Pope Francis' funeral to be held on Saturday
Pope Francis' funeral to be held on Saturday | The Excerpt
On Tuesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: The world continues to react to the death of Pope Francis. His funeral is set for Saturday in Vatican City. Plus, what do American Catholics want from the next pope? USA TODAY National Correspondent Elizabeth Weise discusses a list of America's Climate Leaders when it comes to the corporate world. Harvard sues the Trump administration. Collection of defaulted student loans will restart May 5 for the first time since the pandemic. USA TODAY Economy Reporter Rachel Barber breaks down what 2025 graduates want from their future employers.
Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com.
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 Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025, this is The Excerpt. Today, the world reacts to the passing of Pope Francis. Plus, Happy Earth Day, and what do 2025 graduates want in the workplace.
♦
The world continues to react to the death of Pope Francis. Those are the bells in Vatican City's St. Peter's Square, which rang yesterday to mark his death. He died of a stroke and irreversible heart failure, the Vatican said hours after announcing his passing yesterday morning. Cardinals from across the globe will soon gather under a shroud of secrecy at St. Peter's Basilica to decide who will replace him. The conclave to choose a new pope normally takes place 15 to 20 days after the death, and some 135 cardinals are eligible to participate in the secretive ballot.
Ordinary members of the church won't get a say in the decision, but when asked about what priorities they would want from a new Pope, Catholic people who spoke to the USA TODAY Network just hours after Francis' death were deeply divided. You can read more about that with a link in today's show notes. Meanwhile, according to the Vatican, Pope Francis funeral will be held on Saturday at St. Peter's Basilica. Leaders from across the globe, including President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump, are set to attend. Trump ordered flags to fly half staff in honor of the late Pope.
♦
Today is Earth Day. 55 years ago, the first Earth Day started as a grassroots activist effort to raise awareness about air pollution, toxic drinking water, and the effects of pesticides. This year I caught up with USA TODAY national correspondent Elizabeth Weise, to discuss how a growing number of large companies disclose their carbon emissions. Hey there, Beth.
Elizabeth Weise:
Hey, how's it going?
Taylor Wilson:
Good, thanks for hopping on this Earth Day. So let's just start with this. What is USA TODAY's America's climate leaders ranking?
Elizabeth Weise:
So for the last three years, USA TODAY has been collaborating with a market research firm called Statista to do an analysis of U.S. companies, big companies, that have lowered their carbon emissions significantly. And we start out with a list of, I mean this year it was like 2,000 and we got it down to 700, and then I went through all 700 companies, and then we got it down to 500. And the idea is to give consumers and people who are thinking of investing in a company a sense of what companies are doing that is lowering their carbon emissions.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. So how do companies make it onto this list, Beth?
Elizabeth Weise:
There's a lot of criteria, you can go through the story and kind of see all the various ways that companies do this. A company gets on this list because they have lowered their carbon dioxide emissions, which are the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. But because we want it to be apples and apples, we adjust that by revenue so that if Xerox lowers its carbon by a little bit, is that the same as a smaller company doing it by a lot? And this is a measure called carbon intensity, and it's a pretty common measure used around the world to look at a company. "Well, what is their carbon intensity? How much CO2 are they putting out or CO2 equivalents per million dollars of revenue?"
Taylor Wilson:
So in terms of just kind of where this data comes from and looking at the numbers, I mean are companies required to make their carbon emissions data available?
Elizabeth Weise:
They are not. This was the subject of a rather long and torturous process for the Securities & Exchange Commission, which in 2024 they finally came out with rules that would have governed exactly what information U.S. companies had to make available. And then it was immediately challenged in court and they finally pulled back and it's not going to happen. So really in the United States at this point, there is no federal requirement that companies do this. What was heartening is that a remarkable number of companies actually do.
Taylor Wilson:
Yeah. Well, and you also write that companies face strong economic pressure, right, to fight climate change on some of these fronts. Can you talk through that? Why is that?
Elizabeth Weise:
Yeah, so that was I think the most interesting thing to me. And we're at a position in the United States right now where the Trump administration is rolling back a lot of the climate initiatives that the federal government has done, and a lot of companies had moved forward with pretty intensive climate emissions. So you might think that they were pulling back from that, but there's two reasons that they're not.
And the first is it saves them money. I mean I talked to all these business professors and analysts and they all said the same thing, which is if you are a company and you are lowering your carbon intensity, there is a very good chance and there's a lot of data to back this up, they are also saving your customers money because you are lowering the amount of waste in your system. You're looking for ways to streamline and make more efficient what you do. So it's kind of one of those win-wins.
