US approves $20 billion Israel arms package | The Excerpt

On Wednesday’s episode of The Excerpt podcast: U.S. officials have approved a $20 billion arms package for Israel . USA TODAY Health Reporter Karen Weintraub looks at how Floridians view a major abortion amendment , according to a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University/WSVN-TV poll. Rep. Ilhan Omar wins a closely watched primary after two losses for the progressive 'Squad.' The UAW has filed labor charges against Donald Trump and Elon Musk , alleging intimidation of workers. USA TODAY Investigative Data Reporter Austin Fast discusses who cities are blaming for PFAS forever chemicals in their water .

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, August 14th, 2024. This is The Excerpt.

Today, a look at the latest US arms package to Israel. Plus, how Floridians feel about a major abortion amendment. And who's to blame for PFAS Forever Chemicals in our water?

♦

The US has approved a $20 billion arms package to Israel. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken approved the possible sale of F-15 jets and equipment worth nearly $19 billion. The package also includes tank shells worth around $774 million and combat vehicles worth 583 million. Tank rounds are set to be almost immediately available for delivery, while Boeing F-15 fighter jets are expected to take years to produce and deliver. The move comes as the US continues to support Israel, as its top Middle East ally continues its offensive in Gaza as part of a war that has devastated the Palestinian enclave. The war was set off by the militant group Hamas's October 7th attack in Southern Israel. It's not clear how the latest US move will be received in an election year. While approving weapons to Israel, the Biden administration has tried to arrange a ceasefire deal in Gaza that would potentially hold off a wider Middle East War.

♦

A Florida abortion amendment set to appear on the ballot this November has support from the state's residents, according to a new USA TODAY Suffolk University WSVN TV poll. I spoke with USA TODAY Health reporter, Karen Weintraub for more.

Karen, thanks for hopping back on today.

Karen Weintraub:

Thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

So just starting with this Karen, what is Amendment 4 in Florida?

Karen Weintraub:

Amendment 4 would change the law in Florida to allow first and second trimester abortions, and even later abortions if a healthcare provider says that it's necessary for the health of the parent.

Taylor Wilson:

And how do Florida residents feel about this amendment, according to this poll?

Karen Weintraub:

So, according to the new poll, 58% support it. And that's important, because in Florida, in order to pass a constitutional amendment, you need 60% of the vote. So a mere majority is not enough. You have to have 60%. So 58% is within the margin of error of this poll, which means it might be 62%, it might be 54%. So it might be enough, might not be. We won't know, obviously, until election day.

Taylor Wilson:

And when it comes to women specifically here, Karen, how did they respond and how did they break down by political affiliation?

Karen Weintraub:

So women, not surprisingly, are more supportive than men. If the vote were just among women, it would pass. And if it were just among men, it would not at this point. Overall, 64% of women support the amendment, with nearly 80%, 79% of Democratic and Independent women supporting it and 39% of Republican women. There doesn't seem to be a strong connection between the presidential race and the abortion issue. There are many Trump supporters who also support abortion, even though Trump appointed the Supreme Court Justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Our poll earlier in the week showed that Harris is gaining support in Florida. It's not clear whether that support will trickle over to abortion or not. So again, these two seem to be independent of each other.

Interestingly, another poll out Wednesday by KFF found no partisan breakdown by the percentage of people who've actually had abortions in Florida. It's essentially the same; 19% of Democratic women, 20% of Republican women. So although there is a difference in opinion, there's not actually a difference in reality.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah. So you mentioned that KFF poll. We've also heard similar polling out of Arizona. What have we heard on this issue there?

Karen Weintraub:

Right. So 65% of women were somewhat concerned that a ban would affect the safety of a potential pregnancy for themselves or somebody else. So, in that state, there's an abortion ban after 15 weeks. A new ballot measure there, Proposition 139, would allow abortions up to 24 weeks. So again, another state where abortion is on the ballot this fall. There are a number of states where that is the case. That could be a state-by-state decision. As we know when Roe v. Wade was overturned two years ago, the Supreme Court said there should be a state-by-state decision rather than a federal decision. And so this is on the ballot now in a number of states.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. Abortion shaping up to be a big issue here in this election cycle. Karen Weintraub covers health for USA TODAY. Thank you, Karen.

Karen Weintraub:

Thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar beat back a more moderate challenger yesterday, capping off a series of primaries facing the progressive squad that has been the target of millions of dollars from pro-Israel groups. Omar beat Don Samuels, a former Minneapolis City Council member. She's expected to win re-election in Minnesota's 5th Congressional District. Omar narrowly beat Samuels in 2022 when United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, poured $350,000 into Samuels' bid in a last-minute push to defeat Omar. But this year, the PAC has largely steered clear of investing into Omar's race, unlike in other recent primaries.

The group did target representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush for their public positions against Israel's government and actions in Gaza after spending at least 14.5 million and almost $9 million in their respective races. Both lost to more moderate challengers. And progressives have criticized the heavy role outside spending played in both Bowman and Bush's losses. While also a vocal critic of Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza, Omar was on different footing than her progressive colleagues, who had their own scandals. You can read more with a link in today's show notes.

