Latest news with #MaureenGroppe
USA Today
7 days ago
- Health
- USA Today
Suspect charged with federal hate crime in Boulder attack
Suspect charged with federal hate crime in Boulder attack | The Excerpt On Tuesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: A 45-year-old suspect has been charged with a federal hate crime in the attack on a Colorado pro-Israel protest. Russia and Ukraine hold peace talks after Ukraine's recent drone strikes. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe takes a look at the high court's move to take up a challenge to a grace period for mail-in ballots. A new study has found a link between chronic cannabis use and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. USA TODAY National Immigration and Border Reporter Lauren Villagran tells us about volunteers who search for migrant remains along the U.S.-Mexico border. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ 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 Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today we're learning more about the suspect in the Boulder attack. Plus the Supreme Court takes up a challenge to a grace period for mail-in ballots, and how volunteers search for bodies along the southern border. ♦ The man accused of setting 12 people on fire at a pro-Israel protest has been charged with a federal hate crime. He told investigators he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished all of them were dead. According to an FBI affidavit released yesterday. 45-year-old Mohammed Sabry Soliman is accused of attacking a demonstration with a makeshift flamethrower and firebombs while shouting, "Free Palestine." Injuries to victims range from minor to serious. According to an affidavit, the suspect told investigators he planned the attack for a year and waited for his daughter to graduate before carrying it out. A judge has set bond at $10 million. Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff said the suspect overstayed a tourist visa issued in 2022. You can read more with the link in today's show notes. ♦ During peace talks yesterday, Russia told Ukraine that it would only agree to end the war if Ukraine concedes large amounts of territory and agrees to limits on the size of its army, according to a memorandum reported by Russian media. It's the latest refusal out of Moscow to compromise on its war goals. Negotiations in Turkey came after Ukraine destroyed dozens of enemy bombers over the weekend using drones smuggled deep into Russia. It was the most damaging Ukrainian attack on Russia in the three years since Moscow invaded. ♦ The Supreme Court will decide if a challenge to an Illinois grace period for mail-in ballots can proceed. I spoke with USA TODAY's Supreme Court correspondent Maureen Groppe to learn more. Hello, Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Hello. Taylor Wilson: All right, so what is this challenge, Maureen, and what will the Supreme Court now be deciding? Maureen Groppe: This case is about Illinois law that lets mail-in ballots be counted if they are postmarked on or before the day of the election and received within two weeks. The court isn't deciding whether that grace period is allowed, which Republicans say it's not. Instead, they're deciding whether a congressman as Republican congressman Michael Bost has what is called standing to even bring this challenge into court to have the lawsuit proceed. Taylor Wilson: Well, how did this play out in the lower courts, Maureen? Maureen Groppe: Well, the lower court said that the congressman can't bring the case because he hadn't shown he had been sufficiently harmed by the law. He said he's harmed because he has to spend campaign funds to contest any objectionable ballots that come in after election day. So he says that's an extra cost to his campaign that he wouldn't have if there was no grace period. But the Chicago-based Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals, they dismissed that argument. One of the judges said it was speculative at best that later ballots could cause him to lose an election, and the judge noted that this congressman won by 75% in the most recent election before this decision came out. But one of the three appeals court judges who ruled on this lawsuit said he would have let it proceed. Taylor Wilson: Well, you know Republicans have been pushing back and even trying to end this practice in a variety of other ways. How so, Maureen? Maureen Groppe: They've been challenging state laws individually, like in this suit, and in Mississippi. And recently President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, would prevent such grace periods. His executive order does a lot of things about election law, but this is one of the things that it would do, but that order is also being challenged in court. Taylor Wilson: All right, and really what's the potential broader impact of a SCOTUS decision here? Maureen Groppe: Well, the broader impact for the specific legal question that the Supreme Court agreed to hear is how hard it should be for a candidate to be able to challenge election law. What do they have to show, what kind of harms do they have to show to let them challenge an election rule that they don't agree with? And in the appeal to the court trying to give them reasons for why they should take this case, the lawyers for the Congressmen said the court needed to hear this because there's this growing trend of courts limiting candidate's ability to challenge electoral rules. Taylor Wilson: All right, we are smarter