Trump tax bill supercharges Coast Guard's Arctic icebreaker fleet
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 Thursday, July 10th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
Today, how the recent tax bill sends new ships to patrol near the Arctic. Whilst we break down some of this week's tariff news. And a century after the Scopes trial, Americans are still divided over what kids should learn.
♦
The tax bill recently signed by President Donald Trump will send a new fleet of icebreaker ships into the edge of the melting Arctic. I spoke with USA TODAY National Correspondent Trevor Hughes to learn more. Trevor, thanks for hopping on.
Trevor Hughes:
Hey, good to be here.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. So, Trevor, what's in this tax bill as it pertains to the Coast Guard's Arctic icebreaker fleet?
Trevor Hughes:
Well, the Coast Guard has been saying for years it needs more icebreakers and more ships that can operate in icy waters, and Congress and President Trump have delivered. I mean, this bill contains money for dozens of new ships, icebreakers, cutters that are equipped for icy water work. This is a pretty significant expansion of the Coast Guard fleet.
Taylor Wilson:
And I guess it's fair to say that climate change has really helped make this happen, Trevor, right?
Trevor Hughes:
Yeah. I mean, help, it's maybe not the right word to use here, but yeah, that's what's driving this. Climate change is opening up the ice between Alaska and Greenland, and that's known as the Northwest Passage. It's a fabled passage that explorers searched for years. And it's only open some years and only for brief times, and rarely do normal ships go through it, but as climate change melts that ice, more and more ships are going to start using it.
It saves something like 40% of the distance from Asia to Europe as opposed to going through the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal. But of course, what that means is more ships mean more Coast Guard patrols, and right now, we just don't have enough ships to patrol that area.
Taylor Wilson:
Really, what's the broader context here, Trevor, in terms of this ongoing cold war between the US and China and evergreen tensions with Russia in this region as well?
Trevor Hughes:
That's the thing, right? China has been looking at this area for expansion. I saw something the other day that China referred to itself as a near-Arctic nation, although it is not. But Russia has a strong connection with China, and of course, is heart of the Arctic.
What's happening is that the United States is trying to make sure it's protecting its territory and perhaps protecting the shipping, and also the interests in oil and gas and maybe rare earth minerals that could be in northern Alaska, in Canada, and in Greenland. You may recall President Trump has really identified Greenland as something he wants to be paying very close attention to, and this new Coast Guard icebreaker and cutter allocation will probably help with patrolling that area.
Taylor Wilson:
Trevor, what do we hear from Native people in this part of North America about all this?
Trevor Hughes:
I have reported from the coast of the Bering Sea a number of times over the years, and one of the things that the Native folks have talked a lot about is this concern that as more and more ships, big tanker ships, cargo ships are going through this very, very remote area, that if there's a problem, if they run aground, if they have a fire, God forbid something like that happens, that there won't be anyone to help those shippers.
But then there's also these environmental catastrophes that could happen in this otherwise pristine wilderness area. We all remember the Exxon Valdez spill and the Native people who live along the Bering Sea, who really depend on the fish and wildlife for subsistence, they have serious concerns about what environmental consequences might come from extra shipping.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. So, what's the timeline for all this? What's next and when will the new icebreakers functionally arrive?
Trevor Hughes:
Building ships takes a long time and the United States doesn't, frankly, have a lot of shipbuilding capacity. That's actually a big thing the Trump administration has been focusing on. So, it's going to take years before we see any of these actual new ships on the water.
That being said, we, the country, recently purchased a used ship that was used for servicing oil rigs and we are repurposing that and going to be deploying that out of Juneau, Alaska, later this summer.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Trevor Hughes is a national correspondent with USA TODAY. Thanks as always, Trevor.
Trevor Hughes:
You bet.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
President Donald Trump has announced a new 50% tariff on US copper imports overall, and a 50% duty on goods from Brazil, both to start on August 1st. Trump has also notified an additional seven countries they will be hit with tariffs of at least 20% or more on August 1st, in a series of letters to foreign leaders. In separate letters to each targeted country he said he would impose 30% tariff rates on imports from Libya, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Algeria, and he said other nations would be hit with 25 or 20% tariffs. That came after a number of other new tariff rates earlier in the week for different countries.
