Latest news with #USATODAY.com
USA Today
10-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Stocks soar as Trump pauses most tariffs
Stocks soar as Trump pauses most tariffs | The Excerpt On Thursday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY Money Editor Charisse Jones takes a look at the market response to President Donald Trump's move pausing reciprocal tariffs for most countries. A jailed U.S. citizen has been released in a prisoner swap with Russia. USA TODAY National Immigration Reporter Lauren Villagran discusses how tourists detained by ICE are revealing shocking detention conditions. International tourists are turning away from the U.S. as a travel destination. The Masters golf tournament tees off. Have feedback on the show? Please send us an email at 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, April 10th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today, markets rebounded after Trump's pause on tariff hikes, plus what tourists detained by ICE are revealing about the immigration system. Travelers are increasingly turning away from the US as a destination. ♦ The stock market bounced back yesterday as President Donald Trump paused his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. I spoke with USA TODAY money editor, Charisse Jones, for more. Charisse, thank you so much for hopping on today. Charisse Jones: Absolutely. Taylor Wilson: So another big day as it pertained to tariff news. What did we hear yesterday, Wednesday, on the tariff front? Charisse Jones: The tariffs have been a real roller coaster and President Trump announced that the tariffs that he was going to impose, basically on the entire world, of up to 50%, were now going to be on pause for 90 days. So there is a basic 10% levy that's going to be on everybody, but this really big uptick that a lot of countries were expecting did not happen, except for China, which has been engaged in a real tit-for-tat with the United States. And basically we'd increased tariffs for them up to 104% and then they said that they were going to increase tariffs on our goods up to 84%, and we decided to increase tariffs on Chinese goods to 125%. And that means a lot because we buy so much from China, everything from iPhones that are assembled there to sneakers. So this is something that can really have an impact on a lot of consumers. Taylor Wilson: Well, Charisse, it has been a brutal few days for the markets. What did we see there yesterday though, and what might it all mean for Americans, even if they're not investors? Charisse Jones: The markets had a rough three days for a while. They were basically losing trillions of dollars. And then when this pause was announced in terms of tariffs, investors were overjoyed and stocks surged, from airlines to Walmart. And even though everybody doesn't actively invest in the market, they mean a lot. Many of us have 401 Ks, some of us still have pensions, and that money's invested in the market. And if companies are worried, if they're pulling money out, if the shares in their companies are falling, that means that they might lay off. It means that they're less inclined to hire people. So again, the markets do play a strong role in all of our lives, and so the fact that it went in the other direction, even though the volatility may still continue, was something that people took as a really good sign Taylor Wilson: And folks are keeping a close eye on the bond market as well. What's the latest there and what does that tell us maybe about the economy more broadly? Charisse Jones: It shows that there are a lot of people that are still worried. I mean, they're selling off bonds, which is basically selling off US debt and getting into cash because they're still worried about inflation possibly going up because of these tariffs, because even though we've got this reprieve that's happening, it keeps escalating. There's still ongoing negotiations. You have a lot of countries that remain very concerned about the volatility that we're showing and not sure what direction the administration is going to go in. And so the fact that folks are continuing to sell off bonds shows that people are still very skittish despite the reprieve that we were able to see that made some investors feel a lot better yesterday. Taylor Wilson: JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, was on Fox yesterday, Charisse, where he created some news to do with the R-word talking of course, about recession. What did he say on this front? Charisse Jones: He was saying that there's a real concern with these tariffs that you might have. A lot of companies default on their debt. They've borrowed money and they won't be able to repay it. I mean, the R-word you have to be very careful with. I mean, there is a specific definition for that. It's two quarters in a row where you have declining economic activity. More broadly, it's when you see high unemployment, when you see consumer sentiment fall, people spending less, but clearly he is somebody that's one of our best known bankers. People pay attention to him and the fact that he made that comment definitely set off alarm bells. Taylor Wilson: So I guess, where do we go from here and what other indicators are we keeping an eye on as far as whether a recession might be lurking later this year? Charisse Jones: Well, we've got a consumer price index report that's coming out on Thursday, and that's going to basically tell us what's happening with inflation. The last report showed that inflation was at 2.8%, which was down from 3% the previous month. So it's going in the right direction. The Fed wants to see inflation at 2% or less, and that basically means that they won't continue to raise interest rates. They might even cut them, or at least they'll leave them stable. So that's one of the big reports that we're looking at right now. But otherwise, we're really just having to watch the administration and what these other countries are doing in response to what we are doing and seeing how that all plays out. Taylor Wilson: All right. USA TODAY, money editor, Charisse Jones, A super busy time for you, Charisse. Thanks for hopping on. Charisse Jones: Sure. ♦ Taylor Wilson: A lawyer for a Russian-American citizen told Reuters earlier today that she had been released in a prisoner swap between Russia and the US. Ksenia Karelina was found guilty last year of treason by a Russian court for donating money to a US-based charity providing humanitarian support to Ukraine. She was serving a 12-year prison sentence and left for the US earlier this morning. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the US, in exchange, freed Arthur Petrov, who was arrested in 2023 in Cyprus for allegedly exporting sensitive microelectronics. ♦ Tourists detained by ICE are revealing shocking detention conditions. I spoke with USA TODAY national immigration reporter, Lauren Villagran, about some of their stories. Hello, Lauren. Thanks so much for making some time on this. Lauren Villagran: Yeah. Thanks, Taylor. Taylor Wilson: Let's start with this mixed martial arts coach, Renato Subotic. What's his story? What happened here? Lauren Villagran: This mixed martial arts coach came to the US with a visa as he had done before, and he was detained after customs officers said that there was a "paperwork problem." In a case like this, normally somebody who is refused entry to the United States might just be put on a flight back home, but Subotic says he was taken to a chaotic federal detention center for 24 hours, so he was held in ICE custody. Taylor Wilson: I know you reported on this Harvard Medical School researcher, Kseniia Petrova, who has been in custody for weeks. Is that correct, Lauren? Lauren Villagran: Yeah, so Kseniia Petrova is apparently a very talented researcher at Harvard Medical School. She was flying back home to Boston at Logan International Airport, from France, carrying some specimens for some science they were doing. She