Government shutdown averted
Government shutdown averted | The Excerpt
On Saturday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: A government shutdown has been averted. USA TODAY Economy Reporter Rachel Barber takes a closer look at what's actually going on amid economic uncertainty. Elon Musk's 'Hitler didn't murder millions' repost draws outrage. USA TODAY National Correspondent Trevor Hughes talks through data that shows more foreign-born people call the United States home today than ever. Diddy pleads not guilty again.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning, I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Saturday, March 15th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today's Shutdown Averted, plus we take a closer look at the economy amid spooked markets and consumers and more foreign-born people call the US home today than ever in history. The government shutdown has been avoided. Senate yesterday evening passed a bill to keep the government funded through September, a partial shutdown otherwise would've begun at midnight, 10 Democrats joined with all but one of their GOP colleagues on a key procedural vote to advance the bill yesterday afternoon, but far fewer Democrats joined Republicans to vote for the bill itself, which shifts some money toward President Donald Trump's priorities and increases his power over spending. The vote came amid a brewing trade war between Trump and international allies and the administration's mass layoffs of federal workers, and where any additional signs of US political dysfunction would have only added to economic uncertainty. Still, consumer confidence is sinking as that economic uncertainty continues. I spoke with USA TODAY economy reporter, Rachel Barber, to help make sense of where things stand right now. Hey there, Rachel.
Rachel Barber:
Hi Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
Thanks for hopping on this, Rachel. So lots of, I think concerns and anxiety around some of these economic points right now, but let's start by talking about the markets. I know stocks inched back up on Friday, but it was really a nightmare week beforehand, Rachel? What happened here was this, I guess, mostly a reaction to uncertainty?
Rachel Barber:
It's complicated, but it seems that way. One of the sources that I spoke to said that markets are like people, they like stability and certainty, and right now investors are worried what tariffs will mean for their supply chains and their businesses overall. As we know, tensions have been rising between the US and its top three trading partners, Canada, Mexico, China, and this week Trump escalated the risk of a trade war with the European Union. He threatened to impose a 200% tariff on alcohol coming to the US from Europe unless the EU drops its plans for a tax on American whiskey, which by the way itself, was part of an EU retaliation strategy after Trump put a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports to the US.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, so what about inflation? This was something Trump promised to lower on day one, has he made good on any of that promise?
Rachel Barber:
I'm not an expert on inflation, but I can tell you that it eased more than was expected in February, but economists told my colleague, Paul Davidson, that the reprieve will probably be short-lived because those import tariffs we just spoke about are expected to drive prices up.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, as I said at the top, Rachel, consumers, just average Americans, are clearly worried in this moment or at least puzzled know we have some new indicators on consumer confidence. What can you tell us here, just how spooked are consumers right now?
Rachel Barber:
Well, first to add some context, really simply put, consumer sentiment is a measure that we and economists use to understand how people are feeling about their finances and the economy, both in the short and the long term, and it matters because how people feel about the economy affects how much they spend and how much they save. So now we have some new data according to a new University of Michigan study, consumer sentiment in the US has fallen three months in a row, meaning people are feeling more pessimistic. The survey reported consumer sentiment is at 57.9, which is the lowest it's been since the end of 2022, and it's down 22% from December last year before Trump took office.
Taylor Wilson:
Wow. All right, so we've had this recession where it's swirling around for a few weeks now, Rachel. Considering all of this, what we've been talking about, how likely is a recession in the coming months? What does that word actually mean and how would that land with Americans?
Rachel Barber:
Well, yeah, honestly Taylor, I'm not in a position to make that call, if we're headed into a recession but I can tell you who is. For the last several decades, it's been up to eight economists who serve on something called the Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is within the National Bureau of Economic Research to formally decide when the US is in a recession. And that organization defines a recession as a, "Significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy lasting more than a few months." So it's a pretty broad definition, but the committee considers several factors when making that determination. Consumer spending is one of them, but they also look at real income, employment, industrial production, and GDP. So far they have not made any decisions that we are in a recession and Trump and his administration say that we are rather just in a period of economic transition. When he was asked on Fox News Sunday about whether the US would experience a recession in 2025, he didn't exactly rule it out, instead he just said that he hates to predict things like that.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, it feels like a critical next few weeks. Rachel Barber covers the economy for USA TODAY, thank you, Rachel.
Rachel Barber:
Thank you so much, Taylor, have a good one.
