Latest news with #DanaTaylor
USA Today
20-07-2025
- Business
- USA Today
How to navigate a job market transformed by AI
On Sunday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Entry level jobs that were once the gateway to upward mobility are disappearing fast. How can applicants prove their human worth to hiring managers? Executive coach Jim Frawley joins The Excerpt to share his insights. 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 Dana Taylor: Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt, I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Sunday, July 20th, 2025. The US job market is undergoing a fundamental shift as AI advances roles that were once gateways to upward mobility are disappearing. In a recent interview quoted in The Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Ford conceded that artificial intelligence will "leave a lot of white-collar people behind." For college graduates just entering the job market, the outlook is particularly bleak as advancements in AI make those jobs mostly obsolete. As AI challenges and redefines the landscape of employment, how can society reconcile the human desire for self-sufficiency and the need for meaningful work? And how can individuals traverse an increasingly tricky job market? Here to share his insights on the impact of AI and job cuts is executive coach Jim Frawley. Thanks for joining me, Jim. Jim Frawley: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: I want to tackle how to navigate a rapidly changing job market, but first, if CEOs believe they can succeed with a fraction of today's staff, what does that mean for the middle class when white-collar jobs are facing a steep decline? Jim Frawley: Yeah, this is going to be, and we've been talking about it for a long time, a very large shock to the system, and there are two angles to sit on it, right? There's one side of the CEO has to run a business and run that business really, really well, and why do you pay for workers that you just don't need, right? So there's validity there, but there's also almost the social obligation component for the people who are no longer going to be employed and what do you do for them and how do you prepare for them? So, they're really stuck in between the rock and the hard place on how do we actually take care of the people that we don't need? How do we reposition them and how do we make sure that people are going to be set? At the same time, how do you acknowledge the accountability on the individuals who are going to be impacted on what changes can you do now to prepare yourself for the future? Dana Taylor: Staying with that, is it ethical for not only companies, but for a country to oversee the displacement of human workers without investing in retraining programs or a safety net for those displaced? Jim Frawley: Yeah, I think there's an argument to be made from an organizational perspective as well as a political perspective. There is an obligation to the people throughout the world, especially in this country, because we're in America, but what do you do for the people that have committed their lives to working for you, committed their lives to making the country a better place, the organization a better place, and their only crime being that they're looking to provide for their family? So I do think that we have a large social obligation to people to prepare them for the change, and that's where conversations like this go. I mean, we can retrain, we can push people, but there is also, and don't shoot the messenger on this, but there's also an obligation on the individual to start pushing buttons in their own kind of way as well. I mean, we've been talking about AI now for multiple years, we know it's coming. For those who haven't taken steps to start to position themselves differently, I mean, I don't know how else to tell them that there is an obligation here for you as well. So, I think there's obligation on both ends. Companies and governments should be preparing people and helping them in every possible way that they can, but we have to pick up the torch at some point and take care of ourselves as well. Dana Taylor: Can our society absorb unemployment increases of 10% to 20% if as the CEO of Anthropic predicts half of entry level jobs will vanish within the next five years? Jim Frawley: I don't think we can, and I'm not saying that from a monetary perspective. I'm not talking about the money perspective, I'm talking about the what do you do with your time perspective. If you're not working, we get so much from work beyond just a paycheck. We get a sense of purpose, we get time management, we get social interaction. There are so many things that we get from the workplace that we are losing because we're laying off so many people. So it's not just about paying bills, which is very important. We have to keep the lights on and we have to feed our families and all of that, but there are so many other components that we have to take care of as well from the workplace that we need to fill in. That's the real challenge I think society is going to have, is not just the fact that people aren't working, but what are they doing with their time and how do we give them something meaningful to do? It's not just purpose, it's usefulness and feelings of self-worth and mental health, and this snowballs very quickly into a much bigger challenge than just paying for the unemployed. Dana Taylor: Jim, I know you work with a lot of CEOs. What have they shared with you regarding AI? Jim Frawley: They're challenged with it quite a bit. One is you can't not do it. So, they're talking about how do we implement it and how do we adopt it? Because if we don't, the organization's not going to exist. So that's part of where their head is, but they're also worried about their people. A lot of the executives, and they're bringing me in, because they say, what do I do about my people? So they've stopped hiring new people and now they're trying to do the scramble so they don't have to lay people off, but that's keeping them up a lot at night. You have 20,000 employees, 100,000 employees, or even just 10 employees, when you have to cut them in half or 20%, what does that really mean? Because a lot of these CEOs do recognize that they're human beings and they have to take care of it, and they're really stuck between the obligation to the business, obligation to the people, and how do we mesh the two, but that's really where CEOs are struggling right now is how do we implement it, but with the minimal impact to people? Dana Taylor: Millions of students have or will receive their degrees this year. Four years ago they may have entered college with the anticipation of landing a white-collar job upon graduation. Do they just need to reset their expectations? Jim Frawley: I think a lot of people need to reset their expectations across the board, because what we think is going to happen in five years is nowhere near what's going to happen in five years. Even a few years ago, they were talking about college degrees are going to be outdated before people even graduate, so the incoming freshmen year degree's outdated before you even go. I think we have to rethink the way that we think about college and university, just because the degree doesn't prepare you for a job, it's what you learn outside of the classroom that really helps you position yourself. Then also grown-ups. The 30s, the 40s, the 50-year-olds who are in the white-collar jobs, how are you positioning yourself? Because your role's not going to be there in 10 years, so if you're in your late 30s, early 40s, how are you positioning yourself today? Things like in-person social interaction, building up a network, asking the types of questions and taking each day to challenge yourself, to push yourself forward in some other kind of non-traditional way. I think non-traditional is going to be the buzzword of the next decade. Dana Taylor: Not everyone can become a Michelin star chef, but are there AI-proof career options to explore? Jim