failed to declare the specimens and again, where US Customs and Border Protection would normally confiscate some item that wasn't properly declared and sometimes issue a fine, CBP in this case, took away her J-1 work and study visa and transferred her over to ICE. She has been detained for now seven weeks. Taylor Wilson: Wow. And is there any sense on what's next for her story? Does she have any recourse? Lauren Villagran: Well, she has an attorney and numerous colleagues at Harvard fighting for her release, as well as a letter signed by 17 US Senators trying to get her out. They are requesting that she be released on parole so that she can go back to her life in Boston. But she is a Russian national, but is afraid to go back to Russia because she participated in protests against the Ukrainian war. Taylor Wilson: Lauren, what do experts say? The experiences of these folks tell us really about the reality for so many people stuck in this kind of ICE limbo? Lauren Villagran: A lot of attention is being paid to these, what I would call unusual ICE detainees, foreign travelers who normally would not find themselves in ICE detention over a minor error or immigration violation, and they're really shedding light on conditions that have long existed in ICE, Taylor., US Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs a nationwide network of immigration detention centers. They vary widely in terms of their conditions. Some are run by the government, some are run by private contractors. But these folks who are being detained, in some cases, they are highly educated, they are well-connected, and either while in detention or as soon as they get out, they're blowing the whistle, calling members of the media in one case, writing an op-ed for The Guardian newspaper and otherwise shedding light on conditions that, in some cases, for years sometimes, go unnoticed. Taylor Wilson: Well, just in terms of how specific this is to this moment, Lauren, I mean, how routine, I guess, are stories like this when it comes to ICE in general? You touched on this, but is there something distinct about what we've been seeing under this administration? Lauren Villagran: Definitely. Obviously, President Donald Trump has come in with the promise of an immigration crackdown. That's what millions of voters have asked for. On the campaign trail, he promised he was going to go after the worst of the worst criminals and the like. But what we have seen in the past weeks and months since he took office on January 20th, is that the crackdown has really swept in all sorts of people, not just criminals, but those with minor immigration violations or in the case of these folks, travelers who were just seeking entry to the country as a tourist or on a work study visa. Taylor Wilson: And I know in this piece you write that the Trump administration recently eliminated two key oversight offices. Can you talk through that? What are those and what might be the significance they're amid this conversation? Lauren Villagran: So a former ICE official I spoke with said, "You know, look, conditions can vary in ICE detention across the country. When you see an immigration crackdown, when you see a period of increased enforcement, you're going to see conditions deteriorate, in some cases, as facilities become overcrowded or contractors become overworked." That being said, this former ICE official said, "You know, historically there have been internal mechanisms to right any wrongs." So internal oversight. That's included the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the Department of Homeland Security, as well as an office for Immigration Detention Ombudsman. And those two offices in particular have been eliminated by the Trump administration. So a couple of the key oversight functions have disappeared. Taylor Wilson: All right. An important piece from you and Trevor Hughes. Lauren Villagran covers the border and immigration for USA TODAY. Thank you, Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Thanks, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Amid recent travel advisories warning, those coming to the US along with strengthened immigration enforcement, many international travelers are starting to turn away from the country as a destination. Between January and March of this year, foreign arrivals dropped by around 4.5% from those first three months last year, according to data from the National Travel and Tourism Office. In a March year-over-year comparison, that reduction doubles to almost 10%. Those north of the border may be playing a particularly large role in the drop. Last month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged his citizens to choose Canada for their travels rather than going to the US. And they are. Airline bookings from Canada to the US are plummeting and carriers are cutting flights by 3.5% between the two countries. You can read more with a link in today's show notes. ♦ Today marks the start of what's known as the tradition unlike any other, the Masters Golf Tournament in Georgia. For some bold predictions and more ahead of the next four days, we have a link in today's show notes, and you can stick with USA TODAY Sports. ♦ Spring is here, which means sneezing, itchy eyes and runny noses. If you're one of the unlucky sufferers, you might be wondering if allergy season is getting worse. Turns out you're right. Lewis Ziska: In regard to the amount of pollen, we're seeing increasing concentrations, particularly in the springs and again in the falls. Taylor Wilson: Lewis Ziska is an associate professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University and a co-author of a new study that looks at changes to allergy season. My colleague, Dana Taylor, sat down with Lewis to hash out why hay fever season is longer and more potent. Hear that conversation today, beginning at 4:00 PM Eastern Time, right here on this feed. ♦ And 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. I'm Taylor Wilson. I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
USA Today
22-03-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Boxing legend George Foreman dead at 76; combat sports community mourns
(This story originally appeared on Legendary boxer George Foreman has died at 76, according to a statement released by his family Friday night on his official Instagram account. The cause of death was not initially revealed by the family. Foreman had 81 total fights during his career with an overall record of 76-5 (68 wins by knockout). He was inducted into both the World Boxing Hall of Fame and the International Boxing Hall of Fame. He retired in 1997 at the age of 48. He became the oldest world heavyweight champion in history at 46. Our hearts are broken. With profound sorrow, we announce the passing of our beloved George Edward Foreman Sr. who peacefully departed on March 21, 2025 surrounded by loved ones. A devout preacher, a devoted husband, a loving father, and a proud grand and great grandfather, he lived a life marked by unwavering faith, humility, and purpose. A humanitarian, an Olympian, and two time heavyweight champion of the world, He was deeply respected — a force for good, a man of discipline, conviction, and a protector of his legacy, fighting tirelessly to preserve his good name— for his family. We are grateful for the outpouring of love and prayers, and kindly ask for privacy as we honor the extraordinary life of a man we were blessed to call our own. Notable from throughout the combat sports community mourned Foreman's death: Condolences to George Foreman's family. His contribution to boxing and beyond will never be forgotten. — Mike Tyson (@MikeTyson) March 22, 2025 Rest in Peace George Foreman and condolences to his entire family. He did great things inside and outside of the ring. Big George Forever Goated — Jake Paul (@jakepaul) March 22, 2025
USA Today
14-03-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Who did Jane Austen read?