Taylor Wilson:
Elon Musk this week reposted a message on X, formerly Twitter, writing, "Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn't murder millions of people, their public sector employees did." Musk's repost, which now appears to be deleted, drew furious reactions from a labor union and the Anti-Defamation League. Lee Saunders, for instance, president of the American Federation of State County and Municipal employees said that America's public service workers chose making communities safe, healthy, and strong over getting rich, adding they are not, as the world's richest man implies, "Genocidal murderers." The Anti-Defamation League, a non-profit that seeks to combat anti-Semitism said the post was deeply disturbing. Musk's repost comes at a time when his crackdown on the federal government has spurred Tesla takedown protests with Tesla owners being harassed and multiple dealerships vandalized across the country. Back in January, Musk also sparked controversy with a gesture that drew comparisons to the Nazi salute while speaking at an inaugural event for President Donald Trump.
♦
More foreign-born people call the US home today than ever in history according to new federal data. I spoke with USA TODAY national correspondent, Trevor Hughes, for more. Hey there, Trevor.
Trevor Hughes:
Hey, how's it going?
Taylor Wilson:
Good, good. Thanks for hopping on, Trevor. So let's just start with the numbers. What did you find here about foreign-born folks in the United States?
Trevor Hughes:
What we're seeing, this is reflected in frankly in the election, but the new results from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggest that there are now something like 53 million foreign-born people living in the United States. That's almost 16% of the overall population. Now, that's a combination of people here legally and people who cross the board illegally or people who have overstayed their visas.
Taylor Wilson:
How does this compare with past eras of foreign-born Americans? Do we have any numbers on this?
Trevor Hughes:
This is actually the highest level of foreign-born Americans that we've ever had in this country, at least in modern history, going back to the late 1800s when we started keeping good statistics on this, and again, this is self-reported by the BLS and the Census Bureau. It reflects, I think a thing that many Americans thought about when they were making a decision in the presidential election, president Trump campaigned very strongly on this idea of closing the border, and what we are now seeing from the statistics is that there are more people who are from somewhere else than have ever been in this country.
Taylor Wilson:
And you touched on this, Trevor, but does this survey distinguish between people who arrived with or without legal authorization? Do we know the breakdown here and in terms of how many foreign-born residents have received documentation?
Trevor Hughes:
This is a long-running sort of issue in America, which is that we don't actually have a really good sense of how many people are living here without legal permission. That is something the Trump administration actually plans to address. They have been trying to push this on the census for a number of years, and I expect that you're going to see stronger efforts in the coming years to really put a number on those folks so that the Trump administration can follow through with its campaign promises to deport people who are living illegally here in the United States.
Taylor Wilson:
Trevor, we hear a lot about how immigrants impact the economy. Where do the arguments here stand at this moment in time on I guess either side of the aisle, and what do the numbers tell us about the impact of foreign-born workers on economics?
Trevor Hughes:
This is the thing, Americans aren't having kids, and our population growth at this point is almost entirely because immigrants are coming to this country. That means more people to work, which actually keeps wages down, especially in industries that immigrants are traditionally employed, especially if you're unskilled, landscaping, labor, farming, fishing. And so that helps keep wages down, which is obviously good for employers, and is good for consumers. But if you're an American-born worker, you may not feel that way, you may be frustrated that people who are willing to work for less than you are working alongside you and that depresses your wages.
Taylor Wilson:
This is another interesting piece from you, Trevor. Listeners can go find the full version with a link in today's show notes. Trevor Hughes is a national correspondent with USA TODAY. Thanks, Trevor.
Trevor Hughes:
You bet, good to be here.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
Former hip hop mogul, Sean Diddy Combs appeared in court once again yesterday pleading not guilty, this time for a new indictment, stating that he had forced employees to work long inhumane hours and threatened to punish those who did not assist in his alleged two decade long sex trafficking scheme. The indictment follows numerous lawsuits and allegations of rape, sexual assault, physical abuse, and similar claims over the course of three decades, all of which Combs has pleaded not guilty to. You can read more with a link in today's show notes.
♦
On the campaign trail, President Trump pledged to once and for all, dismantle the Department of Education, a longstanding goal of conservative Republicans. That promise took shape this past week with the layoff of 50% of the department staff. The question is, will that lead to better education in America?
Zach Schermele:
Tracking educational progress going forward in order to test the hypothesis that these cuts that the Trump administration has moved forward with are working, that's going to be a challenge because the folks who are in charge of engaging in that research are no longer going to be at the department.
Taylor Wilson:
That's USA TODAY Education Reporter Zach Schermele. Listen in tomorrow beginning at 5 A.M. when my colleague, Dana Taylor, sits down with Zach to talk through the impacts of these latest moves by the Trump administration to rein in Washington's footprint in the lives of millions of Americans.
♦
And thanks for listening to The Excerpt, you can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back Monday with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.' ___ Associated Press writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.
