
Transgender athletes in college sports are rare, despite outsized political attention
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:
Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's the Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson. Today is Sunday, July 27th, 2025. In July, the University of Pennsylvania agreed to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports and stripped the record of former swimmer Leah Thomas as part of an agreement with the Department of Education. It was the same month that the Supreme Court announced it will review Idaho's and West Virginia State bans on transgender athletes joining female sports teams. The move marks the country's latest grappling with issues surrounding transgender athletes. More than half the states have now passed laws preventing transgender athletes from competing on schools female sports teams, saying they're trying to prevent competitive advantages. Where does the American public stand on these issues, and what are the larger implications and influences playing into this conversation? To help us make sense of this moment, I'm now joined by USA TODAY education reporter, Zach Schermele. Zach, thanks for joining me.
Zach Schermele:
Hey, Taylor. Thanks for having me.
Taylor Wilson:
So let's just go back to that news surrounding Leah Thomas. That's the former UPenn swimmer who became the first transgender woman to win an NCAA swimming competition in Division 1 back in 2022. Zach, what did the university agree to here with the Department of Education?
Zach Schermele:
So this was a pretty significant agreement on the part of the University of Pennsylvania. That's an Ivy League school in Philadelphia with the Federal Education Department, and in particular with their office for Civil Rights, which handles curbing discrimination for students and teachers in any educational program that receives federal funding. So there were a couple of pretty significant concessions that the university agreed to with the department, first, that they would bar trans athletes from participating at all in women's sports at the University of Pennsylvania, a notable concession because there weren't any transgender athletes that were competing in women's sports at Penn at the time. They also said that they would comply with President Donald Trump's executive order that he issued that tried to ban trans athletes from competing in women's sports as well. And also, they sent personalized letters of apology to any female swimmers who had competed alongside Leah Thomas at the time of that NCAA competition that you were referring to there, Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, Zach, these moves were in response to the federal government suspending roughly $175 million in contracts to Penn back in March, alleging that university had violated Title IX. UPenn is also not the only university dealing with these allegations. Zach. Talk us through the government's arguments here.
Zach Schermele:
So they're far from the only university that has grappled with some of these threats and implementation of those threats with respect to federal funding, in particular for research projects being pulled from universities across the country, largely on the grounds of civil rights laws being violated. So the government was arguing, really that it's fundamentally wrong for trans women to be competing in female sports at the collegiate level. They say that the federal government has a role in protecting cisgender women in athletic environments, and that was an idea and an argument that played a big role in the resolution of this case here. They also argued that trans women have an unfair advantage over cisgender women in athletics. And that is an argument that comes very frequently from conservative critics of trans rights just in general, and we're seeing it more consistently from the education department under the Trump administration.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, Zach, what does this Leah Thomas news mean for younger trans athletes, say in middle or high school coming up?
Zach Schermele:
It's really significant. But I think Taylor, what you could chalk it up to is that it is the latest major indication that athletics really are not welcoming anymore in school environments to the extent they ever were for young trans people. And it also shows how a powerful university that ostensibly younger athletes would want to aspire to, competing with or against can act in the face of some pretty considerable pressure from the federal government. Todd Wolfson, who was the president of the American Association of University Professors, when I was talking to him about the Penn case in particular a little while ago, he said, "Universities can't sell out trans people to satisfy ideological demands." And I think that that is a message that if you're a young person, a young trans athlete, potentially looking at what has just gone on Penn's campus, that's your takeaway.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, what recourse does a trans athlete have beyond the courts? What does a sixteen-year-old or twenty-year-old trans athlete who wants to compete at a high level do right now, Zach?
Zach Schermele:
There are several avenues that a student could potentially take if they were concerned about being excluded from a program or an athletic team on a school campus that receives federal funding. So they could file a discrimination complaint with the Federal Education Department, in particular with that office for civil rights that was in charge of resolving the case at Penn. The problem of course, though, is that the Trump administration interprets federal civil rights laws pretty distinctly from how the Biden administration in particular was interpreting those same laws. So under President Joe Biden, the education department, I think would've had a lot more alacrity to try and resolve a case like that, to negotiate with schools, K-12 schools and colleges and universities to ensure that those programs were providing adequate services that weren't discriminatory towards trans students. They, in fact, interpreted Title IX, that landmark sex discrimination law as including protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
The Biden administration actually interestingly, because of how politicized this whole issue has become, was going to issue some regulations in particular on the trans athlete component of protecting younger trans people in sports and delayed it until potentially after the election. And I think that just gives you an indication of how fraught this issue has become for schools and even for democratic politicians. But one could argue that trying to file a complaint with the education department, with the Civil Rights Office, especially in this new political environment, would be a lot more challenging than even just a couple of years ago.