♦
Hopes were dwindling yesterday for finding some of the more than 170 people still missing after last week's flooding in Texas. The death toll has climbed steadily in recent days, now up to 119 as of this morning, at least 27 of those were children and counselors at a girls' summer camp.
Elsewhere in the country, the New Mexico resort town of Ruidoso was hit by severe flash flooding on Tuesday as slow moving storms pounded areas still reeling from burn scars left by wildfires last year. At least three people have been confirmed dead in that flooding.
For the first time since measles was declared eradicated in the U.S. in 2000, domestic cases have reached a peak, topping 1,288 cases as of yesterday, according to the CDC. There have been three confirmed deaths and the vast majority of hospitalizations have been seen in unvaccinated people and children. Measles is a vaccine-preventable disease that had been considered eradicated in the country as of 2000, meaning there was no spread and new cases were those contracted only from abroad. But vaccinations have declined, resulting in a growing number of states no longer reporting rates consistent with herd immunity, and infections have returned. The last outbreak of a similar scale came in 2019 when more than 1,200 cases were confirmed across the country. Just six months into this year, that number has been surpassed in a grim milestone. You can read more with the link in today's show notes.
It's been a century since an American teacher's fight to educate his high school students about evolution brought a small town controversy into the national spotlight, and 100 years later, Americans are still divided over what kids should learn. I spoke with Tennesseean children's reporter Rachel Wegner, for more. Thanks for joining me, Rachel.
Rachel Wegner:
It's good to be with you.
Taylor Wilson:
So, let's just go back, what, about a century here? Remind us, what was the Scopes Monkey Trial?
Rachel Wegner:
It took place in 1925, in a small town called Dayton, Tennessee. It debated the topic of can evolution be taught in schools? At that time, Tennessee had a law that explicitly banned the teaching evolution and said instead, you should be teaching creationism as told in the Bible.
Taylor Wilson:
Fast forward to this era that we're in now, Rachel. How has the debate over teaching about race shaken out in recent years?
Rachel Wegner:
So, as lots of people probably remember, there were widespread protests gripping the nation, even happening internationally after the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, at the hands of police. It was a time where it seemed like everyone was on board to just start talking about equity and discrimination and racism, and to try to understand and learn more about what was happening.
But within a year there was pushback that was happening against how race was taught in schools, and some people might remember the term critical race theory being thrown around. And concerns now have broadened more widely among the Republican Party and even President Trump, where they're pushing back against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and even threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach it.
The difficult thing about that for a lot of schools is there's not a very clear definition on what DEI is or what critical race theory is, but there is now immense pressure to remove that from curriculums, from even school policies or programs, extending out even to higher education with some high-profile cases with Harvard and others now.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, you also bring up another controversial point in this piece, which is which schools should get taxpayer money? Interesting question. What are some of the recent developments you've been following here?
Rachel Wegner:
Here in Tennessee, that conversation is centered around school vouchers, which is essentially taxpayer-funded vouchers that families can use toward private school. And Tennessee just this year expanded its program to include about 20,000 people that can get these.
And then also the national scale, I've seen a lot of discussion around a Supreme Court ruling that even though it was a tied vote, it struck down a bid for a religious public charter school in Oklahoma. And that was another big question of public charter schools get public money, but can this Catholic charter school agency open one and still receive those funds?
So, a lot of the debates around taxpayer money going into either private or religious education have been, for sure, some of the biggest topics of conversation in recent years.
Taylor Wilson:
Rachel, as for queer and transgender issues in and around the classroom. What have you seen on this front?
Rachel Wegner:
So, a lot of those issues touch lots of the things we talked about already, right? One of the more prominent debates was around Florida's, quote, "Don't Say Gay" bill that was passed in its Republican-controlled legislature. And Governor Ron DeSantis signed it into law. And essentially, what that did is it prohibited teaching on topics that dealt with sexual orientation and gender identity in the early grade school years, K through three, and then later on Florida actually expanded that all the way through the 12th grade.
And I'd say that similar debates have played out nationwide. There's definitely been a lot of pushback from advocates for the LGBTQ community, along with an increasing number of red states, especially, passing laws against it.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, we talked about the Scopes trial at the top. We're speaking 100 years after that case. Why does the Scopes trial still matter today, Rachel?
Rachel Wegner:
Something that's so interesting about the Scopes trial is a lot of researchers and experts pointed to the first real instance of the culture wars that are still going on today.
