Since the release of Landman, real landmen are having to explain that they encounter more cat ladies than drug cartels

Jon Polenberg, Shareholder, Becker & Poliakof January 30, 20254 Min ReadBrain light via Alamy StockA Pennsylvania healthcare system agreed to pay $65 million to patients who had their medical photographs and personal information posted on the internet after the provider declined to pay ransom demands from a threat actor in an attack last year. The $65 million settlement stands as a stark warning to businesses that protecting data is a critical task. Failing to do so will be expensive.Todays technology landscape makes it challenging for businesses to protect their data.Lehigh Valley Health Network, a 13-hospital organization, received an ultimatum to pay up or have patient data plastered across the internet. LVHN declined to pay the ransom, and the threat actor kept their promise. They released over the internet personal medical records and undressed patient images taken for diagnostic purposes.But Lehigh Valley Health Network was not alone. Businesses across the US face the same risks: from January to June2024, there were an average of 14 reported ransomware attacks each day. It is also becoming difficult for companies to pay their way out of a ransomware crisis as federal guidelines have made paying a ransomware threat actor more difficult. The Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released an advisory in 2021 that stated American companies that pay ransoms to threat actors on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List or in sanctioned jurisdictions may face civil penalties and liability imposed by the federal government.Related:In other words, giving into ransom demands may invite the federal governments wrath. But refusing to pay may invite the wrong side in a lawsuit. Putting aside the rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma, many companies lack a plan for what to do when a ransomware attack hits.Building an Incident Response PlanJust as companies need to prepare for extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions resulting from them, similar forethought is necessary for dealing with a ransomware or cyberattack. How will the company identify the attack, what are the initial steps to take, who will lead the response team, what advisors will they call, and what will prevent further harm?Cyber-attacks are tricky. It can be weeks or months before a company discoversa vulnerability exists, meaning that companies may already be behind the eight ball in responding when they discover the attack occurred.But whether an attack has been percolating for minutes or months, the incident response plan provides a structure and creates systems for teams to respond quickly and effectively. The data exfiltration from a ransomware attack exposes companies vulnerabilities.Related:The first step is always assessing the damage. The response team must evaluate the attack to identify its extent, which may require hiring a third-party cybersecurity company to forensically understand the breach and its implications.Prisons, hospitals, utility companies, and other life-and-death service providers that find themselves under attack may require more urgent response capabilities. For most other companies without an immediate life safety issue, it may make more sense to take time to assess how long ago the attack occurred and what it will take to restore the systems.Without this diligence, businesses put themselves further at risk; if they return too quickly to their systems backup capabilities without understanding the timeline of the attack, they may not know whether the breach infiltrated the backup system too. Restoring the network using an infected backup would not only fail to cure the attack, but it may also exacerbate the threat and increase the ransom demands. But without the capability to restore the system from backups,a company may have less options in dealing with a ransomware attack.Related:Managing After an AttackBetween the third-party negotiators and insurance coverage, there may be a way to financially manage the attack. There are third-party providers that negotiate with ransomware threat actors, and some insurance companies cover for ransomware attacks.For other victims, paying the ransom themselves may be the only way out. While doing so may come up against OFAC guidance, the federal government may limit liability for companies that cooperate with them. While theres no guaranteed exit ramp or roadmap here, industry associations are working to create guidance for companies that find themselves stuck in this dilemma.The bigger issue companies face post-attack is managing the fallout. In the US, each state manages data breach disclosure differently, so a company's legal obligation and the liability may change depending on where they operate.Ransoms are high, breach-related settlements are high, and the reputational damage is high. As a result, cyberattacks are becoming more expensive each year,and insuring against ransomware attacks has become more difficult.Diligent data protection is the best defense companies have. Organizations that are cautious about how they collect and store data will have less risk than those that are lackadaisical. Companies that dont risk falling susceptible to an ever-rising financial threat.About the AuthorJon PolenbergShareholder, Becker & Poliakof Jon Polenberg is a shareholder at Becker & Poliakoff. As an established litigation attorney in state and federal courts, as well as pursuing alternative dispute resolution methods such as arbitration on behalf of his clients, Jon is client-focused while maintaining the highest professional standards.See more from Jon PolenbergNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also LikeWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore Reports