Frawley: I think if you're looking for something AI-proof for at least the next decade or two decades, a lot of people will tell you the blue-collar jobs, right? The robots aren't going to be fixing plumbing and that kind of thing, that's fine. But outside of that, if you were thinking about a white-collar job, there's still roles. Anything I would go social interaction, things like psychology, psychiatry, the social need, the human need, all of the things ... now, there are apps and everything else that are going to be there, but there will always be a place for in-person social interaction for human beings. There is significant, significant need for that, so if you're thinking of what you want to do and where you're going to want to go in response to AI, I would think about what do people need and humans need, and how do you support that. Dana Taylor: How important are soft skills and emotional intelligence at this moment? Are these the uniquely human skills job seekers need to develop to make themselves more valuable in the workplace and to inoculate them from the impacts of AI? Jim Frawley: 100%. I think the number one advice that you can give anybody today is pick up on that emotional intelligent, emotional quotient kind of focus. In-person social interaction is what's going to save you from AI, because if you're looking for a new job, we hire people we like and we hire people we know. If you're looking for some kind of mental health hope, the support system around you are the people that are going to be able to do that. So the in-person social interaction, the social obligation we have to each other, that's ultimately what's going to save us from AI, and I will die on that hill 100 times a week. So when we surround ourselves with the right type of people, we then generate new ideas, we're able to create different types of things, we create new job opportunities in our minds and job prospects and everything else, new businesses, whatever it might be. So in-person social interaction, emotional intelligence, I think that's a huge one. Dana Taylor: Jim, are there best practices for demonstrating soft skills during a job interview? Jim Frawley: The number one piece of advice I give to people or the number one thing that I find I'm working on with a lot of executives is the ability to ask questions. It sounds incredibly simple and ridiculous, but most people don't know the true definition of a question. When you understand what a question is, it's a request for information where you legitimately do not know the answer. We are then by doing that eliminating judgment and assumption and being interested in the present moment and the people across from us. When you can ask a question with no judgment or assumption, you're welcoming information from them, that opens up a whole new level of interpersonal connection. That allows you, whether it's from a leadership perspective or a management perspective or an interview perspective, to make a different type of connection by showing an interest in the person there by asking a question with no judgment, no assumption. Dana Taylor: For some companies, AI is now integrated into the hiring process from resume screening to interviews. What are some of the best practices for navigating these new hiring processes? Jim Frawley: I would say ignore them. I mean, you can upload it all you want and you can work your resume and you use AI to build your resume, and you do that and you upload it and AI's looking at that, go to the people directly. If you can meet a person directly in-person socially, ideally when you're still hired, you want them to see you when you're at your best. When you can meet someone in-person, your name will go to the top of the list, right? Still at this moment human beings will trump AI in terms of AI found these five people, but I want this person, 'cause I met them and I know I'm going to work well with them. Dana Taylor: A quick scroll on LinkedIn is all it takes to see the mental toll this evolving job hunting process can take, and for those who are employed, there may be a psychological toll in trying to prove their job can't be done by AI. What do you see as the long-term mental health implications here? Jim Frawley: Massively significant. I mean, even if you're still employed, it's in the back of your mind, this uncertainty takes a major stress toll, it leads to burnout, it leads to so many other different outcomes and challenges, and it snowballs pretty significantly. I think one of the challenges we have is most people take their work and they align it with their identity of who they are as an individual and their self-worth, but work is only a part of who you are, and there is a big shift that we have to make when we're thinking about AI and the future of work and how does this support the person I am, I don't become the person that is the only person who can work. Rethinking your priorities, your motivations, your values is going to be an incredibly important part of responding to this challenge where you have a belief system in place, an anchor into where you can go, so that when the roadway ends your belief system, your anchor, your philosophy can bring you past that to let you know what direction you need to go into next. Dana Taylor: We've all heard the adage, if you can't beat them, join them. Is there a smart way forward that embraces the reality of AI? Jim Frawley: Yeah, I think accept it, it's going to become here. I think when you think about the arc of change, it really starts with awareness. We're beyond awareness, we know it's here, now it's about preparation, so you accept it, you prepare yourself in the best type of way. Whether it's from a mental health perspective, whether it's from a social perspective, whether it's from a physical perspective, whatever it is, you get yourself ready, then you move into learning and then wisdom. So we're in that preparation and learning type of mode, and so if we can embrace it, we need to start learning about AI. If you have not started toying with AI and testing AI, you are so far behind the eight-ball at this point. You need to at least become familiar with it, because at a basic level if you don't understand how AI works, you are going to be left behind. So, that's really an easy first step that you should be taking immediately. Then otherwise beyond that, get the social interaction and see how we as humans can help each other in responding to this new change. Dana Taylor: Terrific insights here, Jim. Thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Jim Frawley: Thank you for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance, our executive producer's Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor, Taylor Wilson. Be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
USA Today
10-07-2025
- Climate
- USA Today
Eco-anxiety is a serious concern for young people