on all things Supreme Court anytime you stop by. Thanks Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Thanks for having me. ♦ Taylor Wilson: A new study has found a link between chronic cannabis use, including in edible form, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease that's comparable to the effects of smoking tobacco. The study is the latest to associate cannabis with negative health impacts and was conducted by researchers at the University of California San Francisco, who analyzed the cardiovascular health of 55 people who consumed cannabis at least three times a week for at least a year. They found vascular function was reduced by about half when compared with those who did not consume cannabis regularly. They also showed signs of increased risk for premature heart disease researchers found similar to tobacco smokers. Those included in the study were tested to ensure they do not smoke tobacco or vape and were not frequently exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke. You can read more of the study's findings with a link in today's show notes. ♦ At the southern border a group of volunteers has a grim task, to find the remains of migrants who had passed away in the desert. I spoke with USA TODAY National Immigration and Border Reporter Lauren Villagran for more. Thanks for joining me as always, Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Thanks, Taylor. Taylor Wilson: So I want to hear about these volunteers and their work here in a second, but just first, how many migrants, Lauren, die along the border, especially in this part of the El Paso sector? Lauren Villagran: So Taylor, for the past two years, we don't actually know what the death toll has been, border-wide, California to Texas. What we do know is in El Paso sector, which is a 264-mile area stretching from West Texas through New Mexico, last year, 176 remains of likely migrants were found in the desert area here. The year before it was 149. But Taylor, just five or six years ago, that number was in the single digits. Taylor Wilson: So how do folks often die along the border, Lauren? What are some of the causes and why is this part of the border so deadly? Lauren Villagran: People will have different opinions about this, but what is certain is that as the United States has hardened its borderline as border security has become more intense and the border fencing higher. For example, in much of the border now it's 30 feet high, migrants are more easily injured. Specifically in this area, though, Taylor, the desert outside of El Paso is hot. It's very hot in the summer, but it wasn't at Arizona levels, we don't see temperatures like north of 110 degrees. But the last two years we've had extreme summer temperatures, more triple-digit days than ever before. And during this period, the past two years, there was a massive wave of migration. So that meant that more people were trying to make the risky and often deadly illegal crossing. Taylor Wilson: Well, Lauren, for this piece, I know you spoke with some volunteers who are working out in the desert to find human remains. What did you hear from them and the work they're doing? Lauren Villagran: So it should be said that to start, it is the responsibility of federal, state, and local authorities to investigate and find bodies. But this desert, even though it is near the urban footprint, can at times be vast. This particular New Mexico based group called Battalion Search and Rescue, run by James Holman and Abbey Carpenter is fashioned after other groups like it in Arizona and California where volunteers have rallied to search for missing migrants and often turn up migrant remains. Here in southern New Mexico, this group goes out once a month, combs through the desert, looking for any remains that may have been left behind. Or in a best case scenario, migrants who might be lost or missing. Unfortunately, in recent months they've often turned up bones. Taylor Wilson: Such a trying work. What happens with the remains once they find them, Lauren? Lauren Villagran: These volunteers fill out paperwork noting the precise location of the remains that they have found. They tie brightly colored tape to desert brush and they phone it in to local law enforcement. The volunteers are not authorized to touch or collect the bones. So the ball really lies with the state, both the office of the medical investigator in New Mexico and local law enforcement like the Doña Ana County Sheriff to go out and collect the remains that are still there in the desert. Taylor Wilson: These folks, who are they, Lauren? What prompted them to get involved with this type of work? And I'm also curious what they say about the impact on them and what they've come away with after it. Lauren Villagran: Yeah, so for example, Abbey Carpenter is a retired college administrator. She used to teach English as a second language classes in Arizona. And when she went on her first search, she told me it was a really emotional moment in which she recalled hearing about the journeys of her students, migrants who did survive the dangerous journey through the desert, who now live and work in the United States and in seeing the piles of clothes that you sometimes find in the desert, Taylor, pants and shirts and abandoned things left behind, she told me she really saw the journeys of her former students. I know that some of those who got involved here had recently learned about the uptick in migrant deaths. And what's harrowing about it, Taylor, is that the number 176 is the number of