Who did Jane Austen read? | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on March 13, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: There are few writers who have as devoted a following as celebrated English novelist Jane Austen, author of classics like 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility.' But is she really the 'first' great English female author? Rebecca Romney has built her career searching for rare books around the world. She joins The Excerpt to detail her path down a 5-years-long rabbit hole to discover the many female writers that Jane Austen was influenced by, something scholars had outright dismissed or just overlooked. Rebecca's new release 'Jane Austen's Bookshelf' is on bookshelves now. Have feedback on the show? Please send us an email at 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 Dana Taylor: There are a few writers who have as devoted a following as celebrated English novelist, Jane Austen. Author of classics like Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. But is she really the first great English female author? Our guest today has built her career searching for rare books around the world. In her new book, Rebecca Romney chronicles her path down a five-years-long rabbit hole to discover the many female writers that Jane Austen was influenced by, something scholars had outright dismissed or just overlooked. Rebecca's new release. Jane Austen's Bookshelf is on bookshelves now. Thanks for joining us on The Excerpt, Rebecca. Rebecca Romney: Thanks so much for having me. Dana Taylor: I want to start with your essential motivation for the book. Why should people today care about what Jane Austen was reading all the way back in the early 1800s? Rebecca Romney: They should care about what Austen was reading then if they care about Austen. When I was first a devoted reader of Austen, she only has six completed novels, and I would just read and reread them wishing that she had written more. She died very young at age 41, and I felt, oh, if only she had had a chance to write more. But in fact, even though she didn't, we do have novels by the women that she was reading who influenced her novels, who were writing in the same vein. And so what I realized was Austen has great taste. Let me look at these books and see if they're great too. And the reason I felt the need to write the book about it was because I went back and read them and they were good. And so I had a moment where I thought, okay, if Austen loved them and I loved them, why don't we read them anymore? And that was the story that set off the entire chase. Who did Jane Austen read? Rebecca Romney, a rare books expert, spent 5 years searching for the female writers that inspired Austen. Dana Taylor: One of the questions your book aims to answer is which writers and novels become part of the literary canon, and who gets to decide what belongs there. So how does that work? Rebecca Romney: We use the canon as a quick list of advice from authorities about which books in the history of literature are important enough that they should be read far beyond their initial publication, because we don't have time to read everything. We have to make decisions in advance about which books we're going to read. So we listen to authorities to say, you tell me you've read a lot, what should I read? And the canon is a consensus of authorities. But what happens is that we tend to use canon as a brick wall. If it's not in the canon, it must not be good and that's just not true. The canon is best served as a starting off point rather than an ending point. Dana Taylor: What was your process to track down the writers that Jane Austen named in her books, and how did you find proof that she actually read their work? Rebecca Romney: The process was going to her own words? There is a passage in Austen's book, Northanger Abbey, where she kind of breaks form. She has a moment where she takes away from the plot and the heroine and all of her troubles, and has this impassioned defense of the novel. She says, "I don't know why we should be embarrassed about reading novels. Everyone is happy to brag about reading Milton, but they're embarrassed to read novels." And she says, "I completely disagree with this. Some of the greatest diffusions of the human mind were put in novels." And then she names some. She names two novels by a woman named Frances Burney, and she names a novel by Maria Edgeworth who was publishing at the time that she was trying to get published. So those authors became the bookends, the beginning and ending of my Bookshelf. Dana Taylor: You wrote that it stung when you first realized that you had overlooked Frances Burney, one of the most popular writers during Jane Austen's lifetime. How do you think you and other scholars miss these writers? Rebecca Romney: What happened to me is I'm a professional in rare books, and so I sell first editions of important English novels. I sell Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. I sell Samuel Richardson's books like Clarissa and Pamela. I sell Tristram Shandy. These are all major 18th century novels. And so I had this moment where it was almost professional embarrassment of how had I overlooked these authors? And when I started poking around, when I had that initial moment, I thought, okay, let me learn more. I'm going to take this as an opportunity to be curious. So I started to poke around and I realized that this part of the English novel was so systematically undervalued by critics over centuries that modern feminist recovery scholars have given it a name. They call it the great forgetting. And so I was able to piggyback on the work of the modern feminist recovery movement in universities by professional scholars, in order to do my own version of it from the rare book side where I am actually collecting the books. And tracing the story of the rise and fall of the reputations of these authors over the course of my shelves book by book. Dana Taylor: Rebecca, on your list, which writer is your favorite to read and why? Rebecca Romney: That's a hard question. I am going to say Maria Edgeworth. Maria Edgeworth was the most acclaimed novelist, the most respected, most popularly read novelist during the period of about 1798 until well into when Austin's publishing. So essentially, Austin's trying to get published in the early 19th century and the 1800s and 1810s during that period. Maria Edgeworth is the number one novelist and the model that she's looking up to. I read probably about eight Maria Edgeworth novels, and I will say that I think Pride and Prejudice is a perfect book. But outside of that, Maria Edgeworth novels pound for pound match any of Austin's. Dana Taylor: Quite a few of these women writers that filled the chapters of your book were famous in their own times. What do you think were some of the reasons that they fell out of fashion? Rebecca Romney: Each woman has her own story about what happened to her reputation over the generations after her death. In some cases, it was direct attacks by critics. An example of that is Frances Burney, when her book The Wanderer came out, a critic wrote a very influential review calling her a mere common observer of manners and a very woman. Which he meant to say she only speaks about women's issues and that's not universal, that's not actually that interesting. If you're not universal, you're not canonical. So that was how he shunted her off to the side. But there are other writers like Ann Radcliffe whose reputations were affected in part because she stopped publishing at the height of her fame, and then retired and didn't want part of the public at all. So people thought that she had died long before she