On a special episode (first released on July 10, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Climate psychologist Caroline Hickman talks through the mental health crisis for young people who are dealing with despair and frustration caused by global warming. 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 Dana Taylor: Hello. I'm Dana Taylor, and this is a special episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt. Devastating rains in Texas, Hill County, on the morning of July 4th created deadly floods that have now claimed over 100 lives and counting. The catastrophic rains took place in a region that's known as Flash Flood Alley, causing the Guadalupe River to rise from less than a foot on July 3rd to more than 34 feet by the morning of July 4th. Experts say that warming temperatures over land, and especially in the gulf, are stoking extreme rainfall events across the United States, largely due to climate change. The fear these super storms are unleashing in young people has a name, eco-anxiety. How can we maintain our mental health in the midst of our worsening climate? Here to help us explore the topic is Caroline Hickman, a psychologist who has specialized in treating eco-anxiety for decades. She also sits on the board of the Climate Psychology Alliance, a global coalition of mental health experts whose focus is anxiety related to global warming. Thanks for joining me, Caroline. Caroline Hickman: Thank you for inviting me. Dana Taylor: Let's start by taking a step back here. Can you please define for us what eco-anxiety is? Caroline Hickman: So eco-anxiety is also eco-distress, depression, despair, frustration. It's a whole range of emotional responses that people have in response to what's happening globally in the world, in terms of climate but also biodiversity loss, ecological stress. It's a mentally healthy response when we look outside and see things getting worse on the planet. The first response is often anxiety and fear. We have a fight-flight response. Where can we run to? What can we do about this? But the anxiety and the distress doesn't stop there. It moves then quickly to, and what are people doing to take care of us? People in power, what's happening around us? Because you can feel like you're just this very vulnerable individual that doesn't have enormous power to do anything about this global crisis. So the anxiety is twofold. One, it's in relation to the climate, and then two, it's in relation to other people's responses. Dana Taylor: The condition of eco-anxiety has been around for decades now, but at least one study indicates that it's getting worse. You are on the front lines of this battle. What are you seeing and hearing from young people on this? Caroline Hickman: It can only increase. When we talk about it getting worse, we have to be clear about what we mean by that, but it will only increase as the pressure of climate change increases, and we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to stopping and mitigating and changing the impact of climate change on the planet. So it makes complete sense that alongside that, the mental health impact will also continue to increase. I just want to be careful when we talk about things getting worse, because it changes constantly in relation to what's happening on the planet. It does not mean that young people are becoming more fragile or themselves developing more mental illness. They will have more severe psychological responses to this, but that's because it's in relation to the planet getting worse. So we're seeing more increased weather events, climatic events, increased flooding, increased wildfires, increased storms, and they're increasing in severity as well as frequency, so what will go along with that is the increased psychological impact of that on young people. And again, I would come back to if they feel that people are not taking that seriously, then they will be left feeling more and more worried and upset. Dana Taylor: Are there other differences you can point to in comparison with, say, a decade ago? Caroline Hickman: Yes, absolutely. We saw a significant increase in eco-anxiety or eco-distress during and following COVID. During COVID, no matter how you might feel about that, we saw governments react and respond to this swiftly around the world, and it was variable around the world, but we did see swift action. During that time, I saw young people's anxiety and distress increase considerably in relation to climate change, because they were left thinking, "If we can react like this to COVID, why can we not react like this to climate change when actually climate change is going to pose a greater threat in the long term, particularly to the futures of children and young people?" So I saw an increase during that, and then every year when you see the return of forest fires, the return of heat domes, the return of flooding, and we see the pictures, the images online, in the news, even if you're not directly impacted yourself, with the communication increase around the world about this, we see young people getting more and more worried and upset and angry about this. I want to clarify that we are talking about both direct impact of climate change but also indirect impact of climate change. So you can be impacted by being involved in floods or fires or heat, but also indirectly impacted by witnessing other people struggling with it around the world. Now, I wouldn't put the blame on media or social media communicating about this. People want to know what's going on, but it's incredibly distressing watching other people fight for their lives or run away from these threats. And what that does is it sets up a helplessness in the individual, because you want to think, "Well, what can I do to help?" So you anticipate what might happen to you, but you also have an empathy and a concern and a care for what's happening to other people. Young people in particular are very connected globally. They're online, they're talking to each other, they're witnessing what's going on, and they relate to what's happening to young people elsewhere in the world, say in Africa or Bangladesh, India, and they don't feel disconnected from that just because they live in Europe or the United States. I've seen an increase in referrals for young people for therapeutic support. I've seen an increase in young people joining community action groups and speaking out about this. I've seen an increase in young people spearheading legal cases around the world, pushing governments to take action on climate change. So we're seeing young people find different ways to make their voices heard, but it was already bad five years ago. 10 years ago, I think there was a lot of belief that we would still take action and there was still more time to take action, and increasingly over that 10 years, what we've seen is a loss of faith in young people that people will take action, and that results in a form of moral injury. The very people that should be taking action, leaders, world leaders, are not only failing to take action, but they're lying about it and they're saying that they're doing what needs to be done whilst frequently doing the opposite. So young people increasingly are not just feeling frightened of climate change, but they're losing faith in governments and leadership around this. Dana Taylor: I know your work has evolved over the years from global in-person therapy pre-pandemic to a lot of remote work with different groups. Where are you seeing the biggest mental health impacts today? Caroline Hickman: Well, that's a fascinating question. The United States is particularly hard hit I think. It's a country that is very much on the frontline of climate change, but is such an enormous country with such variability across the country, so I'm seeing more and more and more referrals from people living in the United States. Europe, people living across Europe, Europe is facing some of the worst impacts of climate change, but in many ways, the young people are actually freer to speak out. I think it's impossible to really measure any one particular country, but I'm just noticing an increase in referrals, particularly from the United States and across Europe. One of the things to be clear about is that children and young people in the United States or Europe that may not be facing the direct physical impact of, say, children and young people in Bangladesh or Nigeria or the Philippines, for example, who are facing terrible floods, the children and young people in the US and Europe are not protected from this cognitively or emotionally. So if I give you a couple of figures, it'll illustrate that. In the 2021 research that we published, which with 10,000 children and young people in 10 different countries, including the US, the global average told us 74% told us the future was frightening, 56% told us that humanity was doomed. 