bodies that were found. But as these volunteers tell me, every time they go to look, they often find a new site, which means that there could be more remains out in the desert that remain undiscovered. Taylor Wilson: Wow. Well, as for customs and border protection, you mentioned this Missing Migrant Program that they created back in 2017. It's been renamed the Missing Alien Program here under the latest Trump administration. What can you tell us about that program and its potential impact amid all this? Lauren Villagran: US Border Patrol agents are frequently the first to come upon remains or migrants obviously in distress. So this was a program that is run by US Border Patrol that tries to work to connect family members to their consulates and the possibility of remains. Of course, when you really dial it back, whenever there is an enforcement measure, you're going to see migrants take additional risks and that's also in part what's contributed to the rising death toll. Taylor Wilson: All right, folks can find the full version of this story with the link in today's show notes. Lauren Villagran covers the border and immigration for USA TODAY. Thanks, Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Thanks, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. If you have any comments or questions, you can email us at podcasts@ I'm Taylor Wilson and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS news: Creation of nation's first religious charter school blocked
WASHINGTON − A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the creation of the nation's first religious charter school, a major case about the separation of church and state. The court split 4-4 over whether to allow the school, leaving in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision that a religious charter school would violate the Constitution. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the decision. A "religious charter school" refers to a concept where a publicly funded charter school would explicitly incorporate religious instruction, doctrine, or practices into its curriculum and operations. While private religious schools exist and can receive some indirect public benefits through voucher programs (where parents choose a school), the direct public funding and operation of a school that teaches religion as truth, within the charter school framework, is largely prohibited and faces significant legal and constitutional hurdles. Maureen Groppe, USA Today, contributed to this story. This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: SCOTUS opinions: Religious charter schools blocked
The Herald Scotland
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Live: Supreme Court hears arguments in religious charter school case
In some recent cases where those portions of the Constitution have been in tension, the Supreme Court came down on the side of protecting religious exercise, expanding the role of religion in public life. A similar decision in the case from Oklahoma could greatly increase the use of taxpayer money for religious education. Follow along for updates from the debate. Dig deeper: Supreme Court to weigh nation's first religious charter school: What's at stake in blockbuster case? The case is one of three that could make this a blockbuster term of religious rights. The court is also deciding whether parents with religious objections can request that their children be excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. And they're deciding whether a Wisconsin Catholic charitable organization should be exempt from state unemployment taxes. During both oral arguments, the court appeared likely to side with the religious groups. --Maureen Groppe The Catholic Church says religious charter schools are the logical next step following a trio of rulings since 2017 that allowed taxpayer funds to flow to religious organizations when a program is generally available to others. In 2022, the court said Maine couldn't exclude religious schools from an indirect aid program based on the schools' religious use of the funds. In 2020, the court said a Montana scholarship program could not exclude religious schools if the program was open to any private schools. In 2017, the court backed a church preschool's challenge to its exclusion from a Missouri grant program to resurface playgrounds. --Maureen Groppe Justice Amy Coney Barrett is not participating in the oral arguments. Although she didn't give a reason for her recusal, Barrett is close friends with the Notre Dame Law School professor who was an early legal adviser to the Catholic Church in Oklahoma. Her absence means the court could deadlock 4-4 on a decision. If they do, that would leave in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision that religious charter schools are not allowed. --Maureen Groppe The court's decision is expected to turn on whether charter schools - which are publicly funded but have private operators - are public schools under the law. If they are, religious charter schools could violate the Constitution's prohibition on the government backing a religion. If they're not, prohibiting the church from participating in the state's charter school program could be discrimination under the Constitution's promise that Americans can practice religion freely. --Maureen Groppe The Catholic education that the church wants to offer Oklahoma children through the state's public charter school program is likelyfamiliar to the justices. Seven were raised Catholic. Six are still practicing Catholics And six went to Catholic schools. That might give extra weight to one of the church's arguments for why the justices should allow them to run a charter school. They argue that Oklahoma's insistence that public schools be "free from sectarian control," stems from a 19th-century movement that led to multiple states blocking religious schools from receiving taxpayer dollars. The movement was spurred by prejudice against immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants, they say. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, however, has countered that the state's constitution can't be smeared with that stain. --Maureen Groppe