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Reviews weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. Donald Trump has officially been in office for just over a week, and the new administration has hit the ground running with a blizzard of executive orders and memos. Some of the moves could have major effects for climate change and climate technologiesfor example, one of the first orders Trump signed signaled his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the major international climate treaty. The road map for withdrawing from the Paris agreement is clear, but not all the effects of these orders are quite so obvious. Theres a whole lot of speculation about how far these actions reach, which ones might get overturned, and generally what comes next. Here are some of the crucial threads that Im going to be following. Will states be able to set their own rules on electric vehicles? Its clear that Donald Trump isnt a fan of electric vehicles. One of the executive orders issued on his first day in office promised to eliminate the electric vehicle (EV) mandate. The federal government under Biden didnt actually have an EV mandate in placerather, Trump is targeting national support programs, including subsidies that lower the cost of EVs for drivers and support building public chargers. But thats just the beginning, because the executive order will go after states that have set their own rules on EVs. While the US Environmental Protection Agency does set some rules around EVs through what are called tailpipe standards, last year California was granted a waiver that allows the state to set its own, stricter rules. The state now requires that all vehicles sold there must be zero-emissions by 2035. More than a dozen states quickly followed suit, setting a target to transition to zero-emissions vehicles within the next decade. That commitment was a major signal to automakers that there will be demand for EVs, and a lot of it, soon. Trump appears to be coming after that waiver, and with it Californias right to set its own targets on EVs. Well likely see court battles over this, and experts arent sure how its going to shake out. What will happen to wind projects? Wind energy was one of the most explicit targets for Trump on the campaign trail and during his first few days in office. In one memo, the new administration paused all federal permits, leases, and loans for all offshore and onshore wind projects. This doesnt just affect projects on federal lands or watersnearly all wind projects typically require federal permits, so this could have a wide effect. Even if the order is temporary or doesnt hold up in court, it could be enough to chill investment in a sector thats already been on shaky ground. As I reported last year, rising costs and slow timelines were already throwing offshore wind projects off track in the US. Investment has slowed since I published that story, and now, with growing political opposition, things could get even rockier. One major question is how much this will slow down existing projects, like the Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho, which got the green light from the Biden administration before he left office. As one source told the Washington Post, the new administration may try to go after leases and permits that have already been issued, but there may be insufficient authority to do so. What about the money? In an executive order last week, the Trump administration called for a pause on handing out the funds that are legally set aside under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That includes hundreds of billions of dollars for climate research and infrastructure. This week, a memo from the White House called for a wider pause on federal grants and loans. This goes way beyond climate spending and could affect programs like Medicaid. Theres been chaos since that was first reported; nobody seems to agree on what exactly will be affected or how long the pause was supposed to last, and as of Tuesday evening, a federal judge had blocked that order. In any case, all these efforts to pause, slow, or stop federal spending will be a major source of fighting going forward. As for effects on climate technology, I think the biggest question is how far the new administration can and will go to block spending thats already been designated by Congress. There could be political consequencesmost funds from the Inflation Reduction Act have gone to conservative-leaning states. As I wrote just after the election in November, Donald Trumps return to office means a sharp turn for the US on climate policy, and were seeing that start to play out very quickly. Ill be following it all, but Id love to hear from you. What do you most want to know more about? What questions do you have? If you work in the climate sector, how are you seeing your job affected? You can email me at casey.crownhart@technologyreview.com, message me on Bluesky, or reach me on Signal: @casey.131. Now read the rest of The Spark Related reading EVs are mostly set for solid growth this year, but what happens in the US is still yet to be seen, as my colleague James Temple covered in a recent story. The Inflation Reduction Act set aside hundreds of billions of dollars for climate spending. Heres how the law made a difference, two years in. For more on Trumps first week in office, check out this news segment from Science Friday (featuring yours truly). STEPHANIE ARNETT/ MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | RAWPIXEL Another thing DeepSeek has stormed onto the AI scene. The company released a new reasoning model, called DeepSeek R1, which it claims can surpass the performance of OpenAIs ChatGPT o1. The model appears to be incredibly efficient, which upends the idea that huge amounts of computing power, and energy, are needed to drive the AI revolution. For more, check out this story on the company and its model from my colleague Caiwei Chen, and this look at what it means for the AI industry and its energy claims from James ODonnell. Keeping up with climate A huge surge in clean energy caused Chinas carbon emissions to level off in 2024. Whether the countrys