It's a sign of how education and schools often land in the very center of the most important debates that we have in the U.S. today. And it touches everything from religion to race to gender, to how we run our schools, how they're funded. And I think that some of the themes and issues that emerged from the Scopes trial are even still relevant today about the separation of church and state, about how we teach really core concepts, like, where did humanity come from? Why are we here? And it's fascinating to take a look back in that little time ball 100 years ago and see how much of that is still happening today, just in different forms.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Folks can find a full version of the story in today's show notes. Rachel Wegner covers children's issues for the Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. Thank you for the insight here, Rachel.
Rachel Wegner:
Thanks for having me on.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
And later today, in the wake of the deadly Texas floods, young people may be experiencing a surge in feelings of existential dread. While how youth respond to the reality of global warming differs from person to person, experts say that acknowledging their emotional pain in the first place is critical.
Caroline Hickman:
I'm going to quote a 10-year-old, this is a number of years ago, and I thought I understood, but he said to me, "Caroline, you don't fully understand." He said, "You grew up thinking polar bears would be there forever." He said, "I am growing up knowing they will go extinct."
Taylor Wilson:
That was Climate Psychologist Caroline Hickman, a specialist who has been counseling youth on how to deal with eco-anxiety for decades. Tune in today, beginning at 4:00 P.M. Eastern Time, to hear her eye-opening conversation with my colleague, Dana Taylor.
♦
And thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and as always, you can email us at podcasts@usatoday.com. I'm Taylor Wilson and 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


Buzz Feed
4 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Toxic American Behaviors That Are "Glorified"
As we all know, Americans do A LOT of weird stuff. While some of it might seem harmless, there are many toxic ideas and behaviors that have become popularized and in some cases, even glorified in the US... That's why when Redditor u/imwith2 asked, "What's something we glorify in American culture that's actually extremely toxic?" thousands of both Americans and non-Americans shared the most bizarre things that have been normalized in the US. Without further ado, here are 17 of their most enlightening examples: "Absurd and excessive consumerism that only serves to represent status." "The notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid." "Perfect attendance, at work or school. Please stay home if you're sick." "At least in the South: Big, intimidating, and expensive weddings. It hurts everyone when something is that expensive, including the people traveling. They have to pay for their hotel bookings, dry cleaning, dog sitters, etc. Just make weddings chill." "Instant gratification. Not many people actually wait and save up for things anymore; instead, they buy on credit and ultimately wind up paying far more in the long run." "Individualism: We have gotten so individualistic that our communities have almost completely fallen apart. Millions of Americans are hostile to the very idea that they even need to get along with others." "Treating political leaders like gods." "Being positive at all times." "Gun ownership culture: I was raised as a hunter and was on the rifle team in college; however, gun culture is out of hand, including the glorification of firearms in movies and media." "Hustle culture: People are more important than money. A person doing an honest day's work should earn enough to have access to a decent life and there should be no need for side hustles, aka second or third jobs." "High school and college athletics: It's extremely toxic that 26 percent of high schoolers' parents want their children to become professional athletes one day, and some greater percent of kids push themselves to play three seasons." "Celebrity obsession.'" "Competition: A little competition is good, fun, and aids productivity. But we Americans take it way too far." "Being prudes about nudity/human bodies." "Cars/car-centric life: You have toxic fumes from the engines, toxic debris from the tires and brakes, and toxic fluids leaking everywhere, as well as the vast amount of concrete and pollution that is associated. All of these issues are known to affect the health of humans nearby. When we got rid of lead in gas, the population at large became less violent." "The obsession with group identity: Democrat, Giants fan, blue collar, college-educated, Christian, etc." "'The American dream.'" Did any of these examples surprise you? What are some other toxic aspects of American culture that have been glorified? Tell us about it in the comments or answer anonymously using the form below!


