logo
Tsunami waves reach Hawaii, West Coast hours after magnitude 8.8 earthquake

Tsunami waves reach Hawaii, West Coast hours after magnitude 8.8 earthquake

USA Today3 days ago
On Wednesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Tsunami waves reached Hawaii and parts of the West Coast after one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history. USA TODAY Justice Department Correspondent Aysha Bagchi breaks down Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions for Congressional testimony. The EPA will repeal the finding that climate pollution endangers human health. The U.S. sets a new electricity consumption record amid summer heat. USA TODAY Senior National Political Correspondent Sarah D. Wire breaks down what's next for library funding as E-books are on the line. We remember the victims of this week's New York City shooting.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Wednesday, July 30th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
Today, one of the strongest recorded earthquakes ever sent tsunami waves to Hawaii. Plus Ghislaine Maxwell lays out conditions to testify before Congress and eBooks are on the line at local libraries.

Tsunami waves reached Hawaii and the mainland west coast after one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history. A magnitude 8.8 struck off Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula overnight and triggered alerts across the Pacific, Alaska and other parts of the Western U.S. The waves began arriving in Hawaii after 7:00 PM local time, but initial observations were encouraging to officials. Governor Josh Green said so far they had not seen a wave of consequence. Shortly after the initial tsunami warning sirens went off at around 3:00 PM local time in Hawaii, the streets of Honolulu, including the tourist hub Waikiki, were congested as people quickly tried to move to higher ground and away from coastal evacuation zones. Some reported long lines at gas stations as sirens continued to go off. Others felt desensitized to the warning following the 2018 false missile alert, when residents woke up to an emergency alert notification that a ballistic missile was headed their way. Residents across the island scrambled to find shelter then before learning it was sent as an error. You can stay with usatoday.com throughout the day for the latest.

Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell says she will talk to Congress, but there's a catch. I spoke with USA TODAY Justice Department correspondent Aysha Bagchi for more. Aysha, thanks for stopping by.
Aysha Bagchi:
Thanks for having me Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
So Ghislaine Maxwell is willing to testify before Congress, but what are her conditions here?
Aysha Bagchi:
One of her prerequisites is she wants immunity if she's going to testify. This is someone who is serving a twenty-year prison sentence right now for very serious criminal convictions. She doesn't want testimony that she gives before Congress to expose her in some sort of way in criminal proceedings. So she's specified that she wants immunity. We don't know what form that would take if Congress would grant her any in order to let her testify, but we do know that she got some sort of limited immunity, there were reports of that anyway, when it comes to discussions she had with the Justice Department last week. In addition to that, she wants to wait to give testimony before Congress until an appeal that she has pending at the U.S. Supreme Court right now has run its course. The court is set to decide as soon as sometime in September, potentially, whether it wants to take up her case or not. And she said she'll have some other appeal coming in some court in addition to that one. And she wants those things wrapped up first.
She also wants to get the questions in advance. That's kind of an interesting prerequisite that she is trying to set for giving any testimony before Congress. She wants to be told what questions she's going to be asked. She said that'll give her a chance to prepare. Surely that'll be preparation alongside her lawyer. Then she said it'll let her come up with documents to corroborate the things that she wants to say. Those are the rules that she's setting in place she says when it comes to this testimony, but she also said she would love clemency from President Donald Trump. He can pardon her fully. He can commute her sentence. She said she'd be willing and eager to testify if she got that. That's no surprise. But she didn't set that as a rule in order to testify before Congress.
Taylor Wilson:
Okay. And Aysha, what does Congress really hope to get out of such testimony?
Aysha Bagchi:
The Congressman Chairman James Comer, he's the one who issued this subpoena. He heads one of the committees in Congress, an oversight committee. He said that there are basically two things that the committee is interested in when it comes to her testimony. One of them is looking at the enforcement of sex trafficking laws. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking in her trial that concluded in 2021. The person that she was basically convicted of being a co-conspirator with was Jeffrey Epstein. And the second thing is he said that he wants to look at plea agreements when it comes to cases like this. That's probably a reference to the really sweetheart plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein got in 2008. He was able to plead guilty to two Florida state prostitution offenses, one involving minors. And under that plea deal, he was told by Florida federal prosecutors and state prosecutors that that would clear this case for him. He had an 18-month sentence. He didn't have to serve that full time and for much of the time he was able to be let out for several hours of the day in a work release program.
So the congressman said that the committee wants to look at that kind of plea deal, and that's actually a basis for Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal right now. She's arguing to the Supreme Court that federal prosecutors in New York shouldn't have been able to charge her, prosecute her in her own case because a provision of that plea deal not only protected Jeffrey Epstein, but also purported to protect any potential co-conspirators of his. So far Ghislaine Maxwell has lost in her argument that that meant she couldn't have been prosecuted. Some courts have said that New York Federal prosecutors were still free to go after her, but that's something that the committee in Congress seems to want to look at.
Taylor Wilson:
Wow, interesting. Well, Maxwell spoke with Justice Department officials last week. What do we know, if anything, about those conversations?
Aysha Bagchi:
We don't know much. Most of what we've heard has come from Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer, not from the government itself. He said that Ghislaine Maxwell answered lots of questions. This took place over two days, not just one day. So it seems to have been quite a lot of interviewing her. He said that she went over 100 people. We don't know what the content of that was. What does it mean for her to have referenced 100 people in relation to Jeffrey Epstein? But we have heard reports that she was given some sort of limited immunity in exchange for this sort of interview. And potentially the idea that Justice Department officials have in mind is to see if she can provide any investigative leads that would actually open up a line of investigation and potential criminal charges against anyone else associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
When the Justice Department chose not to release its Epstein files, it said in its announcement about that, that it didn't uncover anything in the files that would merit opening an investigation, a criminal investigation into someone else. So maybe this interview is an opportunity for the Justice Department to look at that again and see if it can open up an investigation into someone else and maybe satisfy kind of the public outrage that has boiled over, including from many of President Trump's own supporters, about this case and questions that sort of linger about potential mysteries surrounding this case or whether the government really has tackled everyone it should tackle when it comes to its evidence surrounding sex trafficking and Jeffrey Epstein.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, Aysha Bagchi covers the Justice Department for USA TODAY. Thank you, Aysha.
Aysha Bagchi:
Thanks Taylor.