Taylor Wilson:
Nearly half of Americans don't want politicians focusing on issues affecting trans people, according to a poll from the non-profit, the 19th News this past April. What are you hearing from the NCAA on the issue of trans athletes, Zach?
Zach Schermele:
So the NCAA was quick to issue some new guidance after the President's executive order in February. The NCAA, which by the way, we should mention, is an organization that is made up of more than a thousand colleges and universities in all 50 states. They have roughly half a million student athletes, and the organization said that they were going to be compliant with the President's executive order and not allow trans women to compete in women's sports. Charlie Baker, who's the president of the NCAA, actually said at the time that to that end, the order provided a, "Clear national standard." There wasn't a gray area that some of the lack of finalized regulation and civil rights precedent previously had left the NCAA and schools and other organizations, I think in a bit of uncertainty with respect to what their obligations were, in order to comply with federal civil rights laws.
But it's important, Taylor, to remember that we're talking about really only a handful of that half a million student athletes that are at NCAA schools. Charlie Baker told a senate panel in December of last year that there were only fewer than 10 trans athletes participating in sports at the collegiate level at that time.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, Zach, we've touched on aspects of the political level here, but the issue of transgender athletes reverberated clearly throughout the 2024 presidential race, with Republican voters celebrating Trump's stance against transgender athletes competing in women's sports. On the other hand, Democrats embrace of transgender rights did not resonate with voters. A June Reuters Ipsos poll found the Democrats feel the party isn't focusing enough on economic issues, and is overemphasizing issues like transgender rights. Zach, are Democrats politically vulnerable here? Is there the possibility they might drop their support of trans rights altogether?
Zach Schermele:
I think it's important to level set a little bit here too, Taylor, and just bring us back to the idea that Republicans in particular are pretty concerned about an issue that's not super relevant to a lot of school campuses. So only about 1.4% of trans teenagers, according to federal survey data, participate in sports. And then some other studies show, a 2017 study in particular of about 17,000 young people found that only about one in 10 trans boys said that they played sports. And the statistic is roughly the same for transgender girls.
And I think it's important to keep in mind those statistics when we're having these discussions. But regardless, trans rights and the civil rights of transgender people have become a very animating issue for Republicans, and Democrats are taking notice of that. Seth Moulton, who is a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, was lambasted by a lot of his colleagues on the Democratic side right after the presidential election when he essentially came out saying that he was more in line with some Republican thinking on the particular issue of trans athletes in sports, not necessarily civil rights for transgender people, but whether young trans athletes should be able to play sports.
And then Gavin Newsom, who's the Democratic governor of California, said some pretty similar things recently as well. And so you're seeing that bifurcation among the Democrats in a really dramatic, I think, way if you're a trans young person and seeing that support start to decline.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, let's pivot to another transgender issue that could impact trans athletes, and that's medical care. Back in June, the Supreme Court upheld a state challenge brought by Tennessee families that made gender-affirming care of minors illegal. According to human rights campaign, 27 states now have bans on such care. Zach, what are you hearing on this front? Are families relocating to states where there is not a ban in place?
Zach Schermele:
Yeah, Taylor, I remember having a conversation in 2022 with a family in Florida where there was a gender-affirming care ban for minors there. And the mother at the time was sitting in on a board of health meeting that the state of Florida had just conducted. And I remember talking to her about how her trans child had spent, I think it was the better part of a year, trying to get access to things like puberty blockers and hormone therapy. There are a lot of hoops that families with trans kids have to jump through in order to get access to gender-affirming care. I think, just based on some of the rhetoric that sometimes can fly around the subject, you would think that it would be really easy to get access to these types of treatments.