♦

The UAW says it has filed federal labor charges against Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The union referred to them as disgraced billionaires and accused them of illegally attempting to threaten and intimidate workers engaged in protected concerted activity. The UAW said the two, on Monday, held a conversation on Musk's X platform, formerly known as Twitter, where they advocated for the illegal firing of striking workers. The union, in a news release, noted that under federal law, workers cannot be fired for going on strike, and threatening to do so is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

Musk laughed but did not respond to Trump's comments, making it harder for the NLRB to find him liable for making illegal threats to workers at his companies, according to Wilma Liebman, Chair of the National Labor Relations Board under former President Barack Obama, speaking to Reuters. The UAW has long pushed to organize non-union Tesla, where Musk is CEO, and the union has endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the election.

♦

Who's to blame for PFAS in our drinking water? I spoke with USA TODAY Investigative Data reporter, Austin Fast to find out what hundreds of cities are saying.

Austin, thanks for hopping on today.

Austin Fast:

Yeah. Thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

So Austin, just remind us, what is this EPA effort to monitor PFAS spread?

Austin Fast:

Yeah. The EPA, for about a year and a half now, has been collecting data from drinking water systems, large and small, all across the country on PFAS, which are forever chemicals. They're non-stick, scratch-resistant, things that prevent water from getting into fabrics, those types of things. And over the course of decades that they've been manufactured, they've gotten into our groundwater and our drinking water. And so, in April, the EPA passed some limits to tell drinking water systems, "Once it passes this limit, you have to do something and get it out of your water for the people who are getting water from your system." And so far, with this new dataset that the EPA released this month, it's over 1,000 drinking water systems across the country have detected PFAS above those limits that the EPA set in April.

Now, not all 1,000 of them are going to have to do something. About 400 of them measured over the limit multiple times. Meaning, the average throughout the course of the year is above the limit. And so those are the ones that are probably going to have to do something, either advanced filtration or shut down a well, something to protect the communities that they serve.

Taylor Wilson:

And Austin, we're learning more about sources of PFAS in local communities. Which sources do local water officials blame in particular here?

Austin Fast:

Yeah. So this data has an auxiliary dataset, some additional data that says communities, they respond to this question of, "Do you know if there's any sources that may have contributed to PFAS in your water?" And so, most of the systems said, "No, we don't know what it could have come from." But there were several hundred, about 730 systems that did check boxes next to the multiple choice options for the different types of sources. And so, among those it's airports, utilities, like sewage treatment plants and military bases were the most commonly blamed. Again, these are possible sources, is the way the question is worded. When you look at places that actually have gone over those limits that were set in April, military bases come to the top. They are the most frequently blamed among this subset of water systems for the PFAS.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah. So have we heard from any of these potential sources, military bases or airports in particular, about what they're doing? Any efforts to move away from using PFAS chemicals?

Austin Fast:

A big contributor, historically in military bases, was these firefighting foams that have PFAS in them. So it's a way that they could extinguish fires on aircraft and tarmacs and just quickly get the flames out. They've been moving away from using that type of foam. But actually, just about 10 days ago at the start of August, the Secretary of Defense submitted a waiver asking Congress to say, "We can't cut this out by October 1st like we were planning to." So they're delaying it a year, and then there's a possibility to delay it another year. So they are working on transitioning about 1500 sites away from the foams, but now they've given themselves another year or two to work on that.

And I will say, we asked them what they thought about the EPA data, and a spokesman from the Department of Defense, Robert Ditchey, said he didn't want to comment on the EPA's data sources or the analysis they do, but he did critique the EPA's wording of the question. Remember I said, "It's potential sources of PFAS that may have impacted." There's a lot of wiggle words in there. And so, Robert Ditchey, the spokesman for the DOD, said that the question was slightly ambiguous and the responses to that specific question are open to interpretation, is what he said.

Taylor Wilson:

Interesting. So Austin, you've touched on this, but I really am just trying to get to the heart of the issue here. Who is tasked with getting rid of PFAS? Is this an issue for the EPA nationally or the local communities, or is this really about the sources themselves stepping up?

Austin Fast:

It's all the above. I would say it most profoundly affects the customers of drinking water systems and the people who live next to a military base or next to an airport, who, they may have a private well that is now contaminated and they can't use it anymore. A lot of the water systems we spoke to complained they don't like how the EPA basically set these limits in April, telling water systems that you have to get this out of your water system. I've had many of them say, "We didn't put the PFAS in the water, but we're responsible for paying millions and millions of dollars to get it out."

Going after the polluters, the actual source, seems to be the EPA's next step. I'm told they're working on getting discharge permits and limits for the actual polluters, but apparently, from what I'm told, the easiest way to put a band-aid on the problem, to protect the most people the quickest, was to come at it from the drinking water angle. Basically, protecting the people as they're getting a glass of water from their sink, to try to minimize the amount of PFAS that is getting into their bodies.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. Listeners can read more about this with a link in today's show notes. Austin Fast is an investigative data reporter with USA TODAY. Thank you, Austin.

Austin Fast:

Yes, thank you for having me.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

In response to lies about a stolen election in 2020, many states implemented new laws restricting voter access. USA TODAY Democracy Reporter Erin Mansfield and her colleagues have spent the last five months digging into legislation and rule changes across the country. Tune in after 4:00 PM Eastern Time on this feed when Erin shares her reporting with my colleague, Dana Taylor.

♦

And 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, and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.