emissions peak and begin to fall for good depends on what wins in a race between clean-energy additions and growth in energy demand. (Carbon Brief) In a bit of good news, heat pumps just keep getting hotter. The appliances outsold gas furnaces in the US last year by a bigger margin than ever. (Canary Media) Heres everything you need to know about heat pumps and how they work. (MIT Technology Review)People are seeking refuge from floods in Kentuckys old mountaintop mines. Decades ago, the mines were a cheap source of resources but devastated local ecosystems. Now people are moving in. (New York Times) An Australian company just raised $20 million to use AI to search for key minerals. Earth AI has already discovered significant deposits of palladium, gold, and molybdenum. (Heatmap News) Some research suggests a key ocean current system is slowing down, but a new study adds to the case that theres no cause to panic yet. The new work suggests that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, hasnt shown long-term weakening over the past 60 years. (Washington Post) Efforts to observe and understand the currents have shown theyre weirder and more unpredictable than expected. (MIT Technology Review)Floating solar panels could be a major resource in US energy. A new report finds that federal reservoirs could hold enough floating solar to produce nearly 1,500 terawatt-hours of electricity, enough to power 100 million homes each year. (Canary Media) What sparked the LA wildfires is still a mystery, but AI is hunting for clues. Better understanding of what causes fires could be key in efforts to stop future blazes. (Grist)

Stacey Black opened too many credit cards as soon as she was eligible.Getting a job at a credit union helped her realize her financial mistakes.She teaches others to save and use credit wisely.This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Stacey Black, lead financial educator and Certified Financial Education Instructor at BECU, a Washington and South Carolina credit union. It has been edited for length and clarity.When I was about 18, I was at the mall when a store offered me a credit card. I had no clue what it was or how to use it responsibly. Before long, I had a credit card for every major store. I messed up my credit big time.My parents never taught me about money. Instead, I learned from observing them. I thought my dad was rich with his stack of credit cards. As I got older, I realized he was probably just in debt. My parents were divorced, and I lived with my mom. She would often talk about her financial worries but still splurge. Having those examples of money management really messed me up financially.I learned about finances by working at a credit unionLuckily, when I was in my early 20s, I started working as a teller at BECU, a credit union. I didn't even know what a credit union was at the time. But I started seeing the signs that financial responsibility was important.This wasn't nearly 30 years ago, so there weren't as many financial resources readily available. Luckily, I had access to a whole financial education team at work. I could seek them out and ask questions. That felt very lucky. I didn't know how other people my age were learning about finances since it was never discussed in schools, and most parents I knew didn't discuss it.My mistakes benefit me as an educatorI still had some bumps in the road. When I went to buy a house in my early 30s, my poor credit came to haunt me. But eventually I got a hold of my finances. A big breakthrough was thinking about periodic expenses car registration and inspection that aren't recurring monthly expenses but still add up fast. Once I learned about those, I could create a budget that accounted for all my spending.When I started working at BECU, I was in school to become a teacher. I pivoted to become a financial educator, helping people from all backgrounds learn about money. I also talked with my two children and many foster children about finances. Whether it's my kids or clients, I tell people I can speak to this because I've made all the mistakes.I tried to lead through actions, not just conversationsConversations are important, but kids can shut down if they know you're trying to educate them. So, I tried to lead through actions, not just words. When my kids were younger, I'd point out prices like I'd point out colors. Later, I brought them into major financial decisions, like helping me research a car.I urged kids to track their spendingI've always encouraged my biological and foster children to track their spending. Kids and teens often don't love this, but it gives them a tool to look back on and understand where their money went. Then, they can discuss whether they wish they'd done things differently. It also lets them see their progress toward financial goals.I gave them a means to make moneyI wanted my kids to learn that if they needed money, they could earn it. So, I posted chores with a set dollar amount on the fridge. Someone who needed $10 for a movie could mow the lawn. This approach worked so well that my kids' friends even started coming over when they needed to earn.I made loans with interestMy financial troubles started with credit cards, which were uncontrolled borrowing. So, when my kids came to ask me for money, I made it a formal arrangement. When my son was in sixth grade, he wanted money to buy a Go-Cart. I had him sign a contract outlining interest payments. He didn't purchase a Go-Cart, but the conversation came in handy when he needed a car a few years later.I was OK with making mistakesLots of parents shy away from money conversations because they feel like they don't have it all figured out. That's OK. I made mistakes and needed to adjust my approach to each child. It's also okay for kids to make mistakes while they have the safety net of living with you.Finding out what works for your family might take some time and effort, but the effort will be worth it when you send your kids into the world with financial know-how.