48% told us they were dismissed or ignored when they tried to talk about climate change. So you can see that young people are not being protected from the impact of climate change, even if they're not personally directly impacted. So we're not able to protect our children, even if they're not personally threatened by wildfires or floods. We can't protect them from the cognitive and the emotional impact because they will feel it, they will think about it, they will know about it, and they need us to respond to that. Dana Taylor: And finally, what's your advice to the adults in the room on the issue, whether they be parents, teachers, or others? How can they appropriately respond to young people who are in an existential crisis regarding climate change? Caroline Hickman: So first of all, acknowledge that this is a relational distress, and what children and young people want is to be seen and heard and understood, and that is the number one thing to reduce the distress. Don't minimize their distress. Don't tell them to go back to school, don't tell them to stop worrying about it. Of course, go back to school, but at the same time, acknowledge the distress that this is causing and say to them, "We are not expecting you to fix this for the rest of us, but we need to work together to think about this, and you're not on your own with this." So take their distress seriously. Even if you don't fully understand it, take it seriously because it's how they feel. We wouldn't dream of telling our children and young people to not be worried and upset or scared if they're facing the issue of somebody in their family having a health problem or dying. We wouldn't dream of dismissing their upset. In fact, we would find ways to talk with them, even very young children. It's no different to that. So parents, you have got the skills to deal with this, but what you have to do sometimes is deal with your own feelings of guilt and grief and upset in order to be able to listen to your children, have courage, and then sit down and talk with them and say to them, "Okay, we will find a way through this." And there are ways to deal with the relational distress alongside taking practical action in the world. Find practical projects that you can get involved in, community projects, projects at school, mental health projects supporting young people. There's many around. Sign up to them and join them, and then you've got a sense of community. You're not on your own. But always, always, always say to young people, "Even if I don't fully understand, help me understand. I want to understand it through your eyes, even if that's different." And that in itself helps children immediately, because then they don't feel they're being silly. What hurts the most is if you feel you're the only person in your family that is upset by this. Children shouldn't be left feeling that way. I'm going to quote a ten-year-old. This was 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." So we have to use our imagination and our curiosity and our respect for children and young people, that it is a different world that they are inheriting from us, and we might feel bad about that but there is a lot we can do about that, and number one is tell them the truth and be honest with them about what's going on, and then find ways to take action together. Dana Taylor: Listeners can find a link to more resources in the show notes. Thank you so much for being on The Excerpt, Caroline. Caroline Hickman: Thank you. Dana Taylor: 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@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
USA Today
10-07-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Trump's \
On a special episode (first released on July 9, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY Senior Congress and Campaigns Reporter Riley Beggin breaks down the signature policy changes laid out in the recently passed GOP budget. 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 Dana Taylor: Hello, I'm Dana Taylor, and this is a special episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt. After a furious few weeks of debate, closed-door negotiations, open floor debate, and deal-making, the Republican-controlled legislature has finally passed a final version of President Donald Trump's budget priorities referred to by Republicans as one Big Beautiful Bill. It's likely going to be the most significant legislative accomplishment of Trump's second term. And as with most bills, this one has its winners and its losers. But make no mistake; it will impact every American one way or another. Here to help us dig into its impact on Americans is USA TODAY's Senior Congress and Campaigns Reporter Riley Beggin. Riley, I know you've logged a lot of hours following all of the developments on the hill. Thank you so much for coming on The Excerpt. Riley Beggin: So happy to be here. Dana Taylor: Let's start with one of the most discussed, some would say contentious aspects of this bill, its price tag. What does the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office say it will cost, and how might this impact the economy? Riley Beggin: So the latest estimates on this from the Congressional Budget Office, as you mentioned, is $3.4 trillion added to the national deficit over the next 10 years. In terms of economic impact, there are a lot of potentials here, and I will say that that is just an estimate. Things tend to change over time. There are business incentives in this bill that would boost economic output, but what the CBO has found is essentially the costs outweigh those benefits when it comes to addition to the deficit. And when we're talking about the size of the national debt, that's a big topic. There are a lot of potential risks for that that's long term, and we're not really sure at what point it becomes a tipping point. So the long-term risk of a huge amount of national debt is a downturn in demand for Treasury Bonds, which could lead to a fall in the value of the dollar and potentially risk a global financial crisis. Of course, we are not saying that is going to happen, but that is the potential long-term risk of debt. Dana Taylor: Now let's get into some of the specifics. The biggest component of the bill's price tag is by far the cost of making the president's 2017 tax cuts permanent. Talk us through who the winners and losers are here. Riley Beggin: So this is actually something that the average American is not really going to see much change. This is extending the current income tax structure. What that means is that no American is going to see an increase in their income tax, which they would've otherwise seen if this bill did not pass because the 2017 tax cuts would have expired. But not everybody benefits in the same way. Wealthier Americans are going to benefit a little bit more than low-income Americans here. And then I will say it doesn't end taxes on social security, which is something that we've talked about in the past, but it does create a new $6,000 deduction for seniors. So there are a bunch of other benefits in this bill, but in terms of income taxes, your taxes are going to stay the same. Dana Taylor: There's also a big win for Trump in accomplishing one of his key campaign promises; canceling taxes on tips and overtime. What's in the bill on this, and what are the likely impacts for Americans whose earnings fall into one or both categories? Riley Beggin: These are both temporary tax breaks that last through the end of President Trump's presidency, so will go through 2028. For the no tax on tips carve out, people will not have to pay for taxes on the first $25,000 of tips that they receive. We still have to pay social security and Medicare taxes, and it phases out if you make more than $150,000 a year. A caveat I will mention here is that more than a third of tipped workers in America actually don't make enough money to pay income taxes to begin with, and in that case, they would not benefit from this tax break. The tax break is also limited to certain professions. The way that we maybe typically think of tipped workers, waitresses and hairstylists and things like that, as a way to try to prevent people from taking advantage of this tax break who maybe aren't intended to receive it. On the overtime front, people who are getting