USA Today
30-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court hears arguments on blockbuster religious charter school case: live updates
Supreme Court hears arguments on blockbuster religious charter school case: live updates Show Caption Hide Caption SCOTUS takes up case on LGBTQ+, inclusive books in schools Demonstrators on both sides protested as the Supreme Court heard a school district's case on parents' rights and LGBTQ+ books. WASHINGTON − A major test of the separation of church and state is before the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices debate whether to allow the Catholic Church in Oklahoma to run the nation's first religious charter school. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion but also says the government cannot prohibit people from freely exercising religion. In some recent cases where those portions of the Constitution have been in tension, the Supreme Court came down on the side of protecting religious exercise, expanding the role of religion in public life. A similar decision in the case from Oklahoma could greatly increase the use of taxpayer money for religious education. Follow along for updates from the debate. Dig deeper: Supreme Court to weigh nation's first religious charter school: What's at stake in blockbuster case? The case is one of three that could make this a blockbuster term of religious rights. The court is also deciding whether parents with religious objections can request that their children be excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. And they're deciding whether a Wisconsin Catholic charitable organization should be exempt from state unemployment taxes. During both oral arguments, the court appeared likely to side with the religious groups. --Maureen Groppe The Catholic Church says religious charter schools are the logical next step following a trio of rulings since 2017 that allowed taxpayer funds to flow to religious organizations when a program is generally available to others. In 2022, the court said Maine couldn't exclude religious schools from an indirect aid program based on the schools' religious use of the funds. In 2020, the court said a Montana scholarship program could not exclude religious schools if the program was open to any private schools. In 2017, the court backed a church preschool's challenge to its exclusion from a Missouri grant program to resurface playgrounds. --Maureen Groppe Justice Amy Coney Barrett is not participating in the oral arguments. Although she didn't give a reason for her recusal, Barrett is close friends with the Notre Dame Law School professor who was an early legal adviser to the Catholic Church in Oklahoma. Her absence means the court could deadlock 4-4 on a decision. If they do, that would leave in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision that religious charter schools are not allowed. --Maureen Groppe The court's decision is expected to turn on whether charter schools – which are publicly funded but have private operators – are public schools under the law. If they are, religious charter schools could violate the Constitution's prohibition on the government backing a religion. If they're not, prohibiting the church from participating in the state's charter school program could be discrimination under the Constitution's promise that Americans can practice religion freely. --Maureen Groppe The Catholic education that the church wants to offer Oklahoma children through the state's public charter school program is likelyfamiliar to the justices. Seven were raised Catholic. Six are still practicing Catholics And six went to Catholic schools. That might give extra weight to one of the church's arguments for why the justices should allow them to run a charter school. They argue that Oklahoma's insistence that public schools be 'free from sectarian control,' stems from a 19th-century movement that led to multiple states blocking religious schools from receiving taxpayer dollars. The movement was spurred by prejudice against immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants, they say. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, however, has countered that the state's constitution can't be smeared with that stain. --Maureen Groppe
USA Today
27-03-2025
- Automotive
- USA Today
Trump announces 25% auto tariffs