But in many states, even in pretty liberal ones, it can take a long time to actually get that care that folks need. There is this cosmic divide between liberal states and more conservative states, where if you're a transgender person, you're probably getting more protection in a place like California, New York, Massachusetts, especially if you're a trans young person enrolled in a program that receives federal education funding versus some of the more red states, places like Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas. And that is a consideration that I know a lot of families who have roots there are thinking about pretty deeply.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, we'd be remiss if we didn't talk about recent news that the Supreme Court has given, the green light to the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education altogether, taking legions of Civil Rights attorneys out of action. There was a carve out for civil rights attorneys, but many of them are still out of action. These are people who transgender minors and their families might've turned to protect their rights in schools. What concerns you the most here?
Zach Schermele:
I think that the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights is in a place that it has, quite frankly, never been before. And the argument from some conservatives, because there are two camps of conservatives who are thinking about what's happening at the Federal Education Department right now. There's one camp that wants to see the department entirely dismantled, they want it to completely go away. And then there's another camp that sees it potentially as a tool, not really unlike what it's become over the course of the past couple of months, as the president has started taking more actions, and has let go of this idea of being able to entirely do away with the department. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has acknowledged repeatedly that she knows it would take help from Congress, particularly help from Democrats in Congress in order to make the education department entirely go away.
So there are some who want to see the Education Department frankly continue to do what it's been doing, which is to open up more targeted civil rights investigations, investigations that are more concerned, not so much with protecting students from marginalized populations, LGBTQ+ students in particular, but would rather see allegations of reverse discrimination, students who are concerned about having to be involved in LGBTQ sensitivity trainings, things like that. There are lots of folks on the conservative side who want to see the education department continue to investigate schools that are trying to be more inclusive in that way. This is the assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion that the President has been really adamant about making a centerpiece of his posture towards civil rights laws. But it is the truth to say that there are a lot of civil rights attorneys that spent many years at the education department who now are no longer employed there, and we could potentially see an uptick in discrimination complaints at schools across the country because of it.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, we'll be on the lookout for when the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the two transgender athletes cases. Zach Schermele is an education reporter with USA TODAY. Thank you, Zach.
Zach Schermele:
Thanks, Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
Thanks to our senior producers Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts at usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Noah Lyles, Sha'Carri Richardson among stars to watch at U.S. track and field championships
The top track and field athletes from around the country will descend upon Eugene, Oregon this week for the 2025 U.S. track and field championships. Noah Lyles, Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone, Sha'Carri Richardson and Grant Holloway represent some of the star athletes who will compete this week at Hayward Field. The championships will determine who will make the U.S. team for September's world track and field championships in Tokyo, Japan. USA TODAY Sports will be on the ground in Eugene, Oregon to report and provide insight on all the action. To get you ready, we have the marquee athletes to watch: Noah Lyles Events: 100, 200 Lyles doesn't have to compete to clinch a spot on the U.S. national team because he's the defending world champion in the 100 and 200 meters. He's entered in both events, but he's indicated he plans to focus on the 200 in Eugene. Lyles ran a personal-best 9.79 to win the 100 at the Paris Olympic. His career-best of 19.31 in the 200 is an American record. Lyles' top times this year are 10.00 in the 100 and 19.88 in the 200, well off his career-best marks. However, Lyles tends to shine when the lights are bright. He's the fastest man in the country when he's in top form. Sha'Carri Richardson Events: 100, 200 The reigning 100 world champion earned a bye to the 2025 world championships, but she's still entered in both the 100 and 200 meters. Richardson finished ninth in the 100 at the Prefontaine Classic, running a season-best 11.19. Her personal-record is 10.65. She's the most talented sprinter in the 100 field, but her training mate, Melissa Jefferson-Wooden, is having a better season. Jefferson-Wooden has the top 100 time (10.73) in the world this year. Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone Event: 400 The 400-meter hurdles world record holder and Olympic gold medalist dropped the hurdles and is set to run the open 400. McLaughlin-Levrone is the heavy favorite in the event. The four-time Olympic gold medalist has run 49.43 in the 400 this year. McLaughlin-Levrone is one of the best female athletes in the country across all sports. She could flirt with the American record (48.70) in Eugene. Grant Holloway Event: 110 hurdles Holloway has a bye into the world championships because he won gold in the 110-meter hurdles at the 2023 world championships. He's entered in the 110 hurdles, but his bye comes at a necessary times because he's been dealing with an injury. Holloway is a three-time world champion in the 110 hurdles and won gold in the event at the Paris Olympics. His lifetime best of 12.81 is the second fastest time ever. Quincy Wilson Events: 400 The 400-meter prodigy became one of the darlings of track and field when he earned a spot on the 2024 U.S. Olympic team. Wilson ran a 44.10 in July to break his own under-18 400 world record. The 17-year-old sprinter is tied for the fourth fastest entry in the 400. He's a podium favorite and will certainly have the crowd on his side in Eugene. Quincy Hall, the defending Olympic champion in the 400, won't run at the U.S. championships due to injury. Athing Mu-Nikolayev Events: 800 The 800-meter runner looked unbeatable at the Tokyo Olympics and continued her dominance at the 2022 world championships, but she's been unable to regain her form since. Mu-Nikolayev endured a heartbreaking fall at the 2024 U.S. Olympic trials and failed to make the squad. She finished 10th – well behind the other runners – at this year's Prefontaine Classic. Mu-Nikolayev is the American-record holder in the 800 (1:54.97), but will she be able to return to her dominant ways? It's one of the biggest questions at the U.S. track and field championships. When are U.S. track and field championships The U.S. track and field championships begin Thursday, July 31. The last day of the competition is Sunday, August 3. A complete schedule of events can be found here. Follow USA TODAY Sports' Tyler Dragon on X @TheTylerDragon.


USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Tsunami waves reach Hawaii, West Coast hours after magnitude 8.8 earthquake
On Wednesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Tsunami waves reached Hawaii and parts of the West Coast after one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history. USA TODAY Justice Department Correspondent Aysha Bagchi breaks down Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions for Congressional testimony. The EPA will repeal the finding that climate pollution endangers human health. The U.S. sets a new electricity consumption record amid summer heat. USA TODAY Senior National Political Correspondent Sarah D. Wire breaks down what's next for library funding as E-books are on the line. We remember the victims of this week's New York City shooting. 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 Wednesday, July 30th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt. Today, one of the strongest recorded earthquakes ever sent tsunami waves to Hawaii. Plus Ghislaine Maxwell lays out conditions to testify before Congress and eBooks are on the line at local libraries. ♦ Tsunami waves reached Hawaii and the mainland west coast after one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history. A magnitude 8.8 struck off Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula overnight and triggered alerts across the Pacific, Alaska and other parts of the Western U.S. The waves began arriving in Hawaii after 7:00 PM local time, but initial observations were encouraging to officials. Governor Josh Green said so far they had not seen a wave of consequence. Shortly after the initial tsunami warning sirens went off at around 3:00 PM local time in Hawaii, the streets of Honolulu, including the tourist hub Waikiki, were congested as people quickly tried to move to higher ground and away from coastal evacuation zones. Some reported long lines at gas stations as sirens continued to go off. Others felt desensitized to the warning following the 2018 false missile alert, when residents woke up to an emergency alert notification that a ballistic missile was headed their way. Residents across the island scrambled to find shelter then before learning it was sent as an error. You can stay with throughout the day for the latest. ♦ Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell says she will talk to Congress, but there's a catch. I spoke with USA TODAY Justice Department correspondent Aysha Bagchi for more. Aysha, thanks for stopping by. Aysha Bagchi: Thanks for having me Taylor. Taylor Wilson: So Ghislaine Maxwell is willing to testify before Congress, but what are her conditions here? Aysha Bagchi: One of her prerequisites is she wants immunity if she's going to testify. This is someone who is serving a twenty-year prison sentence right now for very serious criminal convictions. She doesn't want testimony that she gives before Congress to expose her in some sort of way in criminal proceedings. So she's specified that she wants immunity. We don't know what form that would take if Congress would grant her any in order to let her testify, but we do know that she got some sort of limited immunity, there were reports of that anyway, when it comes to discussions she had with the Justice Department last week. In addition to that, she wants to wait to give testimony before Congress until an appeal that she has pending at the U.S. Supreme Court right now has run its course. The court is set to decide as soon as sometime in September, potentially, whether it wants to take up her