Associated Press
37 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.' ___ Associated Press writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sunrun Stock (RUN) Plummets 40% as U.S. Senate Targets Solar Credits
The solar sector is reeling after the release of the Senate Finance Committee's proposed tax-and-spending bill, which targets renewable energy sources. Sunrun (RUN), a major player in residential solar, was particularly vulnerable to the news, shedding almost 40% of its valuation in the past week. Having traded as high as $13.20 per share in late May, the stock is now languishing at ~$6 following this week's news. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter In my view, the proposed incentive cuts pose a significant threat to Sunrun's viability, particularly given its ongoing inability to generate profits despite these benefits being in place. Without that financial support, a turnaround seems even less likely, leaving me firmly bearish on the stock. For those unfamiliar, Sunrun primarily operates under a third-party ownership (TPO) model. Instead of homeowners purchasing solar systems outright, Sunrun installs and owns the panels, allowing customers to either lease the system for a monthly fee or pay for the electricity it generates at a fixed rate. This model has gained popularity because it enables homeowners to adopt solar with little to no upfront cost. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which extended and enhanced the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), Sunrun, as the system owner, can claim a tax credit typically worth 30% of the system's cost. This significantly lowers installation expenses and enables Sunrun to pass those savings on to customers, making the model more financially appealing. The Senate Finance Committee has recently proposed eliminating solar tax credits in favor of supporting other energy sectors, such as geothermal, nuclear, and hydropower. If passed, this legislation would require Sunrun to absorb the full cost of its solar systems, which would inevitably be passed on to customers. The result would be a significant squeeze on margins and an acceleration of the company's ongoing cash burn. Senate Republicans are reportedly aiming to pass the bill before the July 4th holiday. Upon closer examination, this appears to mark a broader shift in U.S. energy policy away from residential solar and wind. The market has already begun to react, with notable declines in Sunrun's peers, including Enphase Energy (ENPH) and SolarEdge Technologies (SEDG), underscoring the potential sector-wide impact. There's still hope for solar advocates. The proposed bill faces strong resistance from Democrats, particularly from the original architects of the clean energy tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act. The clean energy industry is also mounting an aggressive lobbying effort, warning of potential job losses and higher energy costs. And while the bill is led by the GOP, not all Republicans are aligned in support. The legislation still has a long way to go. It narrowly passed the House in May with a 215–214 vote, and the Senate draft was just introduced on June 16. While the Senate version includes more extended phase-out periods for some clean energy incentives, it still calls for the elimination of Section 48E credits, which are key to residential solar leases. A Senate vote is expected soon, and if proponents can secure a simple majority, the bill could advance to President Trump's desk. For context, the current Senate makeup is 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two Independents. In the near term, Sunrun could experience a temporary boost in demand as customers rush to take advantage of tax credits before they're phased out. However, expectations for 2026 and beyond point to a sharp and sustained decline in demand. A closer look at Sunrun's financials reveals troubling signs. The company has consistently reported negative operating cash flow, with a loss of over $100 million in Q1 2025 and nearly $800 million in total for 2024, highlighting the financial pressure it faces even before potential incentive cuts take effect. Meanwhile, Sunrun, in its pursuit of growth opportunities, is becoming increasingly leveraged, increasing its risk profile should things take a turn for the worse. Moving forward, ongoing tariff pressures and the disappearance of incentive credits spell long-term trouble for solar installers. Analyst sentiment on Sunrun (RUN) stock is mixed. The stock carries a consensus Hold rating, based on seven Buy, six Hold, and four Sell ratings over the past three months. Despite the cautious stance, RUN's average price target of $10.44 suggests significant upside potential—about 70% from current levels. Mizuho analyst Maheep Mandloi has a Buy (Outperform) rating on RUN with a price target of $16. He notes that the House's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' won't derail grandfathered credits until 2028. He also believes that demand for renewable energy will remain high without government incentives because it is 'still the cheapest option.' However, not everyone shares Mandloi's bullish outlook. Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin Smith downgraded RUN to Sell (Underperform) with a price target of $5. Due to the same legislation, Smith notes that Sunrun is exposed to 'both near- and long-term headwinds.' He believes that the market is underestimating 'how consequential the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' is uniquely on residential solar.' The so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill' poses a major threat to solar companies like Sunrun. The company's growth has heavily relied on tax credits tied to third-party ownership (TPO) systems. Even with those incentives, Sunrun has struggled to achieve consistent profitability. Without them, serious doubts emerge about its ability to maintain its current business model. If the bill passes, Sunrun—and others in the space—will likely be forced to pivot toward new strategies or market segments. That said, the bill could still fail, or be amended in ways that lessen the impact on Sunrun. Additionally, the proposed phase-out period provides a window for the company to adjust. From my perspective, I'd prefer to stay on the sidelines until there is more regulatory clarity. Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