Taylor Wilson:
Environmental Protection Agency will rescind the finding that greenhouse gas emissions put human health in danger as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles. President Trump's pick to run the EPA, Lee Zeldin, announced the agency's plan to rescind the endangerment finding on the Ruthless podcast yesterday, saying it'll save Americans money and unravel two decades of regulation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases from cars, power plants, oil production, and other sources. In 2009, the EPA under former president Barack Obama issued a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to pollution and endanger public health and welfare. It was upheld in several legal challenges.

Americans cranking up the air conditioners and fans over a single hour this month consumed more electricity than ever before as heat spread from the Midwest to the East Coast. The Federal Energy Information Administration said that from 7:00 to 8:00 PM Eastern Time on Monday, Americans consumed more than 758,000 megawatt hours of electricity, a new national record. And while the numbers are subject to change, the EIA said Americans might consume even more power as the summer continues. You can read more with a link in today's show notes.

E-books and more are on the line as Congress considers the future of library funding. I discussed with USA TODAY senior national political correspondent Sarah D. Wire. Sarah, as always, thanks for joining me.
Sarah D. Wire:
Thanks for having me.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, so let's go back to March Sarah, when Trump issued an executive order eliminating huge parts of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Can you just start by reminding us what happened here and what's happened since?
Sarah D. Wire:
Back on March 14th, the president issued an executive order that eliminated most of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. He ordered that it be reduced to its statutory functions. Basically meant that it should be brought down as far as possible. And so suddenly, pretty much the entirety of the Institute's staff were laid off and then really abruptly, three state libraries were informed that their grants had been canceled. Now, state libraries receive between 30 and 50% of their funding through these state grants. And so to have that big cut was panic-inducing for a lot of these states. And then about half of the states in the country sued over losing this money and the judge placed an injunction that ordered the Institute to reinstate the staff, reinstate any cut grants, and that's kind of where things stand there.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, what is Congress now considering about the future of library funding?
Sarah D. Wire:
So when the president put forward his budget proposal, he only suggested $5.5 million for the agency with the agency saying that that money was enough to sunset or end the agency. That's a big drop from the nearly 300 million the agency normally receives. We haven't seen any pushback on this from Congress yet, and this Congress has been very willing to back what the president wants. He tried this during his first term. He tried getting rid of the Institute for Museum and Library Services, then Congress pushed back and said they weren't going to do it. There's a big piece of legislation that has to be renewed in September, and we've seen absolutely no movement on that. But that has to be passed in order for the agency to continue existing.
Taylor Wilson:
Okay, makes sense. And you focus a lot on e-books in this piece, Sarah. How might this action or whatever happens over the next few months impact e-books and what's at stake when libraries and library patrons lose that kind of access?
Sarah D. Wire:
Every state gets to choose how they spend this federal money, and a lot of states use it to provide e-book services for the entire state. Libraries are leasing e-books instead of buying them outright and often at three to five times the normal cost. And so that cost is just too much for small libraries to bear on their own. So if they lose the federal money, the states can't provide this to local libraries, which means a lot of people are no longer going to be able to check out e-books from their library.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, Sarah, you're right about a nonprofit that organizes grassroots campaigns for library funding and also blocking book bans. Tell us a bit about this group and what other recourse is there. Can states really filled the gap here?
Sarah D. Wire:
This organization called Every Library has had a petition drive going on, trying to convince both federal lawmakers and states to prevent the Trump administration from doing this. Some of the state libraries I spoke to said they're worried that states aren't going to be able to step in and fill the gap. It might not seem like a lot. California is the biggest recipient of this money. They receive about $15 million a year, but to fill that gap is not something that they can just dig through the couch cushions and do. But it's also asking a lot for the state to find that money when the state is bringing in less revenue, but they're also having to take on new responsibilities that the federal government has handed down, including more responsibility for Medicaid and paying for a portion of SNAP for the first time.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Well, going back even to March, I mean, I just want to get a sense on the Trump administration perspective here, Republican congressional perspective. What is the argument on that side of the coin? Is this just a continued push for getting rid of government bloat?
Sarah D. Wire:
Yeah, the White House told us back in March that this was an effort to streamline government and get rid of superfluous agencies, but they haven't talked about waste or fraud specifically when it comes to this agency.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, and what's next going forward? You mentioned this September timeline in terms of how congressional leaders are going to tackle this.
Sarah D. Wire:
This isn't one of the appropriations bills that Congress has to pass before the end of the year. Congress will probably start taking a look at it when the House and Senate resume in September.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Sarah D. Wire covers national politics for USA TODAY. I appreciate you stopping by Sarah.
Sarah D. Wire:
Thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:
New York City Mayor Eric Adams said preliminary investigations show the gunman in yesterday's Midtown Manhattan shooting may have intended to target the NFL, but took the wrong elevator. The suspect left behind a three-page note claiming he had chronic CTE from playing football police said. CTE is a brain condition experienced by people who have repeated blows to the head, often through contact sports like football. An NFL employee was reportedly injured in the shooting. We're also learning more about the victims who were killed in the violence. They include Blackstone investment firm employee Wesley LePatner, security officer Aland Etienne, police officer Didarul Islam, and Julia Hyman an associate at Rudin Management.