case or not. And she said she'll have some other appeal coming in some court in addition to that one. And she wants those things wrapped up first. She also wants to get the questions in advance. That's kind of an interesting prerequisite that she is trying to set for giving any testimony before Congress. She wants to be told what questions she's going to be asked. She said that'll give her a chance to prepare. Surely that'll be preparation alongside her lawyer. Then she said it'll let her come up with documents to corroborate the things that she wants to say. Those are the rules that she's setting in place she says when it comes to this testimony, but she also said she would love clemency from President Donald Trump. He can pardon her fully. He can commute her sentence. She said she'd be willing and eager to testify if she got that. That's no surprise. But she didn't set that as a rule in order to testify before Congress. Taylor Wilson: Okay. And Aysha, what does Congress really hope to get out of such testimony? Aysha Bagchi: The Congressman Chairman James Comer, he's the one who issued this subpoena. He heads one of the committees in Congress, an oversight committee. He said that there are basically two things that the committee is interested in when it comes to her testimony. One of them is looking at the enforcement of sex trafficking laws. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking in her trial that concluded in 2021. The person that she was basically convicted of being a co-conspirator with was Jeffrey Epstein. And the second thing is he said that he wants to look at plea agreements when it comes to cases like this. That's probably a reference to the really sweetheart plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein got in 2008. He was able to plead guilty to two Florida state prostitution offenses, one involving minors. And under that plea deal, he was told by Florida federal prosecutors and state prosecutors that that would clear this case for him. He had an 18-month sentence. He didn't have to serve that full time and for much of the time he was able to be let out for several hours of the day in a work release program. So the congressman said that the committee wants to look at that kind of plea deal, and that's actually a basis for Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal right now. She's arguing to the Supreme Court that federal prosecutors in New York shouldn't have been able to charge her, prosecute her in her own case because a provision of that plea deal not only protected Jeffrey Epstein, but also purported to protect any potential co-conspirators of his. So far Ghislaine Maxwell has lost in her argument that that meant she couldn't have been prosecuted. Some courts have said that New York Federal prosecutors were still free to go after her, but that's something that the committee in Congress seems to want to look at. Taylor Wilson: Wow, interesting. Well, Maxwell spoke with Justice Department officials last week. What do we know, if anything, about those conversations? Aysha Bagchi: We don't know much. Most of what we've heard has come from Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer, not from the government itself. He said that Ghislaine Maxwell answered lots of questions. This took place over two days, not just one day. So it seems to have been quite a lot of interviewing her. He said that she went over 100 people. We don't know what the content of that was. What does it mean for her to have referenced 100 people in relation to Jeffrey Epstein? But we have heard reports that she was given some sort of limited immunity in exchange for this sort of interview. And potentially the idea that Justice Department officials have in mind is to see if she can provide any investigative leads that would actually open up a line of investigation and potential criminal charges against anyone else associated with Jeffrey Epstein. When the Justice Department chose not to release its Epstein files, it said in its announcement about that, that it didn't uncover anything in the files that would merit opening an investigation, a criminal investigation into someone else. So maybe this interview is an opportunity for the Justice Department to look at that again and see if it can open up an investigation into someone else and maybe satisfy kind of the public outrage that has boiled over, including from many of President Trump's own supporters, about this case and questions that sort of linger about potential mysteries surrounding this case or whether the government really has tackled everyone it should tackle when it comes to its evidence surrounding sex trafficking and Jeffrey Epstein. Taylor Wilson: All right, Aysha Bagchi covers the Justice Department for USA TODAY. Thank you, Aysha. Aysha Bagchi: Thanks Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Environmental Protection Agency will rescind the finding that greenhouse gas emissions put human health in danger as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles. President Trump's pick to run the EPA, Lee Zeldin, announced the agency's plan to rescind the endangerment finding on the Ruthless podcast yesterday, saying it'll save Americans money and unravel two decades of regulation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases from cars, power plants, oil production, and other sources. In 2009, the EPA under former president Barack Obama issued a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to pollution and endanger public health and welfare. It was upheld in several legal challenges. ♦ Americans cranking up the air conditioners and fans over a single