Trump announces 25% auto tariffs | The Excerpt On Thursday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: President Donald Trump has announced new tariffs - this time on automobiles. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe breaks down a busy week for the high court. The Trump administration was again on the defensive Wednesday as the fallout continues over officials using the encrypted chat app Signal to discuss war plans. USA TODAY MLB Reporter Gabe Lacques takes a look ahead to the 2025 baseball season on Opening Day. Check out a special Deep Dive episode on the future of robot umpires. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson. And today is Thursday, March 27th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today, a fresh round of tariffs. Plus, a busy week for the Supreme Court, and baseball is back. ♦ President Donald Trump yesterday imposed 25% tariffs on imported automobiles. Trump detailed the tariffs, which will start at 2.5% and rise to 25% on all foreign cars and light trucks, in front of reporters in the Oval Office. Automobiles that fall under the umbrella of imports protected in the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, a trade deal orchestrated by Trump in his first term, will not be subject to the full tariff rate. Instead, the U.S. will only put tariffs on the foreign parts that make up vehicles imported from Canada and Mexico. The tariffs are set to go into effect next week on April 2nd, and the latest move comes ahead of Trump's long promised reciprocal tariffs, which are also set to go into effect the same day, where the United States will respond to any nation's tariffs on U.S. exports with tariffs of the same rate on imports from that country. Stocks have been on a roller coaster ride as Trump has announced then walked back various rounds of tariffs over the past several weeks. Consumer sentiment has also been slammed, and inflation expectations have spiked, concerning some Federal Reserve members. Trump has argued that leveling tariffs on a broad set of industries will boost the nation's declining manufacturing sectors. ♦ The Supreme Court has been busy this week. I caught up with USA TODAY Supreme Court correspondent Maureen Groppe for a look at some of what they've been up to. Hello, Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Hey, how are you? Taylor Wilson: Good. Thanks for hopping on today, Maureen. So I know the Supreme Court has been busy this week. Let's start with the High Court upholding some ghost gun regulations. What did they functionally decide? Maureen Groppe: So this was a challenge to regulations that under the Biden administration the government put in place to try to deal with ghost guns. These are guns that can be easily assembled from parts, but they avoid the background checks and other requirements for fully manufactured guns. And so they've proliferated at crime scenes, and the administration issued this regulation to say that they should be treated like other weapons. And the Supreme Court in a seven-two decision agreed with that. They thought that the statutory language allowed that. So this was a decision that did not turn on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. It was a question of did the government correctly interpret the law, a Gun Control Act, that sets up regulations for other weapons? Did it correctly interpret the law when it extended those regulations to this type of weapon? Taylor Wilson: Well, also yesterday we saw the Trump administration ask the court to let it cancel teacher preparation grants. What are these grants, Maureen, and what context can you give us here? Maureen Groppe: These are grants that are used to prepare teachers particularly for teaching jobs that are harder to fill, either because of the subject matter or because of the schools' more challenging situations where they're teaching. And the Trump administration canceled these grants. And eight Democratic attorneys generals are challenging that, saying that they couldn't just arbitrarily cancel the grants. They need to have a specific legal reason to do so and they didn't. And the first judge to look at this case initially sided with them, saying he thinks that right now, at this early stage, the evidence is on their side. And so he told the administration that they had to restore the grants as this case is being litigated. And the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to put that decision on hold, to say no, that they should be able to cancel these grants while these states continue to challenge whether they were legally canceled. Taylor Wilson: All right. I know conservatives have targeted a phone and internet subsidy program. What is this case all about, Maureen, and what might be some broader implications on this? Maureen Groppe: There was a specific issue at stake here and then a broader one. The broader issue that the courts were looking at is this question of how much of Congress's legislative power can it delegate to a federal agency to carry out a law? And in this case, Congress had in 1996 passed this law to make sure that there was universal phone and internet service around the country. So the Federal Communications Commission has this procedure where it decides how much money needs to be raised by telecommunication carriers to subsidize the services in rural areas where it's more expensive and to help lower income people get these services and to fund them in libraries and schools. And the challengers said that Congress had given away essentially its taxing authority because the FCC in conjunction with a private entity that helps determine each quarter how much money needs to be raised, that they're the ones making the decision about this, what they call a tax, when it's Congress that should have specifically said, "Here's how much money should be raised." It sounded like today, though, that a majority of the justices did not think that the Congress gave away too much of its authority here. So they're likely to keep this program in place. And the larger issue was whether they were going to take this case