ICE agents or law enforcement working in that capacity have been recorded arresting people across the country in full masks without any identifying clothing or even telling people who they work for.
Mike German:
What many studies, going back to the civil unrest during the 1960s and '70s, showed that when law enforcement engages in arbitrary or poorly targeted violence, that often creates more violence. In other words, if they attack a crowd indiscriminately, the crowd will become more violent.
Taylor Wilson:
That was former FBI agent Mike German, now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice. My colleague Dana Taylor sat down with Mike for a conversation about the trend of mass ICE agents and what it means for democracy. You can hear that conversation right here today, today beginning at 4:00 PM Eastern Time.

Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your pods, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson. I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's super PAC reports nearly $200 million war chest
Trump's super PAC reports nearly $200 million war chest

Yahoo

time5 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's super PAC reports nearly $200 million war chest

The main super PAC affiliated with President Trump reported nearly $200 million in the bank as it looks ahead to the 2026 midterms in which control of Congress will be up for grabs. MAGA Inc., which was key in promoting Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, reported $196.1 million in cash on hand in a midyear filing to the Federal Election Commission, having raised almost $177 million through the first half of 2025. The large sums show the group's preparations for future elections even as Trump himself won't be on the ballot and can't run in another presidential contest. The filing shows significant donations from top Republican donors like Jeff Yass, a GOP megadonor who also is a major investor in TikTok, and Elon Musk, who had been a close Trump ally before he and the president had a falling out and engaged in a war of words on various issues, including Trump's 'big beautiful bill' that he signed into law last month. Yass donated $16 million, while Musk gave $5 million to the super PAC, the filing shows. Various other donors with ties to Big Tech also gave significant amounts. Musk's donation came June 27, after tensions cooled and Musk expressed regret for his criticism of Trump. But the feud picked up again within days over the 'big, beautiful bill,' with Musk saying he would back primary challengers to Republicans who supported the legislation. Musk also said he would support Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), who was one of the only Republicans who bucked his party to vote against the bill and has faced attacks from Trump. With so much money in reserve, the super PAC could play a critical role in primaries like Massie's and in the general election in which Republicans and Democrats will battle for congressional majorities. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News