actually had. And later on when her admirers like the poet, Christina Rossetti wanted to do a biography of her, there wasn't enough information to create a biography that would have brought her new readers and new generations as is what happened with Jane Austen. Dana Taylor: Samuel Johnson was a man who was given credit for either passages or even entire books written by some of these female authors. How did that happen? Rebecca Romney: Samuel Johnson was a giant of English letters in the 18th century, and he was friends with a number of the women in this book. And he supported their careers. He was of material assistance. He helped convince publishers to get certain novels published. He was a believer in the talent of these women. But what happened was he was so famous that his own fame detracted from their accomplishments. A great example of this is Hester Lynch Piozzi, who was one of Samuel Johnson's closest friends who's best known as Mrs. Thrale, which was during her first marriage when they were very close. She specifically says that she did not start publishing books until after Samuel Johnson's death, because she worried that her works would be attributed to him as the genius, that he helped her. She didn't want anyone to think that she had gotten his help in order to write her books. In another case, there was a woman, Charlotte Lennox, who wrote an entire novel that was beloved at the time called The Female Quixote in 1752. And after both Johnson's and Lennox's deaths, critics started attributing the most famous chapter to Johnson for no reason except that it was a great chapter, and he was a friend and helper of Lennox. And the idea that if it's good, it must be by a man, is part of what perpetuated these slow deteriorations of these women's legacies. Dana Taylor: During Austen's time in history, some people considered women even reading to be inappropriate. You wrote that in addition to being bold enough to write, some of these authors fought against domestic abuse, patriarchal institutions and other threats women faced back then. Can you share a few of their stories? Rebecca Romney: Absolutely. Charlotte Smith is a great example of this. Charlotte Smith was married at the age of 15 to a man that was in an economic arrangement. They came from two wealthy families. Love had nothing to do with it. It was considered a good financial decision on both sides. The problem was that her husband was terrible. He was profligate, he was abusive, and he spent both sides of their fortune. So by the time she had 11 children, he was imprisoned for debt. That was a thing that could happen in the 18th century. You could be in prison for debt. So Charlotte Smith first started writing and publishing in order to make money to get him out of jail. And then after that point, when they had had 12 children, she finally left him. But she, in order to support her children, continued to write. So the novels that she wrote that Jane Austen loved, she only wrote in order to support herself and her children. But the really frightening thing about it was that she couldn't divorce him because if she did, then her children would lose access to their inheritance through her father-in-law. So that was not a legal choice that she could make. But as a married woman, she did not have independent legal status, which meant that her husband could show up at any time at her publishers and demand the money that she had made from her writing. And she would legally be able to do nothing about it. So she spent her entire life essentially, almost financially on the run from her husband because he still had legal control over her and her children even after she had left him. And when you read Charlotte Smith's novels, you see these themes come out. Charlotte Smith specifically talks about how you should not get married young. You shouldn't just do it because it seems economically like a good idea. Those themes are themes that Austen picks up in books like Persuasion, and you can see these conversations between these two women across novels saying, "Protect yourself because the law will knock." Dana Taylor: It wasn't until the 20th century that critics began recognizing Jane Austen's notes of irony and sarcasm in her novels. You detail how humor is often transgressive and connected that to the continued discussion of whether women can be funny. How do you think the use of humor worked for and against these female writers? Rebecca Romney: A number of these women were incredibly comedic and funny writers. Even today reading them, I would stop and laugh. Elizabeth Inchbald, the playwright, she wrote comedies and they're very funny. A lot of one-liners that are still incredibly fresh and sparkling today. And the problem is that humor has an association with being transgressive. A lot of times we get humor through shock and surprise. But what is shocking and surprising that a man can say is very different than what can be shocking and surprising, that what a woman can say. Especially in the 18th century, when there was the cultural resistance of what we call propriety. That women should act only a certain way, that they shouldn't be brazen and bold, that they shouldn't be transgressive. And so the women who were most famous for their wit and for their comedy and for pushing the boundaries, those are the ones who were most likely to attract critics that didn't like them. And that's going to affect their reputation over the long term. Dana Taylor: Rebecca, you write about moments from your own life and how you grew up in your book too. How did your life experiences connect with the stories of these women? Rebecca Romney: That was one of the biggest surprises about reading these books is I thought I was going to read some maybe entertaining books, maybe not, but I was going to learn a lot more about Jane Austen. And what moved me so much about these books is that they felt relevant to me today. The book Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe is all about women's agency and control over her own life. It's a gothic horror novel. It's a kind of a thriller, and it's a page turner. It gets your pulse up. It's absolutely wonderful. And it's also tackling this theme of how a woman has control over her own life to make her own decisions. So what I kept on finding in these women was that there were parallels across time. These struggles, as we were talking about before, this idea of whether you can be bold and witty, and whether people accept that today. We still struggle with that today. I was called bossy as a child. The story in the book is that my teacher had called me a strong leader, and the joke was what she meant was bossy. We had to take something that was a positive trait, but because I was a girl, they had to turn that into the negative trait of being bossy. So when I was reading about Charlotte Lennox being bold, I responded to that. There was something in these 18th century texts that still mattered to me today. Dana Taylor: Rebecca, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Rebecca Romney: Thank you so much 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
10-03-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Treasury secretary warns U.S. could enter 'detox period'