paid overtime can deduct up to $12,500 in overtime. Annually, it's $25,000 if you're filing jointly. And this, again, only applies to federal income taxes. So if you don't make enough money to have to pay income tax to begin with, you would not benefit from this tax credit. Dana Taylor: Let's talk about Medicaid and the changes to that social safety net program. This is largely how Republicans are paying for Trump's tax cuts. What are the changes they've agreed to with Medicaid and also with food assistance? Riley Beggin: Both of these are pretty sweeping changes. So on the Medicaid front, the biggest change, and this would be the biggest cost saving like you mentioned, is the addition of work requirements for able-bodied people without dependents. This is something that is not going to kick in until 2027, but it would save a lot of money from the program, could have huge impacts on the number of people that are eligible. The bill will also change the way that money flows to states for Medicaid. It will require more frequent eligibility checks. A lot of new restrictions on that program for low-income people. The estimated potential hit here is 11.8 million people losing access to Medicaid over the next 10 years. On the food stamps front, they are also making pretty significant changes. Raising the working age from 54 to 64. That's how long you have to be working to still get access to food stamps. Lowering the age exception for dependents at this point now parents with children younger than seven are exempt from the requirements, but that is different from before. And then it will also change for the first time the federal match rate requiring states to pay more for food stamps, which some experts say could impact the quality of benefits. And on that front, two million people are estimated to lose access to food stamps. Dana Taylor: Obamacare is another program the GOP is pairing back to cover Trump's tax cuts. How will people be impacted here? Riley Beggin: This bill does not extend enhanced subsidies for ACA recipients that were put in place under former President Joe Biden. That would expire at the end of the year. The impact for everyday Americans who are covered under the ACA, they would see an increase in their premiums by more than 7.5%. Dana Taylor: Let's talk about another line item in this bill, also known as SALT. What is it? What's in the final bill, and how will it impact Americans? Riley Beggin: SALT; something that people may have heard of throughout this process. It was very a contentious part of the debate in Congress. It applies mostly to people who live in high-tax states. SALT stands for State and Local Tax Deduction. Under the 2017 bill that we talked about earlier that cut income taxes. They also put a cap on the amount that people could deduct under this provision. So they put that cap at $10,000. It became a huge part of the negotiations in Congress because there was this cohort of Republicans who represented high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, California, who wanted to bump up that cap. So they were successful, and they were able to raise the cap to $40,000 for people who make less than $500,000 a year. Dana Taylor: The bill has earmarked significant monies for immigration enforcement, allowing ICE to scale up. How much, and how will this money be spent? Riley Beggin: Yeah, I think this is going to be a huge thing that we're going to be following at USA TODAY on what happens out of this bill. So it puts $170 billion into immigration enforcement over the next five years. There are earmarks in there to hire at least 10,000 new ICE agents, new CPP agents, expand detention spaces, 46 billion for construction of the wall at the southern border. This is really going to amplify and fund the president's interest in a mass deportation campaign. And I think we're going to have to sort of wait and see the implications of this funding. Dana Taylor: One policy shift that Democrats were particularly unhappy with in this bill is a rollback of clean energy subsidies. What are the specifics here, and what are the likely impacts? Riley Beggin: This was, again, one of the most controversial parts of this bill. And to sort of bring us back to the beginning here, the focus of this was a Biden era policy, the reconciliation bill that Democrats passed when they had total control of government to amp up clean energy production. So they put in a bunch of tax credits for electric vehicles, for renewable energy, like wind and solar. And essentially what this bill does is rolls back or completely eliminates most of those tax credits. It ends credits for home energy improvements, like solar and heat pumps, ends a tax credit for electric vehicles. And in terms of impact, of course, this is going to potentially slow clean energy growth as federal subsidies dry up. And experts say could potentially increase energy costs as the diversification of energy options dwindle here. Dana Taylor: The 2021 temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit passed by the Biden administration led to a historic reduction in the number of children living in poverty. Some argue it reduced poverty by up to 60%. The bill passed by the Senate and House does raise the credit a bit, but it also limits eligibility. Give us the overview of what the bill accomplishes here. Riley Beggin: Yeah, so like you mentioned, this does boost the Child Tax Credit by $200 from 2,000 to 2,200. The expanded Child Tax Credit that you mentioned was going to expire. So this will extend that and add a little bit to it. Like some of these other provisions that we discussed, if you have very low income, you actually can't use the whole credit, because the way that it is structured is it applies to up to 15% of your adjusted gross income until you hit $2,000, or in this case, $2,200. So what that means is if your income doesn't reach that 15% of the $2,000, you can't actually take advantage of the whole thing. Dana Taylor: Getting to Democrats responses, their main criticism is that the bill is a gift to wealthy Americans and will leave a lot of lower income people less well off. Is that true? What is your reporting revealed? Riley Beggin: It is true. Over the next 10 years according to the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and this is looking at the bill as a whole, so we're talking about the tax cuts, but also some of the changes in Medicaid and SNAP, as we discussed, benefits for low-income people, what the CBO found is that resources for the poorest Americans would decrease by about 2% by 2027, and in comparison, household resources for the richest Americans would increase by about 4% in that same time period. That's mainly due to tax cuts. And the loss in household resources is mainly due to the cuts in Medicaid and food stamps. That is reflected across the income brackets. So the poorer you are, the more likely you are to potentially lose resources under this bill. Dana Taylor: Riley, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Riley Beggin: Thank you for having me. Dana Taylor: 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@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
USA Today
07-07-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Brain-computer interfaces: Unlocking the potential of man and machine