Tesla made almost $2.8 billion off cars its rivals didn't sell last year.The company sells regulatory credits to automakers that haven't sold enough EVs to meet emissions rules.That lucrative side hustle is now under threat, with Trump vowing to scrap electric vehicle targets.Elon Musk may have won the status of President Donald Trump's "first buddy" but the new president could jeopardize one of Tesla's most lucrative side hustles.Tesla has made billions selling regulatory credits to rivals in the past decade, but with Trump scrapping federal EV targets in his first weeks in office, that revenue stream is now under threat.The automaker's regulatory credit business, which sees it sell emissions credits to automakers who haven't sold enough EVs to meet strict federal and state targets, made $692 million in the fourth quarter of 2024.That strong performance, along with bumper sales of energy storage systems and an unexpected bitcoin windfall, added a bit of shine to what was otherwise a disappointing set of results.Tesla's total automotive revenue dropped 8% from the same period in 2023 as rising competition and slowing EV sales growth hit the company hard, with Musk rallying investor enthusiasm by focusing on Tesla's robotaxi rollout and the Optimus humanoid robot.While robotaxis and robots are yet to make an impact on Tesla's balance sheet, selling credits to rivals who have failed to shift enough EVs is a very real money-spinner for the company.Tesla made $1.8 billion from the practice in 2023, and that figure grew to almost $2.8 billion last year as other automakers rolled back ambitious electric vehicle strategies amid stuttering demand for EVs.But with Donald Trump back in the White House with an assist from Musk that income stream might be about to grind to a halt.The president has vowed to roll back emissions targets and signed an executive order last week revoking a Biden-era target that 50% of new vehicles sold in the US should be electric by 2035."Tesla has relied on the credits to help really boost profitability," Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive, told Business Insider."If federal guidelines are less stringent, then other manufacturers have more time and they're not going to need those credits as much, so I think it'll definitely impact it," she added.Trump troublesCurrent EPA rules mandate strict targets for automakers to cut the average emissions of their vehicle fleets every year. Those who fail to do so face substantial fines, which can be avoided by buying credits from automakers who sell a lot of EVs.Because Tesla only sells EVs, this system allows the company to make money from something it is doing anyway. Its credits business was responsible for over a third of Tesla's net income in 2024.Tesla will continue to make money off the practice in places like Europe, where the automaker could be set to bank as much as $1 billion from credit sales, and in various US states that have their own emission rules schemes.However, Trump has signaled his intention to challenge state-level rules too, issuing an executive order last week that sought to terminate state rules designed to phase out combustion engine vehicles.It comes as Tesla boss Musk expands his role and influence in the Trump administration, taking on a key cost cutting role at DOGE and even reportedly occupying office space in the White House.Musk's status as "first buddy" has grown even as Trump has targeted EV incentives and subsidies that Tesla directly benefits from.The Tesla CEO has expressed support for scrapping a key $7,500 tax incentive for new electric vehicles, a move reportedly considered by Trump's team. Musk has said publicly that he thinks the move would hurt Tesla's rivals more than his own company.Alongside regulatory changes in the EV space, Tesla could also be stung by Trump's proposed tariffs on China. The company's CFO, Vaibhav Taneja, said on Wednesday's earnings call that the imposition of tariffs would "have an impact on our business and profitability."Tesla did not respond to a request for comment, sent outside normal working hours.