Treasury secretary warns U.S. could enter 'detox period' | The Excerpt On Saturday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY White House Reporter Joey Garrison explains what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's warning could mean for the U.S. economy. President Donald Trump threatens Russia with sanctions. American liquor, wine and spirits are pulled from Canadian shelves in response to Trump's tariffs. Officials released the cause of death for actor Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa. USA TODAY Border and Immigration Correspondent Lauren Villagran talks about the role faith plays in encouraging migrants to head towards the U.S. border. Have feedback on the show? Please send us an email at 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 Cody Godwin: Good morning. I'm Cody Godwin for Taylor Wilson. Today is Saturday, March 8th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today, Treasury Secretary Bessent warns that the U.S. economy may experience a detox period plus Trump threatens tariffs on Russia after a massive attack in Ukraine and how some immigrants are saying it's God himself who's telling them to come north. ♦ Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned Friday that the U.S. economy could enter a "detox period" as the Trump administration shifts from robust government spending to push more private sector spending. For more on what this means, my colleague Dana Taylor, spoke with USA TODAY White House reporter, Joey Garrison. Dana Taylor: Joey, thanks for hopping on the podcast. Joey Garrison: Thanks for having me on. Dana Taylor: So Joey, let's start with this rather ominous warning by Secretary Bessent. What is he trying to say here? Joey Garrison: Scott Bessent's appearance on CNBC Squawk Box, which is kind of a go-to show for economic insiders and the stock market watchers was asked about the recent stock market dive, although it did pick up on Friday and some of the other underlying economic metrics. And he said there could be what he called a detox period, a slowdown in the economy. He said, "Could we be seeing that the economy that we inherited is starting to roll a bit? Sure." And so this was an acknowledgement from the Trump administration of what we are seeing in the state of the economy right now in terms of some potential signs of slippage. There was also a new jobs report that the Trump administration touted, but it was 151,000 jobs reported in February, which was down below projections. And Trump ran on improving the economy, lowering consumer prices for Americans. But that latter promise in particular is proven a little bit harder perhaps than the day one lowering prices promised that Trump had suggested. Dana Taylor: So is the message from the Trump administration just stick with us and we'll get there? Joey Garrison: Yeah, pretty much. I mean, they are still blaming a lot of the current economic situation on the previous Biden administration. So for example, when Bessent was talking about the detox period, he was saying, look, we're moving from a period in which you had aggressive government spending under President Biden to where we're now trying to have less of that. Of course, we've seen that with the rapid cuts that DOGE led by Elon Musk and the firing of federal workers. We're trying to spend less from the government and push that more to the private sector and he's saying there could be this detox period before a "equilibrium" is struck there. But what they're not really acknowledging as part of the economic uncertainty right now brought on by these tariffs that President Trump has imposed on Canada and Mexico this past week. He started with 25% tariffs across the board, backtracked a little bit by first excluding automobile imports from those tariffs, and then any goods that are protected under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement. So he's kind of backtracked on that. But what tariffs are, of course are taxes on goods that are imported into the U.S. Economists point out that those prices are usually pushed down to consumers with higher price tags on goods people purchase. So when we saw the tumbling stock market over the past week, that was a response to those tariffs, which spooked a lot of companies out there and a lot of investors. Dana Taylor: Another campaign promise was lower interest rates. Did he say what the Trump admin was doing on this front? Joey Garrison: Yeah, I mean the Trump administration and Bessent, have been actively urging the Fed to lower interest rates. That's a different approach than President Biden who left the Fed to be independent and tried not to direct which way it was going with things. But Bessent was really downplaying it, which is kind of a shift. Of course, Trump in his first term was always quick to tout stock market gains that would occur, but Bessent in his interview said, Hey, look, there were stock market gains during the Biden administration, but that doesn't mean that the American people believed that there was a strong economy and noted that Biden was voted out. So it's definitely a shift in tone on how they're interpreting what they're seeing from the market right now. Dana Taylor: Joey, is there any good news that Treasury or the administration did share yesterday Joey Garrison: Regarding those jobs numbers, President Trump and Bessent, as well as other top economic advisors really touted the fact that the majority of newly created jobs were in the private sector, whereas often under President Biden, those jobs came from government employees. So they looked at that as evidence that their economic agenda is working and actually one top advisor said, Hey, we're starting to see a glimpse of the golden age to come. Of course, Trump talked about a new golden age in American prosperity when he was sworn into office, but I think they still want to pin some of the current problems that we're looking at on Biden, and I think as we move forward, that's just going to be more problematic to do. You get sort of a grace period I think after you're initially elected where you can say, look, I inherited this mess, but eventually people are going to look for him to fulfill that campaign promise. So there's a signs up there of a public and electorate that's antsy right now on the state of things. So when you have Treasury Secretary Bessent saying, Hey, look, we might have a detox period. I think that's maybe only going to stoke more anxiety out there. Dana Taylor: Joey Garrison covers the White House for USA TODAY. Thanks Joey. Joey Garrison: Hey, thanks for having me on. ♦ Cody Godwin: President Donald Trump said yesterday that he would not immediately resume U.S. weapons and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, adding that he remains unconvinced, Ukraine is ready for peace. Trump also threatened sanctions on Russia after it bombarded Ukraine with missiles Thursday night. The attack damaged energy infrastructure and led to a renewed call for Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky for a ceasefire. Trump said he was strongly considering large-scale banking restrictions, sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a peace deal is secured. The U.S. and its allies already have substantial sanctions on Russia that the Trump administration has said it intends to rigorously enforce. The relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine was recently thrown into chaos after a meeting between Trump and Zelensky went south last week. The Trump administration is now preparing to meet with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia next week to discuss a peace deal. ♦ Although tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico have received a temporary reprieve from Trump until April 2nd, American companies are already sweating over Canadian consumer backlash. U.S. liquor, wine and spirit brands have been pulled off the shelves of many Canadian stores as retaliatory response to Trump's tariffs. Lawson Whiting, CEO of Brown‐Forman, the maker of Jack Daniels said the move is, "worse than a tariff". Experts predict this sentiment could affect other industries