New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Tulsi Gabbard explains why Russia must have thought Hillary Clinton win was ‘inevitable'
The Russians privately felt it was 'inevitable' that Hillary Clinton would triumph in the 2016 election, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Miranda Devine's 'Pod Force One' podcast. Despite widespread narratives that Russia was in President Trump's corner, Moscow's objective was to sow chaos in the American political process and brace itself for a Clinton presidency, Gabbard claimed, citing the trove of intelligence documents her team has released. 'It surprised me that all of these documents still existed, quite frankly,' Gabbard said in an episode set for release Wednesday. 'As we've learned in later documents that we've reviewed throughout that campaign, Russia believed that Hillary Clinton would win the election. Advertisement 'They felt it was inevitable.' Last month, Gabbard's team began disclosing a trove of documents that gave a behind-the-scenes look at the intelligence community's machinations during the 2016 election cycle regarding the probe of Russian interference. 4 Tulsi Gabbard accused the Obama administration of mounting a campaign to subvert President Trump. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post Advertisement 4 Hillary Clinton once implied that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. Getty Images This included a House Intelligence Committee report from 2020 that claimed the Russians may have had intelligence that Clinton was 'placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers' and while afraid of losing.' That was supposedly due to her alleged 'psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.' Gabbard pondered why that supposed Russian intelligence wasn't leaked to the public if Moscow's chief objective was to prop up Trump and undermine Clinton. Advertisement 'If Russia aspired to help Trump get elected, which is what the manufactured January 2017 intelligence community assessment says with high confidence, according to Brennan and Clapper, then Putin would have released the most damaging information and emails to help President Trump,' she said. 'It was intentionally withheld and not released because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win that election, and their plan,' Gabbard added, citing the 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, '[was to] wait until maybe days or weeks before her inauguration to release these documents.' The Russians were widely alleged by US officials to have hacked Democratic National Committee emails during he 2016 campaign. 4 Narratives about Russian interferences in the 2016 election haunted President Trump during his first term. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement The 2020 House Intelligence Committee report had concluded that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process' and that he didn't necessarily prioritize propping up one candidate over the other. 'The American people, I think, have been, and our republic, has been most harmed by this,' Gabbard said of the Russia collusion narrative. 'Of course, President Trump went through hell and his family because of this Russia hoax that was manufactured by President Obama and his administration.' Critics such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper accused Gabbard of peddling 'patently false' accusations about their Russiagate activities. Much of what Gabbard has released centered around rebuffing a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded among other things that 'the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' Brennan, Clapper and others have pointed to a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which noted the panel 'heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.' Clapper and Brennan recenty penned an op-ed insisting that the intelligence community report never referenced 'collusion' between Trump and the Russian government, and stood by their claims that the Kremlin prefered him in the 2016 election. Tulsi Gabbard's Russiagate claims Tulsi Gabbard's claims of election interference focus on the controversial 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which President Barack Obama ordered his intel chiefs to compile. The report fueled the Russiagate investigations against President Trump. Gabbard alleges it amounted to a political hit job, claiming Obama officials knowingly used shaky intel and then lied about it. Gabbard's new claims are based on a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which she has publicly released. Its findings differ in some key ways from both the Obama report and a previously released Senate Intelligence Committee report. Democrats, however, point to the Senate report, which was backed by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — now Trump's secretary of state. That supports some of the findings of the Obama report. Here are the biggest points — and what the dueling intel reports say: The Steele dossier The House report contradicts the claims of Obama officials that they never relied on the discredited Steele dossier — which was compiled by Hillary Clinton's campaign — as part of the Russiagate investigation. In a 2017 House hearing, Obama CIA Director John Brennan denied that his agency used the Steele dossier for intelligence assessments. However, the full Steele dossier was still included as an attachment to the Obama intel report, the newly public House report found. Additionally, according to the House report, Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed to use the Steele dossier for the Obama intel report. Senior intel officials also confronted Brennan about the legitimacy of the Steele dossier, the House report said, but he shrugged it off. Brennan's response was reportedly, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?' The Senate investigation found that the Steele dossier was not used as part of the Obama intel report. Obama's involvement Gabbard claimed Wednesday that Obama ordered the creation of the 2017 intel report and suggested it 'was subject to unusual directives directly from the president and senior political appointees.' She added: 'Obama directed an intelligence community assessment to be created, to further this contrived false narrative that ultimately led to a year-long coup to try to undermine President Trump's presidency.' The 2020 Senate intel report confirmed that Obama ordered the report to be drafted, but did not comment on the political motivations. Obama said that 'the bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' Did Putin want Trump to win? The Obama report said that 'Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability' and that Putin had a 'clear preference for President-elect Trump.' But the House report contradicted this, saying that Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process.' The Russian strongman also seemed to expect Clinton to win, and held back on 'some compromising material for post-election use against the expected Clinton administration.' The Senate report said lawmakers were given 'specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trump.' Did Russia alter the 2016 election? To buttress her claims that the Obama intel report was political interference, she highlighted the findings of multiple intelligence agencies that Russia 'had neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of the US election.' On this, all three reports are in agreement. Gabbard pointed to how Obama ordered the 2017 ICA of Russian interference in the 2016 election and his administration's machinations detailed in the document dump to accuse the 44th president of subversion. Advertisement 'What we now know came from President Obama was a covert mission, essentially, to subvert the will of the American people, create this lie that would challenge the legitimacy of President Trump's election and the four years of his administration, resulting and affecting in what was truly a years' long coup,' Gabbard said. Reps from Obama have refuted those characterizations, saying that the 'bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement last month. 4 Tulsi Gabbard has drawn President Trump's attention with the document dump on Russiagate. REUTERS Advertisement Gabbard made referrals to the Justice Department based on her findings, and the DOJ has since formed a 'strike force' to comb through the claims.