hour this month consumed more electricity than ever before as heat spread from the Midwest to the East Coast. The Federal Energy Information Administration said that from 7:00 to 8:00 PM Eastern Time on Monday, Americans consumed more than 758,000 megawatt hours of electricity, a new national record. And while the numbers are subject to change, the EIA said Americans might consume even more power as the summer continues. You can read more with a link in today's show notes. ♦ E-books and more are on the line as Congress considers the future of library funding. I discussed with USA TODAY senior national political correspondent Sarah D. Wire. Sarah, as always, thanks for joining me. Sarah D. Wire: Thanks for having me. Taylor Wilson: All right, so let's go back to March Sarah, when Trump issued an executive order eliminating huge parts of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Can you just start by reminding us what happened here and what's happened since? Sarah D. Wire: Back on March 14th, the president issued an executive order that eliminated most of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. He ordered that it be reduced to its statutory functions. Basically meant that it should be brought down as far as possible. And so suddenly, pretty much the entirety of the Institute's staff were laid off and then really abruptly, three state libraries were informed that their grants had been canceled. Now, state libraries receive between 30 and 50% of their funding through these state grants. And so to have that big cut was panic-inducing for a lot of these states. And then about half of the states in the country sued over losing this money and the judge placed an injunction that ordered the Institute to reinstate the staff, reinstate any cut grants, and that's kind of where things stand there. Taylor Wilson: Well, what is Congress now considering about the future of library funding? Sarah D. Wire: So when the president put forward his budget proposal, he only suggested $5.5 million for the agency with the agency saying that that money was enough to sunset or end the agency. That's a big drop from the nearly 300 million the agency normally receives. We haven't seen any pushback on this from Congress yet, and this Congress has been very willing to back what the president wants. He tried this during his first term. He tried getting rid of the Institute for Museum and Library Services, then Congress pushed back and said they weren't going to do it. There's a big piece of legislation that has to be renewed in September, and we've seen absolutely no movement on that. But that has to be passed in order for the agency to continue existing. Taylor Wilson: Okay, makes sense. And you focus a lot on e-books in this piece, Sarah. How might this action or whatever happens over the next few months impact e-books and what's at stake when libraries and library patrons lose that kind of access? Sarah D. Wire: Every state gets to choose how they spend this federal money, and a lot of states use it to provide e-book services for the entire state. Libraries are leasing e-books instead of buying them outright and often at three to five times the normal cost. And so that cost is just too much for small libraries to bear on their own. So if they lose the federal money, the states can't provide this to local libraries, which means a lot of people are no longer going to be able to check out e-books from their library. Taylor Wilson: Well, Sarah, you're right about a nonprofit that organizes grassroots campaigns for library funding and also blocking book bans. Tell us a bit about this group and what other recourse is there. Can states really filled the gap here? Sarah D. Wire: This organization called Every Library has had a petition drive going on, trying to convince both federal lawmakers and states to prevent the Trump administration from doing this. Some of the state libraries I spoke to said they're worried that states aren't going to be able to step in and fill the gap. It might not seem like a lot. California is the biggest recipient of this money. They receive about $15 million a year, but to fill that gap is not something that they can just dig through the couch cushions and do. But it's also asking a lot for the state to find that money when the state is bringing in less revenue, but they're also having to take on new responsibilities that the federal government has handed down, including more responsibility for Medicaid and paying for a portion of SNAP for the first time. Taylor Wilson: All right. Well, going back even to March, I mean, I just want to get a sense on the Trump administration perspective here, Republican congressional perspective. What is the argument on that side of the coin? Is this just a continued push for getting rid of government bloat? Sarah D. Wire: Yeah, the White House told us back in March that this was an effort to streamline government and get rid of superfluous agencies, but they haven't talked about waste or fraud specifically when it comes to this agency. Taylor Wilson: All right, and what's next going forward? You mentioned this September timeline in terms of how congressional leaders are going to tackle this. Sarah D. Wire: This isn't one of the appropriations bills that Congress has to pass before the end of the year. Congress will probably start taking a look at it when the House and Senate resume in September. Taylor Wilson: All right. Sarah D. Wire covers national politics for USA TODAY. I appreciate you stopping by Sarah. Sarah D. Wire: Thanks for having me. ♦ Taylor Wilson: New York City Mayor Eric Adams said preliminary investigations