in the U.S. too. Meat and agriculture products, apparel, autos, hotel and airlines among them. Economics Professor Kris Mitchener says that the share of most American companies exports to Canada is on average small. So most are insulated from the boycott there. He says if it spreads to other countries, that's when American companies would really feel the pressure. ♦ The cause of death for actor Gene Hackman has been released. The Oscar winner was found dead alongside his wife, Betsy Arakawa and their dog in their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico on February 26th. The New Mexico office of the medical investigator announced that Arakawa died from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare disease, and that Hackman died from natural causes about a week later. He had heart disease and complications caused by Alzheimer's disease. The investigators said that Hackman likely didn't know his wife had died citing his Alzheimer's disease. Hantavirus can be contracted from contact with rodents like rats and mice. It cannot pass from person to person and dogs cannot contract hantavirus. Hackman was 95 and his wife Arakawa was 64. Family members and Hollywood stars poured in with statements online mourning the actor. ♦ What role does faith play in encouraging migrants on the treacherous journey north to the U.S. border? A new study says a big one. My colleague Taylor Wilson spoke with USA TODAY border and immigration correspondent Lauren Villagran to learn more. Taylor Wilson: Hey there Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Hey Taylor. Taylor Wilson: So Lauren, what did this study find about the role of faith in migration and how exactly was this research carried out? Lauren Villagran: There's a really interesting report that's new from the University of Texas at El Paso and research partners that really shows in data what many border reporters have heard for years. Often when you interview migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, especially on the Mexican side, regardless of what's happening with U.S. policy, new obstacles that are being put in migrants way, you'll often hear them end their conversation with "Si Dios quiere" if God wishes, God willing. And researchers at the University of Texas at El Paso set out to understand what migrants really understood about the U.S. asylum system and found out in the course of their research that in fact faith and their own religiosity had as much influence on the decisions they made on Route North as what they understood about the asylum system, which was very little. Taylor Wilson: Something that caught my attention here, Lauren, was that in their home countries, migrants were not necessarily more religious than Americans according to survey findings. Can you talk through that and what is it about the migration journey that might lead folks to turn to God or spirituality? Lauren Villagran: I mean, we know that the migration journey over land from Latin America through Central America and Mexico can be incredibly dangerous. People face a host of threats, whether it's corrupt authorities, organized crime along the way, poverty struggles. This particular study, which was conducted in Ciudad Juárez across the river from El Paso, Texas during a four-month period in 2023 found, and just listen to this number Taylor, that 73% of migrants interviewed reported receiving a sign from God on their journey that encouraged them to keep going north. 71% reported praying at least once a day. And this again is even among people, maybe fewer than half of whom attended church services back in their home country. Taylor Wilson: You mentioned some of the confusion, Lauren, over the asylum process in recent years, even going back to the Biden era, how does that factor into this conversation and this idea of putting faith in religion or God or whatever spiritual foundation they have during all this confusion? Lauren Villagran: So we have to remember that this is an academic study, which means that it wasn't conducted yesterday. Things were very different at the border in 2023 when the research was conducted and there was a reigning narrative in the United States at the time that millions of people were trying to game the system, seek asylum when really they weren't going to qualify for it. And researchers set out to find out, well really how much did migrants from places like Guatemala, Honduras, or Venezuela, what did they really know about the U.S. immigration system, the U.S. asylum system, when they set out on their journey and what did they learn on their way? And what the researchers found was that they understood very little migrants tended to look one step ahead, not 10 steps ahead. There was a general understanding that there was a way to make a claim at the border, but very little understanding of the complexity of the U.S. asylum system. And Taylor, to be fair to the migrants, I mean many Americans don't fully understand the trappings of the U.S. asylum system as they were at the time in 2023. It's an incredibly complex system that really requires a law degree to understand completely. Taylor Wilson: So Lauren, you read about the kind of Trump factor in this piece as well, and I'm curious, this is a guy with strong support from Christian bases. He's even directed the federal government to eradicate anti-Christian bias. I'm just curious, how has faith factored into some of what we've seen from Trump on the campaign trail and in office? Lauren Villagran: Part of the reason the findings are so interesting, I think Taylor is because you see widespread support for President Donald Trump among the Christian community that includes white evangelicals. 55% of Catholics voted for Trump according to an AP VoteCast study poll following the November election. And we haven't seen a lot about the makeup of the recent migrants that have so many Americans concerned about border security. The findings of this study are in some ways somewhat narrow. There were 300 people interviewed, not hundreds of thousands. That being said, the role that Christianity and that Christian faith plays in their lives might be of interest to some of the Christian voters and supporters of President Trump's now tougher border policies. Taylor Wilson: All right, great piece from you as always, Lauren. Lauren Villagran covers the border and immigration for USA TODAY. Thank you Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Thanks for having me. ♦ Cody Godwin: David Leonard Wood is angry. The sixty-seven-year-old is currently on death row awaiting execution in Texas for the murder of six girls and young women in 1987. His execution is scheduled to take place in just four days. Wood has always maintained his innocence and says he was targeted by police. David Leonard Wood: How can I not be angry at the corruption that put me here? How can you let people just dump cases on you and not be angry? Cody Godwin: In an exclusive interview USA TODAY death row reporter Amanda Lee Myers sat down with Wood in prison to hear his story. You can hear that episode right here on Sunday morning beginning at 5 A.M. Eastern. ♦ And before we go, it's that time of year again, daylight savings. Clocks are jumping ahead an hour tomorrow, so don't forget to adjust any analog clocks when you wake up. ♦ Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. We're produced by Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio. If you use a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Cody Godwin. Taylor Wilson will be back on Monday with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
USA Today
08-03-2025
- Science
- USA Today
Could the ocean be our solution to climate change?