Boston Globe
34 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
How Trump's EPA is giving up the role of US protector
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last week proposed to repeal the landmark scientific finding that enables the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. In effect, the EPA will eliminate its authority to combat climate change. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Zeldin said the EPA would reverse a 2009 scientific conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. He said the agency would also rescind Biden-era regulations designed to reduce planet-warming emissions from automobile tailpipes. Advertisement While few people have heard of the endangerment finding, it has had a profound effect on society. Its establishment cleared the way for the Obama administration to set the country's first limits on greenhouse gases from cars and power plants, with the goal of putting more electric vehicles on the roads and adding more renewable energy to the electric grid. Advertisement But Zeldin's announcement was only the latest in a rapid-fire series of actions to weaken or eliminate protections against climate change. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government's flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. In May, President Trump proposed to stop collecting key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of his 2026 budget plan. And since January, he has called for eliminating or overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency to shift disaster response to the states. Joe Aldy, a professor of environmental policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said that by repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration was relinquishing the country's historical role as a protector of public health. 'The concern here isn't just the attack on regulation,' he said. 'There is this much bigger question of what does it mean to promote the general welfare?' In response to questions, an EPA spokesperson, Brigit Hirsch, said in an email, referring to the 2009 endangerment finding: 'How does a partisan policy from the mid-2000s qualify as a 'time-honored American tradition'? EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress and Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said that the endangerment finding had been misused to justify excessive regulation and that the administration was 'putting everyday Americans First by restoring consumer choice and sidestepping the left's out-of-touch climate policies.' Governments have taken steps to protect citizens from environmental hazards for centuries. After cholera outbreaks in the mid-1800s, England worked to improve sanitation and water quality. In the United States, research into contaminated drinking water in the early 20th century led to investments in sanitation. And the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and amended in 1990, helped solve issues including smog in Los Angeles, acid rain in New England, and the depletion of the ozone layer high in the atmosphere. Advertisement 'This is a real retreat from the social compact that I think has been dominant in the US for some time,' said Margaret Levi, a professor of political science at Stanford University. 'Part of government's responsibility is to protect the health and well-being of its citizens to the extent that it can, and that does require some regulation.' The Trump administration's approach has supporters. Several conservative scholars and politicians applauded the imminent end of the endangerment finding, saying it had empowered the EPA to restrict Americans' choices of how to heat their homes and what kinds of cars to drive. 'The endangerment finding became a pretext for the agency, without congressional authorization, to impose centralized economic planning on the US transportation and electric power sectors,' said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing research organization. After the proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will solicit public comments for 45 days. The agency will then finalize the rule, most likely within the next year. The debate over the proper use of the government's regulatory hand has been going on for centuries. Adam Smith, an 18th-century philosopher and economist, argued that governments should play a limited role, emphasizing the importance of free markets and individual rights. A century later, philosopher John Stuart Mill contended that governments should promote the common good. Advertisement 'What this government is doing is going outside the frame of that debate,' Levi said. 'It's not talking about what are the cost to citizens. It's only really focusing on what are the costs to business, and denying the science that demonstrates there is a cost to the public.' This article originally appeared in