On Sunday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Brain-computer interfaces promise breakthroughs in restoring lost function and beyond. But they also raise ethical and societal questions about the linking of minds with machines. Dr. Iahn Cajigas, a neurosurgeon at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied brain-computer interfaces and worked with patients using them, joins USA TODAY's The Excerpt to share his insights. 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 Dana Taylor: Hello. And welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Sunday, July 6th, 2025. It is the fodder of science fiction plots and planting a device into the human brain. The Blockbuster franchise, The Matrix comes to mind. Here in the real world, though it's actually happening, while tiny computers have been implanted into less than 100 brains so far, their impact has been life-changing. Brain-computer interfaces or BCIs have done everything from allowing increased mobility to helping with speech. Could these devices become more mainstream and help the disabled do even more in the future? To dive into all these questions and more, I'm joined by Dr. Iahn Cajigas, a neurosurgeon with the University of Pennsylvania, who studied brain-computer interfaces and worked with patients using them for over three years. Thanks for joining me, Dr. Cajigas. Dr. Iahn Cajigas: Thank you for having me, Dana. Dana Taylor: For someone who's not familiar with these BCIs, can you catch us up on the landscape here? What kinds of things are they helping patients do right now? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: It's a very exciting field. I think the best way to think about brain-computer interface technology is really to think about what the brain does and understand what are the inputs and outputs of the brain, and then understand what can be damaged with injuries of the nervous system, because that's exactly what these devices aim to restore. So as we all know, there's five main senses, right? We have sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch, and those are the inputs to the brain. And then we have the outputs that the brain, what can the brain do to interact with the world? That's really movement of muscles of the mouth, muscles of the hand to write, muscles of the leg to move. And therefore, what brain-computer interfaces are aiming to do is either helping get signals into the brain to restore some of the senses that have been lost or get signals out of the brain to re-enable patients to interact with the world. Dana Taylor: And without getting too technical, how do they work? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: The main language of the brain is really the electrical activity in individual neurons. And so by understanding what the neurons are trying to do and how these are related to the actions that the individual is trying to perform, we're able to make a translation between the activity in the brain to the output. So for example, if a patient's trying to reach with their arm to grab something, well, we can listen to the neurons in the motor cortex and how they're trying to recruit the muscles that are involved in that reach, and then tell a computer or a robotic arm, "Translate that movement into the movement of a cursor or the movement of a robotic arm that matches what the person's intending to do with their limb." It's really by creating a map that relates the electrical activity of the brain with the actual output that is intended, that we're then able to restore that function. Dana Taylor: I know there are several big name brands in the space right now, including Elon Musk's Neuralink. Apple's recently announced that it's also entering the space with tech that could one day allow a patient to control their iPhone. How do the devices functionally differ, or do they? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: The key is that there are different levels of granularity with which you can listen to the brain. So you can listen to individual neurons or pairs of neurons, or a small number of neurons. These are typically through invasive devices such as the Neuralink device that has multiple threads that are implanted directly into the brain substance to pick up this electrical activity. And then you can listen from very close, like in that case where you can start listening from further away and in less invasive ways. So there are other devices from other companies that sit on the brain surface itself, but yet penetrate the brain. And so listen to the brain activity by interfacing directly to the brain matter and picking up neurons, but at the surface, not deeper into the core of the brain. There are other companies that have implants that listen on the surface of the brain. That is, they do not penetrate the brain itself. These are so-called electrocorticographic BCIs instead of the penetrating BCIs, or non-penetrating BCIs, they can also be referred to. And then there are others that can listen for much further away in a blood vessel and try to pick up the activity in the neighborhood around, say, the motor cortex. So there's different ways to get to the electrical activity, and we don't know what the best way is or what's going to pan out in the long term. So what you see is companies that are taking different strategies to try to listen to the brain at different levels of granularity to see which will be more successful. And it's a really exciting time because all of these companies are gearing up to be close to implanting these technologies in humans in the next few years with some of the companies already having tens of patients implanted and others gearing up for implant within the next year or two. Dana Taylor: You're working with patients who are using BCIs currently at the University of Pennsylvania. What kinds of things are your team studying with this group, and what's been the most surprising discovery? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: It's been very challenging to study BCI over the last 25 years, primarily because it takes patients that have suffered a neurologic injury to be recruited into a study that then requires this permanent invasive implant that goes into the brain. And for the last two decades, we didn't really have technologies that could leave the laboratory. And so these small number of patients, over 60 to 70 patients in the last 25 years, it's been limited what we've been able to do with this. And the pace of understanding the brain, it's been challenging. We've learned a lot, but it's been challenging learning from tens of patients. My lab's approach here at Penn has been, well, we have really unique access as neurosurgeons to the brain. So I do brain surgery often on my patients for other reasons, such as having Parkinson's or tremor, and I typically place electrodes into the brain to help them with these disorders. So the approach of my lab has been we give our patients the opportunity to work with us, part of research for about 20 to 30 minutes during their surgery, where right before we do the critical portions of their surgery, we place a temporary electrode over the motor cortex where their hand area of the brain is, and we temporarily ask them to play games with us like rock, paper, scissors, or reaching tasks. And then we synchronize the activity on the brain surface to the activity of their movement. So they actually, we place special sensors on their hand and on their body, the same things that are used in Hollywood for motion capture. And we've developed ways to synchronize the activity of the behavior with the actual electrical activity on the brain surface so that we can see what this relationship looks like in able-bodied individuals, not patients that are paralyzed. What's really been interesting about doing this in healthy individuals is, one, how excited people are to be able to contribute their time to potentially moving the field forward for others that have neurologic injury. And then just, we've had the opportunity to collaborate with one of the companies that is entering the BCI space where they have a high resolution noninvasive electrode. And so to look at the brain through such a high resolution window as somebody is moving and seeing these incredible patterns of electrical activity, spirals, traveling waves, things that we have never observed before at this level of detail is just phenomenal. We are still in the process of understanding how these patterns actually relate to the behavior being performed and developing methods to help decode what they're intending to do with their arm and hand, like showing us a gesture or reaching to an object. Dana Taylor: What does access to this technology look like today? Is anyone in the movement disordered group eligible? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: So for our surgeries, it's actually all those patients that are undergoing surgery for their movement disorder could participate in this research, and again, it's only 20, 30 minutes during their surgery. For this technology, there are other centers that are using it in other contexts, such as temporarily implanting them in the context of epilepsy surgery or somebody who may have had trauma or intraoperatively for mapping parts of the brain that may be critical during a tumor resection. So there are many institutions that are using this less invasive approach to understand the brain through temporary access to the brain, but in our case, it's open to anyone that's undergoing surgery for their movement disorder. Dana Taylor: What are the biggest hurdles or issues that medical professionals are facing with the technology? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: One is patient expectations. We hear, you've made a reference to the movie The Matrix, and the expectations that are there in lay press, and in the movies, and science fiction, the things that we are learning with these tools today about how the brain represents information related to movement to either help patients restore their ability to speak or move their hands to give them some independence, autonomy, or communication. This is the beginning of understanding that. And as this technology grows, we may be able to do more things, but I think that understanding where we are is very important. Another limitation is going to be access. I mean, these are medical devices that are going to have a cost associated with them, and it becomes challenging that as clinicians, I think we all aim to get patients things that are able to help them, but there's going to be a problem about equitable access that is going to occur, and we need to be careful with that as a society and make sure that we make it available to everybody that can benefit from it when the technology is mature enough. Dana Taylor: Are there any downsides for patients? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: Well, again, a lot of the patients that are candidates for this technology are quite debilitated. They're either, say, in a locked in state where they are unable to speak or move. They could be paralyzed from a spinal cord injury or from a stroke. So they've already undergone or had a neurologic event that has affected their life. These are surgical tools. All the implants I'm referring to are permanent implants. And so these are all surgeries that have small but inherent risks that need to be balanced as well on a patient by patient basis. So these include things like infection, bleeding, additional neurologic injury. If something were to happen during a surgery, and it really has to be this dialogue between the physician and the patient to find the best option for their condition to improve their quality of life. Dana Taylor: Some writers and journalists have written about this technology with an eye toward a future where even abled people are able to use BCIs to just do more, think faster, access their subconscious, the stuff really of science fiction, as you said. What are your thoughts on this as a medical professional? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: Yeah, I think as somebody who loves science fiction, I think it's the sorts of things that as a child got me excited about technology in the brain and understanding things. But I think as a medical professional today, I think we have to understand the risks that can be involved with these procedures. And BCI encompasses a large range of technologies. I can say that if we're talking about invasive BCI, the ones that go into the nervous system directly, those carry inherent risks that may not be worthwhile even for the able-bodied person, or puts them at risk of damaging something that is not having problems at the moment. So if you were young and you want a brain implant, and something goes wrong with the surgery, or there was a stroke at the time of the implant, that could be very debilitating and completely affected trajectory of the young person's life. Now, if the safety profile of these devices changes over time, so where that risk becomes minuscule, then that equation might change. That risk benefit might change. But at the current iteration of this technology, I think we're very far away from a routine simple intervention with no risk, which is where really that's when things would take off for everybody wanting access to it. Dana Taylor: What's on the horizon for you and your team? Dr. Iahn Cajigas: I mean, the technology is so exciting. So my main goal with our research is to really re-enable folks that have had paralysis from stroke or spinal cord injury to be able to move their limbs or move a proxy of their limbs, maybe it's a robotic arm and, or exoskeletons that allow them to walk. We've been working on decoding gestures of the hand, so fine finger movements of the hand to maybe allow folks to control a prosthetic limb if they're an amputee. I think that in the next five years, that's where my research team will spend the majority of time, is how do we take the signals from the brain related to movement, translate them into the actions that folks are wanting to do, and give them this ability to interact with their world. And at the moment, we're focusing on upper extremity function. Dana Taylor: Dr. Cajigas, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Dr. Iahn Cajigas: My pleasure. Thank you for having me, Dana. Dana Taylor: 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@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor-Wilson. We'll be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
USA Today
03-07-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Chatbot therapy? Available 24/7 but users beware
On a special episode (first released on July 3, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Chatbots are sometimes posing as therapists—but are they helping or causing harm? Psychologist Vaile Wright shares her thoughts. 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. Dana Taylor: Hello, I'm Dana Taylor, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. The proliferation of chatbots has people using them in a myriad of ways. Some see them as friends and confidants, as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has suggested. And in certain cases, even as therapists. And actual therapists are expressing concern. Therapy is a licensed profession for many good reasons. Notably, some chatbots have wandered into dangerous territory, allegedly suggesting that a user kill themselves and even telling them how they could do it. The American Psychological Association has responded by asking the Federal Trade Commission to start investigating chatbots that claim to be mental health professionals. Still, with mental health a rising issue and loneliness and epidemic, could bots help with the lack of supply with proper oversight or warnings? Vaile Wright, Senior Director of Healthcare Innovation at the American Psychological Association, is here to unpack what's happening for human therapists as they fight an onslaught of AI therapy impersonators. Vaile, thank you for joining me. Vaile Wright: Thanks so much for having me. Dana Taylor: Can you set the stage here? Your organization's chief executive cited two court cases when he presented to a Federal Trade Commission panel about the concerns of professional psychologists. What are the real life harms he pointed to? Vaile Wright: I think we see a future where you're going to have AI mental health chatbots that are rooted in psychological science, have been rigorously tested or co-created with experts for the purpose of addressing mental health needs. But that's not what's currently available on the market. What is available are these chatbots that click none of those boxes, but are being used by