the sorts of things that we know actually prevents crime: afterschool activities, having people in the community actually step in and do violence intervention. And so to say OK, well, crime is down because D.C. is currently being occupied by a military force is a little silly when we have these examples.

AL: I want to also flag this crime bill. Jessie, what can you tell us about Trump's latest proposal?

JW: Yeah, so as of Wednesday, September 3, while we're recording, we don't actually know what is in this bill, only that Trump and the GOP were working on it over recess. Trump in relation to his, what I'm calling the takeover of D.C., has suggested a crime bill essentially to force a lot of these tough on crime policies into not just D.C. but other cities across the country. I think what we should expect to see is an attempt to really roll back the clock on even minor criminal justice reforms that occurred under the Biden administration, and even in some cases under the Trump administration -- under the first Trump administration -- to be clear.

So I think what we're likely to see is really, when I say tough on crime, what I really mean is policies that are incredibly punitive. So I think we should expect to see really punitive policies. I think in line with what we've seen from Trump kind of across the board in this administration, is really any kind of success you might say of the Biden administration when it comes to issues like criminal justice issues like housing, anything like that, really a rolling back of the clock on those things. So that's what I am expecting when this bill actually comes out.

AL: I mean, do you have any sense of like, why now? My sense of reading at least some of the coverage of this is like: yes, obviously Trump has been threatening all sorts of things on return to "law and order", et cetera, et cetera, but it seems like it sort of caught people by surprise.

JW: Yeah, I think twofold. I mean, one, I think it's very connected to the takeover we're seeing in D.C..

This is not unusual, Republican administrations have historically used D.C. as kind of a weapon -- talking about crime in D.C. in a very racialized way. And then using that as a backdrop to push really punitive criminal justice measures. So I think that's part of, it seems to be, a distraction from the Jeffrey Epstein files. This has politically been a massive loser for Donald Trump. And I think we're seeing him really throw different political red meat, so to speak, to his base at this moment, to distract

AL: Trump also recently just signed an executive order to end cashless bail. What is the significance of that move and how does it fit into the scene he's painting of America as this lawless land that needs his protection?

JW: Yeah, so Trump signed an executive order that, I mean, to be clear, it penalizes cities and states that have limited or abolished cash bail. So he can't unilaterally get rid of those policies, but he can punish cities and states that have enacted it.

Effectively what this means is whether or not you end up in jail or you get to go home has to do with the amount of money in your wallet. Donald Trump is very clearly painting a scary picture of this country that doesn't actually fit into reality. I mean, what the evidence shows is that no-show rates are essentially the same in jurisdictions that require cash bail and those who don't.

So this idea that ending cash bail is what's led to a huge crime surge, which also isn't happening by the way, is just completely ludicrous. And like I was saying before, Donald Trump is trying to throw this scary picture out about crime because he's losing on this other issue, which is really related to these conspiracy theories around child exploitation.

But he still needs to use fear as a weapon and a cudgel. So we're seeing that with what he's doing in D.C., with the pushing of this crime bill, and also with this executive order to try and eliminate places that have limited or abolished cash bail.

AL: So what I'm hearing is that if it wasn't already clear to people, it's becoming more apparent each day that Trump is deadset on militarizing law enforcement and solidifying this police state. But where does that leave us and what are the long-term effects of that project?

MS: I think it's still really an open question just because you look at these recent court rulings just in the last few days about the Posse Comitatus Act and about the deployment of troops to Los Angeles and there's finally some pushback from the courts. And then with this executive order -- as with all of Trump's executive orders -- it's always, this is what Trump is purporting to do. And it's very unclear that he has the actual power to do what he's saying.

So I think we are at another one of these junctures where it's hard to tell how this is all going to shake out.

AL: There's talk of a Republican forcing a vote on banning congressional stock trading. How far is that likely to go and could that catch Democrats on their heels?

Matt Sledge: Yeah, so I mean, there's a member from Florida who is threatening to force a vote on this.

At the same time, she is giving House leaders a little bit of leeway to try and pursue their own stock trade ban. I don't think Mike Johnson is very enthused about this, but this is an issue that has polled very well among ordinary people of both parties. I think everybody sees the potential for corruption here.

At the same time is an alternative bipartisan proposal for a stock trading ban from other members of Congress. I'm not sure how far either of these is going to get in the face of skepticism from Mike Johnson. He has proven himself to be pretty good at maneuvering around these discharge petitions. And I think without the fire under the feet of the base -- the MAGA base on an issue such as Epstein that's become such a rallying cry -- I think it's so much harder to get a bill over that hurdle of Mike Johnson's opposition. This is an issue that people care about, but I don't think it's as quite the rallying cry that the Epstein files have become

AL: Another area where Democrats have had a difficult time avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy in criticizing Trump is the embrace of crypto. Matt, do you see this tying their hands at all when it comes to drawing lines in the sand with the GOP?

