Is the economy hot or not?
Economy = weak labor market + tariff uncertainty
Employers in the U.S. added a disappointing 73,000 jobs (well below the expected 102,000) in July as payroll growth slowed amid President Donald Trump's sweeping import tariffs, intensified immigration crackdown and massive federal layoffs.
This was no blip: The poor showing likely wasn't an outlier that will be followed by a resumption of healthy job gains in the months ahead, economists told USA TODAY. More concerning, however, were downward revisions to April and May's numbers, suggesting the labor market may be weaker than previously thought.
💵 What the Trump administration means for your wallet: Sign up for USA TODAY's Daily Money newsletter for more tips and analysis.
Texas Democrats seek to block redistricting vote by leaving state
Democratic lawmakers in Texas said Sunday they were leaving the state to deny Republicans the quorum needed to redraw the state's 38 congressional districts, a move sought to protect the Republicans' narrow U.S. House majority in next year's midterm elections. President Trump has championed the redistricting plan, telling reporters he expects the effort to yield as many as five additional House Republicans. Republicans hold a narrow 220-212 majority in the House of Representatives, with three Democratic-held seats vacant after members' deaths. In a video shot in front of an airport, Democratic Representative James Talarico said the redistricting amounted to "rigging" the 2026 elections.
More news to know now
What's the weather today? Check your local forecast here.
ICE is recruiting agents with incentives
Dangling bonuses of up to $50,000, federal officials are launching a massive recruitment campaign to hire more than 14,000 immigration agents, attorneys and other workers to help execute President Trump's border crackdown. The president is newly flush with billions in funding and wants to deport 1 million people a year with the help of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Even before the new hires take their posts, the dramatic expansion of public ICE operations has upset communities. And the aggressive recruitment efforts have also angered local sheriffs who worry that deputies in already understaffed offices will be lured away by the big bonuses and higher pay.
Will Rural America give up on Trump?
~ Matt Hildreth, Executive Director of RuralOrganizing.org. Hildreth's group is already operating in congressional battleground districts in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania, with a focus on getting people to talk about Medicaid.
Today's talkers
Winners and losers from the U.S. track and field championships
Melissa Jefferson-Wooden accomplished the sprint double, Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone was golden in the 400 and Noah Lyles was braggadocious as he won another 200 national title. On the field, Valarie Allman continued her reign over the discus and Tara Davis-Woodhall leaped to the top mark in the world in the long jump. The U.S. track and field championships served as the qualifying stage for next month's world championships in Tokyo, Japan. USA TODAY Sports was on the sidelines at Hayward Field for all the action.
Photo of the day: You did that, Trinity!
The NWSL saw the return of one of its stars in a big way Sunday, as the Washington Spirit's Trinity Rodman struck a game-winning goal against the Portland Thorns in her first match since April 12. Rodman, who battled back from a nagging back injury, scored in the second minute of second half stoppage time, catching a ball mid-bounce and firing it over keeper Mackenzie Arnold for the game-winner. Rodman missed the game as much as we missed her.
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
Boston Globe
a minute ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
a minute ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
In a Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine Fears Losing Say Over Its Future
For nearly three years of the war in Ukraine, Washington's rallying cry in backing a fight against a Russian invasion was 'no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine.' But when President Trump meets President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Alaska on Friday, the Ukrainians will not be there, barring any last-minute invitation. And Kyiv's swift rejection of Mr. Trump's declaration to reporters that he is already negotiating with the Russian leadership over what he vaguely called 'land swaps,' with no mention of the security guarantees or arms supplies for Ukraine, underscores the enormous risks for the Ukrainians — and the political perils for Mr. Trump. Ukraine's fear for these past six months has been that Mr. Trump's image of a 'peace accord' is a deal struck directly between him and Mr. Putin — much as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill divided up Europe at the Yalta conference in 1945. That meeting has become synonymous with historical debates over what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world, smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule. Mr. Zelensky himself invited such comparisons in a speech to his people hours after Mr. Trump raised the specter of deciding Ukraine's fate in a one-on-one meeting in Alaska, territory that was once part of the Russian empire. (While Mr. Putin has made clear that he regards Ukraine as rightful Russian territory dating back to the days of Peter the Great, the Russian leader has not called for the reversal of the $7.2 million sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, during a period of financial distress for the empire.) 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr. Zelensky said, noting that the Ukrainian constitution prohibits such a deal. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