Could the ocean be our solution to climate change? | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on March 6, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast:What if we can slow climate change by giving the ocean an antacid? It's called ocean alkalinity enhancement and it's exactly what researchers have been exploring for the last five years. But it's only recently that the idea has become a reality. Supporters of the technology say it's one of the most promising forms of carbon removal to date, a necessary step to meet climate goals even as the world cuts emissions. But in order to truly make a dent in the accumulated carbon in our atmosphere, it will need to be scaled up to massive levels – the question is, can it be done? And can it be done affordably? Jaime Palter, an associate professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, joins The Excerpt to discuss the science and potential of this exciting new weapon in the fight against climate change. Have feedback on the show? Please send us an email at 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 Dana Taylor: Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Thursday, March 6th, 2025, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. What if we can slow climate change by giving the ocean an antacid? It's called ocean alkalinity enhancement, and it's exactly what researchers have been exploring for the last five years. But it's only recently that the idea has become a reality. Supporters of the technology say it's one of the most promising forms of carbon removal to date, a necessary step to meet climate goals even as the world cuts emissions. But in order to truly make a dent in the accumulated carbon in our atmosphere, it will need to be scaled up to massive levels. The question is, can it be done and can it be done affordably? Here to explore the tech and the possibilities is Jaime Palter an Associate Professor of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island. Thanks for joining me, Jaime. Jaime Palter: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: Let's start with the basics. First, how does the ocean naturally absorb carbon? And then how does ocean alkalinity enhancement actually work? Jaime Palter: The ocean is a great ally in slowing the pace of climate change without any human intervention. As humans have put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration or what we call partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases and the ocean just tries to keep up and stay in equilibrium with the atmosphere. And in doing this natural chemical reaction, the ocean has absorbed about 25% of man-made emissions. When we talk about ocean alkalinity enhancement, we're talking about increasing that rate of ocean uptake by shifting the chemistry of the surface ocean to a state where the ocean can continue to take up even more CO2 than it would without the intervention. Could the ocean be our solution to climate change? Ocean alkalinity enhancement, if scaled up, could make a meaningful difference in fighting global warming. Dana Taylor: And then in what ways does this process of carbon removal differ from something like carbon capture and storage? Jaime Palter: So carbon capture and storage on land depends on these giant machines that pull carbon dioxide of the atmosphere and then have a highly concentrated CO2 source that needs to be stored in a safe reservoir. What we're talking about with ocean alkalinity enhancement is that the ocean itself would store the excess carbon dioxide as essentially a type of salt called bicarbonate or carbonate, which is already abundantly existing in the ocean as it is. In fact, the ocean has 50 times more carbon in it than the atmosphere in its natural background state. That carbon is mostly stored as bicarbonate and carbonate. So by increasing that storage, just a small percentage in the ocean can reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a larger percent. Dana Taylor: Which is more effective and has the least negative impact? Jaime Palter: They're really different, and I would say the nomenclature has some subtleties. So carbon capture and storage typically is done at, let's say the scale of a power plant or somewhere that's making cement so that CO2 is kept out of the atmosphere at the point of creation, and it actually doesn't remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It just keeps it from getting in there in the first place. Whereas ocean alkalinity enhancement is meant to increase the ocean's ability to capture carbon after it's been emitted to the atmosphere. So actually dialing back the carbon dioxide that's already there, pulling it out of the atmosphere, and therefore reducing the rate or total global warming that we'll see. Dana Taylor: How does the process of alkalinity enhancement impact marine ecosystems, particularly sensitive environments like coral reefs? Jaime Palter: So this is an ongoing area of investigation and the oceanographic community is, we care deeply about the ocean. And so people want to know if this is safer than keeping the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere itself. And in fact, there's a fear that the ocean is becoming too acidic, that it's acidifying in response to the carbon dioxide that's being taken up as it is, but putting in substances that increase the alkalinity of the ocean is the reverse of ocean acidification. So whereas an acidified ocean can be corrosive to coral reefs and shellfish and the like, increasing the alkalinity should have the reverse effect in net if we put alkalinity into the ocean, but it allows it to take up more CO2, we should return to an equilibrium state that's not so chemically different from where we started. But it's true, we really need to assess this at every scale that it's proposed. And so every project that is like trying for a field trial has a fleet of biologists that are measuring everything they can to check and double check that this isn't a problem, or if it is, to be transparent and open about that and assess what happened. So one way oceanographers and biologists have been assessing the safety is in experiments that we call mesocosm experiments. They're kind of mid-scale tanks that are filled with natural seawater, including all of its life. And in those tanks we can add various doses of the alkaline substance and see if it has any effect. And there's a high level of commitment among the scientists to publish those results and be fully transparent about that. And they're coming out as soon as people can get the work done very carefully. And so far, there are some types of alkaline sources that don't work as well as others, but by and large, pure alkalinity has been linked to very few biological harms. Dana Taylor: Jaime, what are the main challenges or risks associated with implementing ocean alkalinity enhancement on a large scale? Jaime Palter: Well, I'd first like to talk about the risk of giving people a false