That Taylor Swift podcast episode 🔶 🏈
Football, feathers and fathers: Taylor Swift's 'New Heights' episode
Taylor Swift's appearance on the Kelce brothers' "New Heights" podcast gave the 92 percenters a trove of intimate emotional moments, along with plenty of football, stories about Swift's father, that Eras tour cleaning cart — and major music news.
A 'glacial outburst' prompted a flooding crisis in Alaska
The danger is over for residents of Alaska's capital city of Juneau, who were urged to evacuate on Aug. 13 as the nearby Mendenhall River, engorged by water from a glacial outburst caused by a melting glacier, surpassed record flood levels. Glacial lake outburst flooding is a flood that's produced by the quick, unexpected release of water from a glacial lake. Emergency barriers built to protect Mendenhall Valley and Juneau, a city of about 32,000 people in the Alaskan panhandle, were successful, USA TODAY reported.
More news to know now
What's the weather today? Check your local forecast here.
SCOTUS has been asked to overturn same-sex marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court has officially been asked to overturn the 2015 decision that granted equal marriage rights to LGBTQ+ couples. Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses, filed an appeal on July 24 about the compensation she was ordered to pay to a gay couple she denied a license. She asked the court, which holds a conservative supermajority, to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Where does Trump stand on same-sex marriage?
New EPA data show more towns have PFAS in their water
Shane Pepe knows exactly how his town's drinking water came to be polluted with the "forever chemicals" it recently reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The borough manager in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, points to a firefighter training facility as the source of contamination that averaged 32 times the federal limit over the past year. For decades, fire-extinguishing foams containing PFAS seeped into the local aquifer during training exercises. Emmaus was among 839 water systems whose yearly average exceeded EPA limits for two types of forever chemicals, according to a USA TODAY analysis of new test results the EPA released last week. Together, these utilities serve 46 million Americans. Is yours one?
Today's talkers
Can you afford your friends?
~ Maria Stevens, 25, told USA TODAY after attending 30 social events in four years, she 'crashed out' over pressure to spend on social activities in July. In one month, she was invited to several more events, baby showers, weddings, and bachelorette trips, on top of planning her own birthday party. Stevens is part of a generation of Americans often characterized by loneliness — and the financial strain of friendship might be one reason why.
Photo of the day: Second base steal!
The Miami Marlins' Jakob Marsee stole second base Wednesday night as Cleveland Guardians second baseman Brayan Rocchio received the throw during the third inning at Progressive Field. See more must-see moments from every MLB game day during the 2025 season.
Nicole Fallert is a newsletter writer at USA TODAY, sign up for the email here. Want to send Nicole a note? Shoot her an email at NFallert@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans are driving to Canada than Canadians to the U.S., report finds
More American travellers drove to Canada in July than Canadians did to the United States, according to a new report by Statistics Canada. This is the first time such a reversal has taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic decline of Canadians travelling to the U.S. was sparked last year, with U.S. President Donald Trump's heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state that led to an ongoing trade war and lingering tension between the two countries. The data for last month shows that 1.8 million American residents drove to Canada, compared to the 1.7 million Canadian residents who made a return trip from the U.S. by car. Canadian road trips to U.S. plunge for seventh month as boycott continues Both countries saw a decline at land border crossings last month. For Americans driving to Canada, there was a slight dip of 7.4 per cent compared to the same month last year. It was also the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. However, the decline was much steeper for Canadians returning from the U.S. this July compared to the previous year, at nearly 37 per cent. Last month marked the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines, StatCan said. 'In 2024, Canadian-resident trips to the United States totalled 39 million, representing 75 per cent of all Canadian-resident travel abroad,' according to another StatCan report published earlier this summer about travel to the U.S. 'However, recent data on foreign travel suggest that Canadians' travel sentiment toward their southern neighbour has been shifting in early 2025.' Although the data reflects a 'notable change in travel patterns,' StatCan said it is 'unclear whether the change is temporary or part of a more permanent shift.' As for air travel, the number of non-resident visitors who flew to Canada increased in July. There were 1.4 million of them — up by just over 3 per cent since the same time last year. While the bump was largely due to residents who came from overseas (up 5.6 per cent this year), American travellers were also up by just under 1 per cent. The highest number of U.S.-resident arrivals by air was 31,600 Americans on July 3, before the Independence Day long weekend in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians returning home from abroad by air last month was down by 5.3 per cent compared to the previous year. In particular, Canadians flying back from the U.S. also decreased by nearly 26 per cent since the same time last year. Canadian permanent residents will now have to pay 'visa integrity fee' to enter U.S. Here's what it is An American sent to Canada was shocked by how furious Canadians are at the U.S. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
When is the Trump-Putin meeting? Time, schedule, location, subject of talks
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet for a face-to-face summit on Aug. 15, and both leaders are traveling to Anchorage, Alaska, for the sit-down. The two presidents as are expected to discuss Russia's war with Ukraine, which was launched with its full-scale invasion of the country more than three years ago, as Trump angles for a peace deal. It's a high-stakes exercise for Trump as he wades into the conflict and attempts a mediator-type role, as America's staunch support of Ukraine has come under fire from some in his own party and European leaders insist Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy be present for future talks. Here's what to know about the highly anticipated diplomatic summit. When and where is the meeting? The pair's meeting is set to start at 11:30 a.m. Alaska time (3:30 p.m. ET) and a joint press conference is expected to follow. The two world leaders will meet at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. The base hosts about 30,000 service members, their family members and civilian employees, and is approximately 700 miles from the border with Russia. Trump-Putin meeting: Sprawling Army base that has hosted dignitaries is backdrop for talks Trump is scheduled to leave Washington, D.C., early Aug. 15, flying about six to seven hours on Air Force One before landing in Anchorage. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, appearing Aug. 14 on Fox News' Fox and Friends, said Trump's meeting with Putin will be followed by a "bilateral lunch" between the two leaders and their respective delegations followed by a news conference. Putin will be the first elected Russian leader to visit Alaska for the summit, land that the United States purchased from Moscow for $7.2 million in 1867, according to the National Archives. If everything goes according to plan, this trip will mark Putin's eighth visit to the U.S. during his presidency, a role he has held for more than 20 years across two separate terms since 1999. Trump-Putin summit: What to know about Putin's past meetings with US leaders Livestream USA TODAY is scheduled to provide live coverage as Trump meets with Putin in Alaska. You can watch at the embed below or on USA TODAY's YouTube channel. What might be discussed? Trump said there would be 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to end the Ukraine war when they meet and has said his summit with the Russian president would be "setting the table" for a possible Putin-Zelenskyy meeting that he might attend as well. In an Aug. 14 interview with conservative talk show host Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio, Trump called the meeting a "chess game" and predicted there's a "25% chance" the meeting could fail to advance peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Trump has raised the idea of a "land swap" between Russia and Ukraine, asserting that both countries would have to cede land to each other to end the war. But Zelenskyy has firmly rejected the idea of ceding any land to Russia. "Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier," Zelenskyy said in a video posted on X on Aug. 9. What's latest in Russian-Ukraine war? A closer look at the map ahead of Trump-Putin meet Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Lauren Villagran, Tom Vanden Brook, Joey Garrison, USA TODAY; Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