MS: I think for some members, you know, they have really opened themselves up to charges of hypocrisy by supporting many of the crypto industry's priorities. The line those kind of pro-crypto Democrats are trying to draw is we [that] want good, clear regulations for everybody, but we oppose Donald Trump's self-dealing and corruption. I think the larger critique of that, though, oftentimes from progressive Dems is this entire industry is rife with self-dealing and corruption, and you can't really draw some distinction between bad crypto, i.e., Trump and good crypto, meaning other actors. So yeah, some people have definitely opened themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. But there's also the caveat there -- and you hear this from a lot of people who care passionately about this issue -- is that it still has not broken through to the general population of voters as a major issue. And I think unfortunately, it may not break through as a major issue until we see a big financial market crash tied to cryptocurrency.

AL: Jessie, progressives have been pushing a bill to block bombs to Israel. What's the story there, and is that having any effect?

JW: Yeah, so this has been an ongoing legislative effort led by progressive Democrats to block the sale of specific U.S. made weapons to Israel. So this wouldn't include everything. As our colleague Jonah Valdez reported, what's significant now is that even AIPAC-funded Democrats have started to sign onto this legislation. Israel's actions have been really increasingly unpopular. We're seeing movement even among Democrats who we really thought would hold the line on Israel -- would continue kind of in perpetuity -- to send weapons that are being used now in Gaza.

And so we are really seeing a bit of a sea change now, does that mean that we should be expecting imminent legislation to pass on this and that the U.S. will immediately stop selling arms to Israel anytime soon? I wouldn't bet on it, especially at this point in the legislative session, but certainly we're seeing a lot of momentum. And I think that's what people are watching Democrats, who really seemed like they were going to hold the line on this issue forever actually taking into account not only their constituents' concerns, but also really start to, it seems, potentially absorb some of the really horrific news out of Gaza, finally,

AL: As the death toll climbs, I'll also just mention, I know that shortly after, [Zohran] Mamdani's win in the New York City mayoral primary in June, in which he outperformed several members of the New York congressional delegation in their own district, some of whom were pro-Israel and had endorsed his opponent, the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project started running ads in districts of several of these members and then in other states. And I think two or three of them have since signed on to this bill after having those ads run in their districts. So I just wanted to mention that.

There's been a lot of news about concerns over redistricting in several states. Matt, what are your thoughts on this?

MS: Yeah, I think one of the most interesting overlooked issues here is the intraparty fights that this is going to set off. We've already seen this in Texas, when Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett were maneuvering behind the scenes to claim one of these Democrat friendly districts in Texas. And then in California, if the new maps pass there through the referendum process, it's going to shake up even some of these safe Democratic districts. They're going to have different maps and it's potentially going to open the door for primary challengers a little bit. So, you know, Akela, you were already talking about these retirements that we're seeing in record numbers. There's already been this surge in primary challengers months and months before anybody's going to actually go into the ballot box.

And I think in California where you have just so many blue districts that's potentially going to make things even more interesting to see the lines reshaped there.

AL: Now I'll just open it up a little bit for both of you. What are you watching closely for the remainder of this session? I'll start with you, Matt.

MS: Sure. Yeah. We talked a little bit about crypto and the industry is really hoping to get another piece of legislation passed before the year comes to an end. [A] so-called framework legislation that would lay out the ground rules for all of cryptocurrency and -- in the industry's eyes, hopefully -- put most of the regulatory powers under the CFTC, which they view as friendlier to the industry than the SEC. There are a lot of moving parts to this. You've got multiple committees with jurisdiction in both the House and the Senate. Big personalities, and they're trying to do it all before the end of the year because traditionally in an election year, almost nothing happens.

So this is a huge push from the industry. They already had a big win with the so-called stablecoin bill earlier in the year. And they want to notch another one before Congress goes dormant ahead of the elections. It's hard to say whether they will get what they want, but they're pushing hard and I think they know that this may be their best chance for years.

AL: Jessie, what about you? What are you watching?

JW: Yeah, so I'm definitely watching what's going to happen with the Epstein files. I think that is interesting from a political sense in particular. This is a story that really does seem to potentially be unraveling the GOP and unraveling Trump. I think it's worth watching.

But for me, you know, and not just my own little special interest, but watching what's happening with D.C. I'm really curious to see if congressional Democrats do step up and actually start to really make this an issue -- make the occupation of the nation's Capitol -- a political issue on the hill. And also if we see some real pushback to the crime bill that Trump is proposing and these other actions that he's taking to really roll back the clock on these really hard one criminal justice reforms that first of all never went far enough.

And finally we started to see some bipartisan support for reforms, particularly when you looked into the price of incarcerating people in the United States. There was some bipartisan support for reducing sentencing. And I have deep concerns about where we're going to be going and whether or not that happens [in] this session, I'm not sure, but it is definitely something that I'm paying close attention to.

AL: It sounds unsurprisingly, like the next few months will be wild. For all of our listeners to keep tabs on what's next, follow our reporting at theintercept.com. And we will leave it there. Thank you both Matt and Jessie for joining me on the Intercept Briefing.

AL: That does it for this episode of The Intercept Briefing.

We want to hear from you.

Share your story with us at 530-POD-CAST. That's 530-763-2278. You can also email us at podcasts at the intercept dot com.

This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Sumi Aggarwal is our executive producer. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by Shawn Musgrave. And transcript by Anya Mehta.

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

You can support our work at theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. If you haven't already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. And tell all of your friends about us, and better yet, leave us a rating or a review to help other listeners find us.