No one likes paying taxes. Maybe that's why President Donald Trump has proposed nixing the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs. Tariffs, he believes, would make us so rich we could all kiss the tax man goodbye — at least the income tax man. Tariffs are basically a tax, paid by the importer, and passed onto the consumer. Learn More: Find Out: But what would things really look like if income taxes were a thing of the past? We asked ChatGPT. It had four main points. Constitutional Viability Could Trump put an end to income taxes by executive order or another unilateral way? That, said ChatGPT, is a hard no. 'Income taxes are codified in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1913), which explicitly authorizes the federal government to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states,' it said. Abolishing income taxes would require legislation from Congress, with a two-thirds vote by both houses. With that stated, it's not likely to happen. Read Next: Budgetary Reality The fact is, individual and corporate income taxes have made up the bulk of federal revenue for the past 50 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. ChatGPT noted that equals $2.2 trillion in personal federal income tax, and $460 billion from corporate income tax, per 2023 figures. The Bipartisan Policy Center puts the figures at $2.4 trillion and $530 billion, respectively. Either way, it's a lot of money, with personal income taxes making up for 49% of total federal government revenue, and corporate income taxes making up 11%. Wipe them out, and the federal government loses 60% of its income. Tariffs, on the other hand, bring in a mere $98 billion, according to ChatGPT — NPR put the figure for the fiscal year ending September of 2024 at $80 billion. Politico, which tracks the tariff income, reported that this year, U.S. tariffs, which include Trump's tariffs, have brought in $100.5 billion as of July 13 — $53 billion more than at this time last year. That is not going to cut it, according to ChatGPT: 'Tariffs would need to be increased more than 20-fold to make up for the loss [in income tax].' It added that everything would have to be tariffed — all consumer goods, tech products, energy and industrial goods — at rates that would be inflationary and spark massive trade wars. Economic and Social Impact ChatGPT did throw some pros in with the cons. Hypothetically, it said, no federal income tax would make all our lives easier, simplifying the month of April. Taxing spending — retail, tariffs, etc. — might also benefit some groups that spend little compared to their income, ChatGPT said. For instance, this would include high earners who are somewhat restrained in their spending and frugal retirees. Now for the flip side. Tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, ChatGPT explained. It disproportionately hits low- and middle-income households who spend more of their income — as a percentage — than the wealthy. In other words, buying a book or computer or car is a larger percentage of income to someone making $50,000 a year than to someone making $5 million. Additionally, because of the shortfall in federal revenue, massive budget cuts would be required. Large cuts to Medicaid and Medicare would be required — much larger than the ones in the One Big Beautiful Bill — in addition to the military and other entitlements and services. So, Would We All Be Richer? According to ChatGPT, that's another hard no (in bold, no less). It claims that according to 'almost all mainstream economists,' tariffs raise prices, reduce efficiency and can hurt job growth. In addition, ending the income tax would destabilize public finances and increase inequality. The move would benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. For his part, Trump believes that the period between 1870 to 1913, before income taxes were a thing and when tariffs were a very big thing, was America's Golden Age. On April 15, he told Fox Noticias it was that era when we were our richest. That's debatable at best, and very much depends on who you define as 'we.' After all, Mark Twain coined it as the Gilded Age for its massive corruption and rampant inequality. The wealthy were very wealthy, to be sure, but according to Digital History, supported by a consortium of government, university and public organizations, in 1877, the average annual income of an urban family was $738 ($22,594 in today's money). After housing, food, heating and clothing, an average of $44 per year ($1,347) was left over for fun, emergencies and retirement savings — and without Social Security, they'd need it. For that, the average unskilled or semi-skilled person worked 10 hours a day for 20 cents ($6.12) per hour, and 939 out of 1,000 died with no property to pass on to heirs. Frankly, that's not sounding very golden. More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

States sue Trump admin over trans care access
States sue Trump admin over trans care access

Axios

time34 minutes ago

  • Axios

States sue Trump admin over trans care access

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump administration over what they charge is a coordinated federal effort to intimidate health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for individuals under age 19. The big picture: The suit revolved around a January executive order President Trump issued and subsequent administration actions the states say amount to an attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on transition-related care. The latest: The administration actions are not only denying medically necessary care but coercing hospitals and doctors into violating anti-discrimination and other state laws, according to the complaint. The suit referenced Justice Department guidance threatening criminal prosecution of providers, investigations of hospitals, and demands for patient data. The states asked the court for an injunction, saying the actions were unlawful and intrude on their authority to enforce their own laws. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro was also listed as a plaintiff. Between the lines: While courts have temporarily blocked the administration from stripping federal funding from providers of gender-affirming medical services to minors, the Justice Department has taken other steps, including subpoenaing doctors for patient information. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has launched an inquiry into whether providers are making false claims about gender-affirming care's benefits or not disclosing risks. The efforts have prompted major hospitals to pause or shut down on transition-related services in states where they remain legal. "This reduction in services has caused significant harm to transgender adolescents in the Plaintiff States, depriving them of essential care at a critical time in their development," the states argue in the complaint. What they're saying:"The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. The White House last week claimed credit for making providers halt what it termed "child sexual mutilation," issuing a release listing more than a dozen health systems that stopped providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries. "For years, politicians have promised to end the barbaric, pseudoscientific practice — but President Trump is the only one who has actually delivered," it said in a statement. About 40% of transgender youth live in the 27 states that already limit access to gender-affirming care for minors, according to KFF. Of those states, 17 currently face legal challenges to their policies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store