sense of security. The only way that any marine carbon dioxide removal or carbon dioxide removal approach makes a dent in the climate problem is if we pull emissions back to very close to zero. Right now, humankind emits about 40 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, and there's no removal process that will touch that number. But if we pull that number down by 50, 60, 75, 80%, we start to have processes that can keep up. And so that's the first hazard, is giving people a false sense of security and putting the brakes on emissions reduction. We need to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. But I think your question is more about if at scale would this harm the ocean? And again, that is a huge research effort to figure out if that's the case with full transparency so that people can see the answer. And so far we have little indication that this would be harmful even at scale if we can find the right alkalinity sources that do no harm to biological systems. Dana Taylor: What are the logistical challenges involved in distributing alkaline substances in the ocean and how are they being addressed? Jaime Palter: It's a huge logistical challenge. Right now, we're not really at a deployment scale that has climate impact. We're at research scale, I would say, and small scale field trials. And some of these field trials are using existing infrastructure in places that have high social acceptance. So there's a great group in Canada called Planetary. They are using very pure magnesium hydroxide and putting that in the cooling waters of a power plant, already waters that were being manipulated by humans for a purpose of cooling a power plant. As long as they stay within safe environmental limits of pH, the acidity and particle or turbidity, how turbid the water is or filled with particles, then they pass their environmental requirements in Canada. So that's a great way to try this out in a small scale. If we're going to scale that up, we could do that in lots of cooling power plants, like the cooling waters of many power plants, the wastewater in sewage treatment plants, things that are already not pristine and try to improve the water quality or at least do no harm. And then from there, with all the lessons we learned from that, there could be more scaling from that point. Challenges include sourcing pure sources of alkalinity that won't contaminate the water and then getting it into the water at scale because all of those point sources, what we call point sources, power plants, wastewater treatment plants, won't scale to a climate relevant number. Dana Taylor: What about the cost associated pulling off something as large as ocean alkalinity enhancement? Is the technology even affordable at this point? Jaime Palter: Yeah. I always preface this by saying I'm an oceanographer, not an economist or a business person, but my understanding is that in terms of cost, the assessments I've seen puts it as competitive or below some of the solutions that are getting more attention, like direct air capture, because direct air capture is incredibly energy intensive, so you have to pay for that energy to run the machines that pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Whereas the costs here are really in sourcing the alkaline materials and making sure it gets into the ocean in a dissolved form, and those costs are much lower. Dana Taylor: What concerns have environmental groups and other communities expressed about the technology and how are scientists addressing them beyond transparency? Jaime Palter: People really see the ocean as a beloved and pristine space and want to keep it that way, and I totally respect that and respect everyone raising their voice to try to figure out if this is even something we want to try as a society. So people have been coming to public fora and speaking out when they feel that this is proceeding faster than their comfort level. In the meantime, scientists are starting what I would say very slowly and with these controlled experiments, things in laboratories and flasks, and then in mesocosms, these whole water experiments with all the life within them. And then scaling from there to small embayments at point sources like the cooling waters of power plants and trying to publish and make fully available, all of the results from that. I think that's our only path forward, and we'll see if that is acceptable to enough people to move forward. I agree that the oceans are invaluable commons that we all share and share with non-human life as well. And so we have to be respectful and take things slowly. Dana Taylor: What's next for research and development in the field of ocean carbon removal and alkalinity enhancement? Can you share a timeline for when the application of this kind of tech might be widespread? Jaime Palter: That's a tough question. So in terms of where we are now is we're running on many tracks in parallel. So a lot of biologists are still doing these kind of mesocosm tests to check for biological safety. In the meantime, there are a handful, maybe 10, field trials. These are really small field trials where they're deploying very moderate amounts of an alkalinity source like in Canada and tracking every measurable chemical and biological quantity in the affected area. And so these projects are just hitting the field this summer. It's an incredible effort to measure everything that's measurable, and a lot of times, even when we're just trying this for the first time, our best measurements can only see the perturbation, can only see the intervention right at the source where it's happening. The ocean has a lot of background variability in the carbon system, and so these perturbations are very small relative to the ocean's natural variability. Dana Taylor: Finally, I'm not a scientist, but ocean alkalinity enhancement does sound promising. Are there other technologies that you're interested in or hopeful about? Jaime Palter: Once we're talking about carbon dioxide removal? I would say the pathways are really limited. The one that I think are viable, scalable are not very expensive and energy intensive, and I think the two that I've seen that to me see most scalable are the ocean alkalinity enhancement and safest, and its kind of sister on land, which is called enhanced rock weathering. Both of these approaches are trying to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through a chemical reaction with an alkaline substance and create bicarbonate and carbonate, which then is stable for thousands of years. There are lots of other ideas out there. My personal take is that they have a lot, all of them have many challenges. These two alkalinity enhancement in the ocean and alkalinity enhancement on land are the two that I find most promising personally. Dana Taylor: Jaime, thank you so much for joining me on The Excerpt. Jaime Palter: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely 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.