people to address their mental well-being. And the challenge is that because these AI chatbots are not being monitored by humans who know what good mental health care is, they go rogue and they say very harmful things. And people have a tendency to have an automation bias, and so they trust the technology over their own gut. Dana Taylor: What do these cases show about what could occur when AI chatbots moonlight as licensed therapists? Vaile Wright: When these chatbots refer to themselves as psychologists or therapists, they are presenting a certain level of credibility that doesn't actually exist. There is no expert behind these chatbots offering what we know is good psychological science. Instead, where the expertise lies is actually on the back end, where these chatbots are developed by coders to be overly validating to just tell the person exactly what they want to hear and be appealing to the point of almost being sycophantic. And that's the opposite of what therapy is. Yes, I want to validate as a therapist, but I'm also there to help point out when you're engaging in unhelpful thinking or behaviors, and these chatbots just don't do that. They, in fact, encourage some of that unhelpful, unhealthy behavior. Dana Taylor: Experts have described AI-powered chatbots as simply following patterns, and there's been conversation around chatbots telling users what they want to hear, being overly complimentary, as you've said. At worst, the response can be downright dangerous, like encouraging illicit drug use or as I mentioned in the intro, encouraging someone to take their own lives and then suggesting how they do that. Given all that, what are some of the regulations that professionals in your community would like to see? Is there a way for chatbots to responsibly help with therapy? Vaile Wright: I think that there is a way for chatbots to responsibly help with therapy. In certain cases, I think at a very minimum, these chatbots should not be allowed to refer to themselves as a licensed professional, not just as a licensed psychologist. We wouldn't want them to present themselves as a licensed attorney or a licensed CPA and offering advice. So I think that's at a minimum. I think we need more disclaimers that these are not humans. I think just saying it once to a consumer is just not sufficient. I think that we need some surveillance of the types of chats that's happening, particularly having to report out by these companies when they're noticing harmful discussions around suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior or violence of that type. So I think there are a variety of different things that we could see happening, but we need probably some regulatory body to insist that these companies do it. Dana Taylor: Are there any other protections proposed by the AI companies themselves that you see as having merit? Vaile Wright: I think because of this increased attention on how these chatbots are operating, you are seeing some changes around it, maybe age verification or offering resources like 911 or 988 pop up when they detect something that maybe is unhelpful, but I think they need to go even further. Dana Taylor: For young people in particular when using a chatbot, it can be difficult to recognize that they're dealing with a chatbot to begin with. Will it continue to get more difficult as the tech evolves, and does that mean it could be more dangerous for young people in the years to come? Vaile Wright: It's clear that the technology is getting more and more sophisticated, and it is really challenging I think for everybody to really be able to tell that these are not humans. They are built to sound and respond like humans. And with younger people who maybe are just more emotionally vulnerable, are also not as developmentally long in terms of their cognition and their, again, sense of being able to listen to your own gut, I do get worried that these digital natives, who have been interacting seamlessly with technology since the beginning, are just not going to be able to discern when the technology is going rogue or being truly harmful. Dana Taylor: Vaile, depending on where a patient lives or for other reasons, there can be a long wait list to see a therapist. Are there are some benefits that a bot can provide due to the fact that it's not human and is virtually available 24/7? Vaile Wright: Again, I think bots that are going to be developed for these purposes can be immensely helpful. And in fact, some of the bots that currently exist we do know anecdotally have had benefits. So for example, if it's 2:00 in the morning and I'm experiencing distress, even if I had a therapist, I can't call them at 2:00 in the morning. But if I had a chatbot that could provide me with some support, maybe encourage some strong healthy coping skills, I do see some benefit in that. We've also heard from the neurodivergent community that these chatbots provide them an opportunity to practice their social skills. So I think knowing that these can have some benefit, how do we capitalize on ensuring that whatever emerging technologies we build and offer are safe and effective because we can't just keep doing therapy with one model. We can't expect everybody to be able to see a face-to-face individual on a weekly basis because the supply is just too insufficient. So we have to think outside the box. Dana Taylor: Are you aware of human therapists that are joining forces today with chatbots to meet this overwhelming need for therapy? Vaile Wright: Yeah. Subject matter experts, whether it's psychologists or other therapists, play a critical role in ensuring that these technologies are safe and effective. There was a new study that came out of Dartmouth recently that looked at a mental health therapy chatbot called Therabot that, again, showed some really strong outcomes in improving depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. And that's an example of how you bring the researchers and the technologists together to develop products that are safe, effective, responsible, and ethical. Dana Taylor: Some high school counselors are providing chatbots to answer students' questions. Some see it as filling a gap. But does this prevent young people from social capital, the ties in human interaction, that can often make anyone feel more connected to others, their community, and therefore less alone? Vaile Wright: It's clear that young people are feeling disconnected and lonely. We did a survey recently where 71% of 18 to 34 year olds said that they don't feel like they can talk about their stress with others because they don't want to burden people. So how do we take that understanding and recognize why people are using these chatbots to fill these gaps while also helping people really appreciate the value of human connection? I don't want the conversation to always be AI versus humans. It's really about what does AI do really well, what do humans do really well, and how can we capitalize on both of those things together to help people reduce their suffering faster? Dana Taylor: What's the biggest takeaway that you'd like people to walk away with when it comes to chatbots and therapy? Vaile Wright: AI isn't going anywhere. People for centuries have always tried to seek out self-help ways to address their emotional well-being. That used to be Google docking doctor. Now it's chatbots. So we can't stop people from using them. And as we talked about, there could be some benefits to it, but how do we help consumers understand that there may be better options out there, better chatbot options even, and helping them be more digitally literate to understand when a particular chatbot maybe is not only just not being helpful, but actually harmful. Dana Taylor: Vaile, thank you for being on The Excerpt. Vaile Wright: Thanks so much for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks for our senior producers Shannon Ray Green and Kaylee Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producers Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