as a chance to sort of tighten their standards on how much authority Congress can give to an agency to do something. So we'll see whether they say anything about that. But it looks for now like they're going to say that this universal service fund, which provides about $8 billion in funding for rural hospitals, rural residents, for libraries and schools across the country and others, that that should be okay. Taylor Wilson: And finally, Maureen, what's the latest from this gerrymandering case out of Louisiana, and why is this significant? Maureen Groppe: This is a case that gets at this tricky issue that states sometimes have where they have to both comply with a Civil Rights Act that says you can't dilute the voting power of a racial minority, but you also have to comply with the Constitution, which says you have to treat people equally. So how do you avoid what's called racial gerrymandering while also making sure that racial minorities are able to be fully represented? So in Louisiana, what happened is after the last census, the legislature, like all legislatures, redrew their congressional lines to address the population changes. And even though the state has one-third Black, there was only one majority Black congressional district of the state's six congressional districts. So civil rights groups sued and a court said, yeah, "We think that there was a way to create a second majority Black district while still doing so properly and not infringing on anybody else's rights." But when the state legislature did that, a group of self-described non-Black voters sued saying, "Hey, this was discrimination against us." So Louisiana's officials came to the Supreme Court and said, "Look, we're between a rock and a hard place. We're supposed to have the ability to juggle these two things. We think we did it in an okay way here, and we need you to both tell us we did. And also if you think we didn't, states need clearer guidance on how we're supposed to be able to do both of those things that sometimes can seem to be in conflict." Taylor Wilson: All right, folks can find links to these full stories in today's show notes. Maureen Groppe covers the Supreme Court for USA Today. Thank you, Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Thank you. ♦ Taylor Wilson: The Atlantic magazine published Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's messages to a group chat detailing the times and weapons used to strike Houthi targets in Yemen, as the fallout deepened over Trump administration officials using the encrypted chat app Signal to discuss war plans. In a new article published yesterday morning, Jeffrey Goldberg, the magazine's editor-in-chief, posted pictures of messages Hegseth sent the chat, which included President Donald Trump's highest level national security officials, listing the planned launch times of F-18s and Tomahawks. The White House acknowledged that Goldberg was accidentally added to the chat. But during her briefing with reporters yesterday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the chat contained no classified information and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth continued to push back against characterizations that the information he texted other Trump administration officials in the chat was classified war plans. President Trump is still confident in his national security team and won't be firing any of the officials involved in the chat, according to Karoline Leavitt. ♦ A new Major League Baseball season begins today, and I spoke with USA Today MLB reporter Gabe Lacques about some of the things he's looking out for. Spring is in the air. Thanks for hopping on today. Gabe Lacques: Oh, you got it. It's coming up quicker than we even could have imagined, I think. Taylor Wilson: Absolutely. And you have this great piece, Gabe, the Non-hater's Guide to the 2025 MLB Season. I love that. I think it's going to annoy some folks though with where we start, but I think we have to start by talking about the defending champions, the Los Angeles Dodgers. What is the mood around this team, Gabe, as we enter this season, and have they become baseball's villains for some folks? Gabe Lacques: It kind of seems like it, which is kind of funny because it's not like they're the Yankees of the late nineties. They hadn't won a full season championship since 1988 until they won last year. They did win the Covid-shortened season of 2020. But people have really kind of gravitated toward them as making the game unfair. But I find it interesting that so many of the players that they have now that make them so great were easily available to other teams. And they had the financial might to do so, but they also took advantage of opportunities. When you look at Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman and Blake Snell, and to some extent Shohei Ohtani, other teams had a chance to either retain them, pursue them earnestly in free agency, extend them with a contract with their original teams, and none saw fit to do so. And a lot of it is a bit of financial disparity, but a lot of it is also just they're highly motivated to take advantage of what they see as pretty big opportunities, and it's going to show up on the field this year. Taylor Wilson: Well, we should talk about one of those players you just mentioned. That's of course Shohei Ohtani, probably the marquee start in the sport right now, Gabe. I know he's bringing pitching back this year. What are you excited about with Shohei in 2025? Gabe Lacques: His athleticism never really ceases to