show the gunman in yesterday's Midtown Manhattan shooting may have intended to target the NFL, but took the wrong elevator. The suspect left behind a three-page note claiming he had chronic CTE from playing football police said. CTE is a brain condition experienced by people who have repeated blows to the head, often through contact sports like football. An NFL employee was reportedly injured in the shooting. We're also learning more about the victims who were killed in the violence. They include Blackstone investment firm employee Wesley LePatner, security officer Aland Etienne, police officer Didarul Islam, and Julia Hyman an associate at Rudin Management. ♦ ICE agents or law enforcement working in that capacity have been recorded arresting people across the country in full masks without any identifying clothing or even telling people who they work for. Mike German: What many studies, going back to the civil unrest during the 1960s and '70s, showed that when law enforcement engages in arbitrary or poorly targeted violence, that often creates more violence. In other words, if they attack a crowd indiscriminately, the crowd will become more violent. Taylor Wilson: That was former FBI agent Mike German, now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice. My colleague Dana Taylor sat down with Mike for a conversation about the trend of mass ICE agents and what it means for democracy. You can hear that conversation right here today, today beginning at 4:00 PM Eastern Time. ♦ Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your pods, 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.


The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bipartisan Senate price transparency bill can fix US health care
In the aftermath of Republicans' divisive reconciliation bill, Congress has the opportunity to come together and pass bipartisan legislation to address one of the nation's biggest problems: The broken health care system. Approximately 100 million Americans have health care debt, and one-quarter of insured families avoid care each year due to unknown costs. The Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, recently introduced by Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), can reverse runaway health care costs that are placing a tremendous burden on American families by empowering them to compare and save. Since 2000, hospital prices have increased by 257 percent, which explains why the growth rate in health insurance premiums has outstripped workers' earnings by a ratio of almost 3 to 1 over this timeframe. The Marshall-Hickenlooper bill gives employers and patients the upfront price information they need to protect themselves from overcharges and choose affordable care. It requires the publication of actual prices, including discounted cash and negotiated insurance rates, not estimates, throughout the health care system. And it requires insurers to give patients an advanced explanation of benefits —a breakdown of costs, including their out-of-pocket responsibility — before care is delivered. I joined a letter signed by 40 leading health economists calling on senators to co-sponsor and quickly pass this crucial legislation. Economists understand actual prices are essential to functioning marketplaces that generate fair-market costs. Under the opaque status quo, consumers are essentially required to pay for care with the equivalent of a blank check, giving hospitals and health insurers tremendous market power to overcharge and profiteer. Hidden prices result in wide cost variations for the same care, a sign of market failure. Recent research I conducted for Rice University's Baker Center reveals that mean outpatient hospital prices in Houston vary by nearly 200 percent for the same insurer. A recent study in Health Affairs Scholar shows that colonoscopy rates can vary by seven times for those with the same health coverage. Price transparency corrects this information asymmetry between consumers and providers, putting downward and convergent pressure on prices. It fosters competition and returns excessive health industry profits to patients, businesses, unions, school districts and workers where they belong. Redirecting funds from the health care industrial complex back to the private economy can create an enormous economic stimulus. Employers and employees especially stand to benefit. The average employer-sponsored family health insurance plan now costs $24,000 per year, with workers bearing the majority of the cost through premium deductions and lower wages. One analysis found that about the same amount of employee compensation growth since 2000 has gone to premium costs as to paychecks. Transparency empowers employers to steer workers to high-value care, reducing premium costs and increasing take-home pay. The Marshall-Hickenlooper bill also gives employers access to their claims data and reveals the contractual relationships of their health plan administrators, allowing them to remedy overbilling and spread pricing. My research suggests that lowering annual premiums by just $1,373 per employee can boost the profitability of retail businesses by an average of 12.4 percent. You don't need to be an economist to understand that upfront prices are needed to avoid overcharges and shop for affordable care and coverage. But economists can speak to the significant impact of price transparency on business earnings, worker paychecks and economic dynamism. Actual prices, as required by the Marshall-Hickenlooper bill, can restore affordability, accountability and trust to American health care. That's something people of all political persuasions can support.