And then the other part of it is that even if there aren't any requirements for this, there are a lot of consumers who still care about this, there are a lot of investors who care about this, and these are large companies. Their market is not only in the United States, their market is global. And we're becoming somewhat of an outlier in the fact that we are turning away from looking at the climate intensity of our businesses. The rest of the world still cares about this deeply, and so if you want to borrow money, if you want to have customers, if you want to have investors or insurance companies even look at this. So companies are finding that even if they're not being required to do it saves them money and it's likely to help their bottom line.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. So which companies in particular Beth this year stood out to you from this list?
Elizabeth Weise:
Well, the top three this year were Dayforce, which is a human resources and software company in Minnesota. They switched to 100% renewable energy across their global operations, so they went way down. Zillow Group, which is a real estate site if you've ever looked up where you live to find out what it costs or maybe thought of another house, Zillow actually lowered its emissions quite well. And Aramark, which is a food services and facilities management company, if you've ever eaten at a company cafeteria or perhaps a dorm, you've probably eaten their food, and they've done a good job as well.
And then there's the other 500 companies, and if you go on the website, you just type in the name of a company and if it's on the list, it'll pop up and it will show you a bunch of information about what that company has done so you can get kind of an in-depth look.
Taylor Wilson:
Is the idea that this will be an annual kind of check-in going forward?
Elizabeth Weise:
Indeed. Yeah, this is our third year doing it, and we're committed to continue doing it because as I said, it's a useful metric, even if you just want to invest or do business with companies that are saving money and being more efficient and with the added bonus that they're also lowering carbon emissions, which is a good thing.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, great piece from you, Beth. Again, folks can find a link in today's show notes. Elizabeth Weise is a national correspondent with USA TODAY. Happy Earth Day, Beth.
Elizabeth Weise:
Happy Earth Day to you too.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
Harvard University sued the Trump administration yesterday alleging it unlawfully threatened the school's academic independence and research work. The lawsuit comes after the Trump administration announced it was freezing more than $2 billion in funding to the school, which resisted demands to ban masks in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The suit alleges the government violated Harvard's first amendment right to free speech by freezing the billions in funds and threatening additional cuts. "Harvard cannot freely make decisions on faculty hiring, academic programs, and student admissions as a result of the threats," it said.
♦
Since the pandemic, federal student loan borrowers have been mostly protected from the harshest consequences of not paying back their loans. But that's about to change. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the federal government will resume involuntary collections for borrowers and default on May 5th. That's less than two weeks away. While announced yesterday, the change had been expected for months. Collections for defaulted borrowers, of which there are more than 5 million, have been paused since March of 2020. Under former President Joe Biden, monthly student loan bills resumed in the fall of 2023, but collecting on loans still had not restarted by the time President Donald Trump took office a second time. You can read more about what to expect next month with a link in today's show notes.
♦
2025 graduates have some long wish lists for their future employers. I spoke with USA TODAY economy reporter Rachel Barber about some of the findings from Monster's 2025 State of the Graduate report. Rachel, thanks for joining me.
Rachel Barber:
Always happy to be here Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
So Rachel, what did this report find about how confident this class of graduates are that they'll find a job?
Rachel Barber:
This year's graduates are confident they'll land a job. 83% think that it'll happen shortly after graduation, and 37 predict that it'll happen within four to six months, only 5% said they think it might take them a year or longer to secure a job. And most also feel confident that they're qualified for an entry-level role. And even more than that, 20% even reported that they feel overqualified for an entry-level position.
And so sort of to check in on their expectations, I spoke with an expert from a top recruiting firm and she said while it's great that they're confident and ambitious, they should also be realistic in today's job market. She said it's taking seasoned professionals a long time to find a job.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, so how confident are they that they'll find a job that they prefer?
Rachel Barber:
They're more realistic there. 48% said they think they will not be able to land a job at a company or organization they prefer, so there's some understanding that a dream job doesn't happen right away.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. What are some of the specific things, Rachel, this crop of graduates seems to really want from this first job out of college?
Rachel Barber:
Right now, a few weeks ahead of graduation, they've got a long wish list. They want remote work or at least a hybrid work schedule. They want competitive pay. Only 12% said they'd be willing to take an unpaid internship. But the most interesting thing that stuck out to me was that they care a lot about the work environment. 91% of them said they want to feel comfortable talking about mental wellness at work, so they want to feel comfortable bringing up mental health or maybe taking a day off for a mental health day. And they want to end up somewhere that aligns with their values, 71% said they won't work somewhere that openly supports a political candidate they oppose.