amaze. We get used to thinking that basketball players, maybe football players, soccer players even, are the best athletes on the planet. In nine out of ten cases, that's probably the case that that person is going to come from one of those sports. But it's hard to not say that Shohei Ohtani is the best athlete on the planet, simply because the two-way ability is one thing, the ability to steal bases is another. I mean, a guy with a capability to steal 50, even with the newfangled rules, and hit 50 home runs is such a unique skill set. And then you throw on the fact that he's nearly a Cy Young caliber pitcher when he's healthy. And one thing I always come back to, because I think pitchers get a little bit of a raw deal in terms of just athleticism, whenever you see another athlete, or heaven forbid a celebrity, try to throw out a first pitch at a game, how many viral videos are there, you know, a 6 foot 8 basketball player who otherwise looks indomitable get out there and uncork something? It's a really hard thing to do. And so, it really is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing. And I think people would be a little bit silly to be upset about the Dodgers, and by extension Ohtani, just because the rich seem to get richer. But hey, he's on a really marquee team where we can really enjoy his exploits. And we're kind of fortunate for that in a sense. Taylor Wilson: I've said that for years about pitching, and it's athleticism, Gabe, [inaudible 00:11:48] that point. Honestly. So we have this kind of bizarre stadium situation for two teams this year, Gabe, the Rays and the A's. What can you tell us here and what sorts of wrinkles might this bring? Gabe Lacques: The A's are going to play in a Triple-A ballpark in Sacramento and the Rays are going to play in a Class A ballpark in Tampa. Now, that might seem like the A's have the better scenario, but keep in mind, this is the New York Yankees' spring training home and their headquarters. So it's right around 10,000, maybe a little more if you throw in standing room or whatnot. They've done $10-50 million of renovations, not just for the Yankees but for the Rays as well. Tropicana Field is unplayable for this season due to the two hurricanes that they had last fall. So the Yankees have kind of bailed them out. And in a sense that it could be good for the Rays, the Tampa St. Pete area. It's surrounded by bridges and bodies of water. It's a real pain getting places. And Tropicana Field is in St. Petersburg, which isn't far as the crow flies from Tampa, but to try to get there by a car can be a real pain. For the A's, the facilities aren't quite as up to snuff as they are in Tampa. For instance, the visiting clubhouse is out in the outfield. So every time a guy needs to go to the bathroom or wants to get a snack or look at something on video, they just disappear into the catacombs of a stadium. You never notice it. Well, now you're going to notice, oh, this guy just came back from a visiting clubhouse because he had to walk 200 feet. It's going to be a challenge, to be sure. Taylor Wilson: And I mean, we should note, Gabe, of course, the A's are in this kind of a limbo period in Sacramento before they eventually move to Las Vegas. So as for what'll actually happen on the diamond, Gabe, I mean, is there a dark horse team that maybe you're keeping an eye on that some folks may not have on their radar? Gabe Lacques: Kind of into the Detroit Tigers right now. They eliminated the Astros last year. They have the best pitcher in the game in Tarik Skubal. They brought back Jack Flaherty, who they traded to the Dodgers last year. So kind of a good deal for them. They got their starting shortstop back in that trade and then ended up re-signing Flaherty after the season. They have some really good young players, when you look at Riley Greene, their all-star outfielder. Skubal fronts the rotation. They made it in as a wild card kind of by the skin of their teeth last year. I think they're going to win their division this year. This may be a year where you see a team like Detroit, maybe a team like Arizona insert themselves into this and kind of mess up what we perceive as the new world order. Taylor Wilson: All right, Gabe Lacques covers Major League Baseball for USA Today. Happy opening day, Gabe. Appreciate the time. Gabe Lacques: Yeah, a long one ahead. We'll do it a one day at a time. Taylor Wilson: This spring, Major League Baseball experimented with a new kind of robot umpire challenge system that could arrive in the regular season by next year. For a closer look at what that might mean for the sport going forward, check out Gabe and I's special deep-dive episode from earlier this month. We have a link in today's show notes. ♦ The key to a long and healthy life could lie in your gut. New research shows that early indicators of some diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's can be traced to whether or not you've had chronic bowel issues during life. Sean Gibbons: The microbiome doesn't have a super, super strong effect on human health and disease in the short term. It seems to be critical for our long-term health and longevity. Taylor Wilson: Sean Gibbons, a microbiologist at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, joins my colleague Dana Taylor to discuss what bowel movements or a lack of them reveal about our health. Catch that conversation today, beginning at 4:00 P.M. Eastern Time right here on The Excerpt. ♦ And thanks for listening. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA Today.