Taylor Wilson:
Interesting. And do they have any deal-breakers, anything kind of firm that they would want to avoid?
Rachel Barber:
2025 graduates' biggest deal-breaker is a company that doesn't offer work-life balance. So the conventional wisdom that the first years of your career are for grinding and working overtime and paying your dues, they're just not having it this year it seems, or at least they're not having it right now. Maybe they'll adjust. They also want growth opportunities and say that they won't work somewhere that doesn't have them. And at the end of the day, it does come back to money. For some of them, they say they won't work somewhere without competitive compensation and benefits.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. And we've touched on a few angles here, but what about their thoughts on traditional work practices?
Rachel Barber:
That was another piece that was really interesting. There are some drastic changes between the 2024 graduates and the 2025 graduates in terms of what workplace practices they think are outdated. This year, 67% said a typical 9:00-to-5:00 schedule is antiquated, which is up 12% from last year. And then also this year, 64% said they think that the five-day work week is outdated, which is up 10% from last year. And unsurprisingly, given their preference for remote work, 59% said they think that working in an office is also outdated.
Taylor Wilson:
Great, fascinating findings. Rachel Barber covers money for USA TODAY. Thanks Rachel.
Rachel Barber:
Thank you, Taylor.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
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, I'll be back tomorrow 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

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump, Newsom each play to base on immigration. It's risky, experts say.
Trump, Newsom each play to base on immigration. It's risky, experts say. Trump found the opportunity to blast potential rival Newsom as 'grossly incompetent' but Newsom has compared president's use of the military to a 'dictator.' Show Caption Hide Caption Active-duty marines deployed for Los Angeles anti-ICE protests President Donald Trump is sending in active-duty Marines to assist law enforcement with immigration protests in Los Angeles, California. Trump benefits from the immigration showdown through the show of force and Newsom by shoring up support among progressive Democrats, according to political scientist John Pitney Jr. If the protests drag on, Trump and Newsom could each look ineffective, experts say. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have each approached the fiery confrontation over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles to advocate for their respective political bases. Political experts warn there are risks for both. Trump has called Newsom 'grossly incompetent' and said the city would be burning from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement without his deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. Newsom has called the military deployment the 'acts of a dictator" and filed a lawsuit to block the troop deployment. The 57-year old Democratic governor dared Trump and border czar Tom Homan to arrest him, as they suggested they could. 'In a way, it benefits both Trump and Newsom. Trump's core supporters love dramatic displays of force, and they hate California,' John Pitney Jr., a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College, told USA TODAY. 'Progressive Democrats hate Trump. They've been leery of Newsom's outreach to conservatives, and his recent statements shore up support on his left.' But there are also political threats to both men if the protests drag on, which could make each look ineffective. The additional risk to Newsom's presidential aspirations in 2028 is that other Democrats could come away looking more powerful, such as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer or Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. 'Politically, at least, Newson is in the trickier spot here,' William Howell, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, told USA TODAY. Trump campaign on immigration enforcement and has long criticized California Trump and the GOP have long portrayed California as the epitome of bad governance. They've recently poured the blame on Newsom, who was first elected as governor to the nation's most populous state in 2019 and now is in his second term. California's high taxes, homeless problem and other issues have provided the GOP with political fodder for years. 'Donald Trump wants to portray California as the epitome of an America gone wrong,' said Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan. The clash between protesters who burned cars, threw rocks and shot fireworks at authorities plays into the GOP's portrayal of California as chaotic. The situation revolves around an issue – undocumented immigration – where Trump believes he has a mandate from voters for mass deportations and strong border security. 'Illegal immigration was on top of voters' minds across the country in 2024,' said Mark Bednar, a former senior House GOP leadership aide. 'And it should shock no one that President Trump is working around the clock to address it.' Newsome accuses Trump of political overreach Newsom has condemned the violence, but the pressure from the GOP shows the difficult situation he's in trying to criticize Trump's actions as overreach while also maintaining order in his state. 'Newsom, meanwhile, has clear incentives to stand up to Trump and decry his autocratic excesses, which explains his vocal opposition,' said Howell from the University of Chicago. 'But if he harbors national political ambitions, which he plainly does, then Newsom needs to avoid aligning himself with the most extreme members of the Democratic Party.' Matt Lesenyie, a political science professor at California State University Long Beach political, said Newsom is at a 'huge disadvantage' against Trump on this issue. 'A lot of people, not just Newsom, get hurt with Trump because they let him pick the fight,' Lesenyie said. 'I think it's too late for Newsom or (Los Angeles Mayor) Karen Bass… this is going to turn into a war of images.' Surrogates fuel the political fires The California confrontation has spread far beyond the state's boundaries. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, told reporters June 10 that Newsom 'ought to be tarred and feathered' for 'standing in the way of the administration carrying out federal law.' In the Oval Office with Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Californians 'should never elect him into a leadership position ever again.' Trump added: 'The governor's a nice guy but he's grossly incompetent.' Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, said in a social media post June 9 he stands for 'free speech, peaceful demonstrations and immigration – but this is not that.' 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he said. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement." But other fellow Democrats have rallied to Newsom's defense. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate subcommittee responsible for the Pentagon's budget, said "warfighters are not political tools meant to patrol the streets of our own cities or to suppress the political views of their fellow Americans." 'I trust local law enforcement, Mayor Bass, and Governor Newsom when they say that violence won't be tolerated and that they are able to handle these protests without the military," Coons said. "What President Trump is doing is not only unneeded. It has made the situation much worse." Those competing visions on how to handle the protests were on full display during a June 10 House hearing featuring Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who faced a question from Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-California, seeking justification for using the military for civilian law enforcement. 'Why are you sending warfighters to cities to interact with civilians?' Aguilar asked. Hegseth replied that Trump "believes in law and order.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Tom Cotton Do-Over
Five years ago last Tuesday, The New York Times, after considerable internal turmoil, published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) advocating that the federal government unilaterally send military troops to quell the riots ripping through the country in the wake of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd. The piece led directly to the firing of multiple Times editors, the resignation and eventual relaunch of Times controversialist Bari Weiss, and an appended 317-word editor's note lamenting that "the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published," among other derangements. It also, crucially, did not deliver its intended result: Cities continued to burn, some for months on end, and President Donald Trump never did impose military troops on any unwilling governor. On the five-year anniversary of Cotton's unrequited exhortation to power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles began snatching illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who had arrived for previously scheduled check-ins, and detaining them in a makeshift detention facility in the basement, some with their whole families (including U.S. citizen children). Such process bait-and-switches, including of at least one married father of four who thought he was going to his final naturalization interview, have been conducted across the country during Trump's second term as part of a White House pledge to increase immigration arrests tenfold from the 2024 average of 300 per day to 3,000. Last Tuesday's nationwide haul, assisted by text messages urging asylum seekers to check in early for appointments, reached a record 2,200. On Wednesday, as protesters began gathering outside the Roybal Building, Trump announced a travel ban on citizens of 12 countries (Cotton was pleased) and threatened "large scale fines" on California Democratic Gov. Gavin "Newscum" for allowing biological males to compete in girls' high school athletics—a precursor to a Harvard-style culture war showdown over federal funding. The stage was thus set for Friday's visually dramatic escalation of street-level conflict in Southern California. ICE that morning kicked off what it would later advertise as a 30-day campaign of raids on local workplaces suspected of employing or harboring illegal immigrants, with heavily armed agents, in both unmarked SUVs and military-style transports, throwing flash-bang grenades and tear-gas cannisters, cuffing suspected perps and objecting protesters alike. (The latter including the powerful president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, David Huerta.) In a Democrat-dominated city of 1.5 million foreign-born residents, in the nation's most immigrant-rich state, where infamously ineffective politicians have long touted sanctuary from immigration enforcement while defining themselves largely in opposition to Trump, the prospect of a theatrical clash probably looked to the White House like a win-win-win: Draw out the most self-defeating elements of the protest left, highlight the intransigent ineptitude of once-ambitious Dems, and continue to scare immigrant communities into self-deportation. All while releasing pent-up demand for a 2020 rewrite. "Tom Cotton," tweeted National Review's Jeff Blehar Saturday, "now has the chance to publish the funniest LA Times op-ed ever." The administration could barely contain its enthusiasm Saturday night. Even as protests Friday had been mostly limited, even in the most fed-credulous estimates, to around 2,000 combined people in two targeted locations—the Roybal detention center downtown, and the streets around a Home Depot 15 miles south in the city of Paramount near where an ICE caravan had massed—officials tripped over themselves to flex preemptive muscle over the riotous landscape. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" the president of the United States posted on Truth Social at 8:25 p.m. Eastern time. (Best as I can ascertain from a great distance, at the time of Trump's assertion there had been one reported protest-related looting incident, and zero looting-related arrests.) Within an hour, the White House announced the first uninvited deployment of the National Guard in 60 years. "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers, while one half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil," Vice President J.D. Vance chimed in at 9:23 p.m. Eastern time. Ten minutes later Vance suggested that the presence of "foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement" meets the legal definition of invasion, thereby clearing the way for a more robust military response. Up jumped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK," the former Fox News host tweet-shouted at 10:06 p.m. Eastern time Saturday night. "The @DeptofDefense is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert." Seven hundred Marines were indeed mobilized from nearby Twentynine Palms on Monday night; the Associated Press reported unreassuringly that "the Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil." Meanwhile, the White House ordered up an additional 2,000 National Guard troops as well. By then, the administration's initial depictions of out-of-control lawlessness had graduated from anticipatory to plausible, if geographically contained largely within a five-minute walk of where this past week's conflicts began, the Roybal building. Demonstrators on Sunday shut down the 101 freeway, hurled rocks and electric scooters at cop cars, set fire to a handful of driverless Waymos, threw bottles and fireworks at law enforcement, defaced government buildings, and looted several businesses. "These past few nights we've seen a level that disgusts every good person in this city," L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell said Sunday, describing his forces as "overwhelmed." Such unforced protesting errors (including—yes!—waving predominantly Mexican flags at rallies backing immigration to the U.S.), were as predictable as morning fog on a June beach, not that that in any way deprives rioters of their own miserable agency. Californians looted after the deadly Altadena fires, for goodness' sake. Local Dems couldn't manage to say "knock off the rioting" without foregrounding Trump. And very little imagination is required to recall unchecked violence back in the summer of 2020, or indeed 1992. But those many conservatives, including of the otherwise anti-Trump variety, who are gleefully posting images of rooftop Koreans and cheering on federal militarism directed at residents of a great (if grossly mismanaged) American city, may benefit from reflecting on the ways June 2025 does not resemble June 2020, let alone the Bosch-style hellscape of early '90s L.A. The first is sheer scale. In Los Angeles County alone, there were at least 50 separate public demonstrations in the days after Floyd, with more than a dozen cases of looting and vandalism. Nationwide, there were 19 deaths, 14,000 arrests, and property losses estimated at $2 billion. More than 30 states activated their National Guard. Aside from the unrepeatable black swan aspect of COVID-lockdown decompression, the societal institutions most aligned with those protests—the media, academia, lefty nonprofits—are all significantly weaker than five years ago, in no small part through the are-you-kidding-me overreach and circular firing squads of that particularly insane season. The second difference is directional. Minneapolis police did nothing to residents of any city outside Minneapolis. That season's enemies were institutional, historical, impossibly overgeneralized. This year, specifically localized protests (so far, anyway) are arising—not just in L.A., but in Dallas, San Francisco, Santa Ana, and elsewhere—in response to discrete federal enforcement actions frequently carried out in disorientingly authoritarian manner. As The Wall Street Journal put it in a news article Monday, "Federal agents make warrantless arrests. Masked agents take people into custody without identifying themselves. Plainclothes agents in at least a dozen cities have arrested migrants who showed up to their court hearings. And across the U.S., people suspected of being in the country illegally are disappearing into the federal detention system without notice to families or lawyers, according to attorneys, witnesses and officials." Such actions tend to put affected communities on the defensive alert. Good!, retort immigration restrictionists, and we'll see about that. American public opinion is foursquare behind deporting criminals and prosecuting rioters; far more queasy about shipping away longtime residents with jobs and U.S. citizen nuclear family. Which brings up a final point that conservative deportation enthusiasts should be clear about, just as they press opponents to admit they don't want noncriminals to be deported: The expulsions they have longed for are sending legal residents to foreign prisons in authoritarian countries, being carried out in White House defiance of the Supreme Court, and under the auspices of a deputy chief of staff who believes this cause demonstrates that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended." American citizens (including a U.S. marshal) who either "fit the description" or are reckless enough to not be carrying an ID have found themselves detained and even jailed. We are almost, if not quite, living in a Tom Cotton universe. And sure enough, here was the militaristic senator taking a victory lap in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday afternoon, advocating an "overwhelming show of force," describing "areas of Los Angeles" as "lawless hellscapes," and arguing, cretinously, that "if anything, these riots are worse" than in 2020. The Insurrection Act that Cotton advocates using as of Tuesday had not yet been invoked, leaving the summoned military mostly in the role of protecting federal buildings. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who Monday night asserted that L.A. is "not a city of immigrants, they are a city of criminals," reportedly wrote a letter Sunday to Hegseth urging him to have the U.S. Marines make arrests, which would likely run afoul of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The protests in L.A. Monday were reportedly quieter than Sunday; Tuesday's are only now getting started. One can only hope, against all recent experience of American political violence, that both sides choose not to engage in the escalation that they have clearly, and frighteningly, been pining for. The post The Tom Cotton Do-Over appeared first on