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went before the Senate finance committee Wednesday to make his case that he should be confirmed as President Trumps secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to pursue his Make America Healthy Again agenda. Democrats focused their criticism on Kennedys long-standing vaccine skepticism. The former environmental lawyer has spent decades spreading pseudo-science and lies about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and their debunked links to autism. His calls to reevaluate our vaccine use remain broadly unpopular, even as the recent drop-off in child vaccinations worries doctors and public health experts. Kennedy wanted to focus on topics that are much less divisive: Americas chronic disease epidemic and the unhealthy food that is widely available and consumed in this country. We will scrutinize the chemical additives in our food supply. We will remove financial conflicts from our agencies We will reverse the chronic disease epidemic, and put the nation back on the road to good health, he said in his opening statement. One of Kennedys most important advisers and allies in that fight was in the hearing room.Calley Means is a former lobbyist for food and pharmaceutical companies who is now a health-startup entrepreneur and healthy-food evangelist. Along with his sister Casey Means, he wrote the bestseller Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health. He supported Kennedys third party bid for the presidency, and then helped connect Kennedy with Donald Trump. Bobby Kennedy has not lowered or weakened faith in our public health authorities. The public health authorities have done that, Means told Today, Explained cohost Noel King. The insane thing to do would be to continue the current path. The smart thing to do would be to give someone a chance whos talking about shifting the paradigm of our health focus to preventing and reversing chronic disease.Means talked to Noel about how he became a healthy-food crusader, why he thinks Kennedys agenda as HHS secretary would be broadly popular, and why he thinks we should all be more skeptical of how America administers vaccines. Below is a transcript of the interview, edited for length and clarity. Make sure to listen to the whole episode.Noel KingYoure in a very unique position because you didnt entirely witness this as a civilian. You say you were, in fact, also a lobbyist for food and pharma. Can I ask what you saw as a lobbyist that has brought you to this place?Calley MeansIn hindsight, what I saw is that the health care system is working to propagate a system where more Americans are sick and to perform interventions on those Americans not to cure any disease but manage it. Thats 95 percent of our medical spending. 95 percent of our medical spending is management of chronic disease. Why is Coca-Cola funding the American Diabetes Association? And why would the American Diabetes Association be accepting money from Coca-Cola when we have a diabetes crisis among children, when its liquid diabetes, its high-sugar drinks? So theres actually this interplay between our food system, our ultra-processed food system thats getting people addicted, thats getting people sick, and then a health care system that stands silent. Thats on the food side. On the pharmaceutical side, its the rigging of institutions. The pharmaceutical industry is the lifeblood of academic research. And the NIH and the federal bureaucracies are a revolving door, an orgy of corruption between industry and government. I mean, 11 of the 12 past FDA directors literally left the FDA and the next day walked into a pharmaceutical office. I had a list of Stanford and Harvard professors that we were going to funnel money to. Its rank corruption. And I saw that.Noel KingCalley, what do you hear as the main pushback against you? What do your critics argue?Calley MeansWell, they resort to ad hominem attacks. If you really stay on these unimpeachable messages, I think theyre pretty hard to disagree with. Its a demonstrable fact that our scientific and health care agencies are co-opted. 75 percent of the FDA department that oversees drug approvals is funded by the pharmaceutical industry itself. NIH bureaucrats are able to take royalties from drugs, which they did during Covid. Its also impossible to argue with the fact that were the sickest country in the developed world and theres a true chronic disease crisis among children thats pretty hard to argue with. The health care industry is the largest and fastest growing industry in the country. Its the most powerful industry in the country. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest funder of politicians themselves, scientific research, regulatory agencies, the media itself. So they control a lot of our institutions just by definition.Noel KingTheres a claim that theres almost a conspiracy at play here that involves big food companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical schools. It goes all the way to the top levels of government. I wonder if you can explain that aspect of your message. Why? Because many people will be turned off by what they view as conspiratorial thinking. Someone might say it sounds a bit nutty.Calley MeansWhat sounds nutty about what I said?Noel KingThat idea that everyone is in league to make people sick.Calley MeansI didnt say that. I didnt say that. I completely dispute the premise of your question. I said that the pharmaceutical industry makes money when people are sick and loses money when theyre healthy. Thats not a conspiracy. Thats a demonstrable statement of economic fact. Thats not a conspiracy. Thats a statement of fact. Hospitals make money from fee-for-service health care. Many friends from Harvard Business School of mine work at hospitals, and their job is dependent on filling the beds. Thats not a conspiracy.Noel KingIm going to push just a little bit further on this, Calley. Because there are statements of fact that you are making, and they will pass a fact check. But its this idea that pharmaceutical companies want to keep us sick, that food companies want to keep us sick.Calley MeansI didnt say that. I said there are economic incentives for people to be sick.Noel KingWell, the economic incentive is the want. I mean, its America, its a capitalist society. Calley MeansNo, I didnt. I didnt talk about their motivations. Noel KingWhat are their motivations?Calley MeansThis is the largest industry in the countrys health care. A pharmaceutical executive gets fired if theres no growth. Growth of the pharmaceutical industry presupposes and necessitates more sick people.Noel KingYoure saying there is an economic incentive.Calley MeansSomebody gets fired unless the company grows, the company requires more sick patients to grow. Thats an indisputable fact.Noel KingI think that many people would agree with you that when there is money involved, the incentives to grow can lead to perverse outcomes like a lot of sick Americans. You are the founder of a company that sells, among other things, supplements, fitness classes, fitness equipment You personally have an economic incentive in this, too. And I wonder, is there any part of you that thinks maybe I should just be the guy that says the thing but not try to make money off it?Calley MeansWell, thats inaccurate. My company facilitates third party medical interventions to recommend whether exercise, supplementation, food in some cases is a medically appropriate intervention.Noel KingAnd youre not making any profit?Calley MeansI dont think we should expect nobody to make money. I think everyones financial conflicts should be highly exposed. My company makes money when a third party provider recommends efficacious treatments of root cause non-pharmaceutical interventions. My company will make money when more people are exercising and more people are eating broccoli. I am absolutely fine with that being exposed.Noel KingPresident Trump appointed a seed oil lobbyist to be chief of staff of the USDA. He fought Obama-era rules to cut ultra-processed foods from school lunch. He made RFK [Jr.] eat a Big Mac for a photo op. In the 2024 election, President Trump overwhelmingly won in Americas farm-dependent counties. Those are areas where there is a lot of farming. And so you would assume the president has to really take care not to alienate Big Agriculture. Do you think President Trump really is genuinely invested in the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] movement?Calley MeansWell, he didnt have to appoint Bobby Kennedy. He didnt have to say at every single rally that he was going to have Bobby Kennedy go wild on health. So President Trump said this: He doesnt think a lot about health policy, but what he does think a lot about is corruption and taking on the swamp and taking on corporate cronyism. I think hes really seen in Bobby Kennedy how the forces that profit from sick children are a great example of corruption holding us down. Noel KingThere is an area here that is deeply divisive and it will come up again and again. Mr. Kennedy has said before that he believes autism comes from vaccines. He runs a nonprofit, Childrens Health Defense, that consistently casts doubt on vaccines, on the schedule in which they are administered and the ingredients in them, and on whether they protect or actually cause chronic illnesses. Do Mr. Kennedys positions on vaccines concern you at all? Calley MeansWell, what Bobby Kennedy has consistently said about vaccines during the campaign is that they should be studied like any other pharmaceutical product. Blanket trust of pharmaceutical companies is not a good idea either. I dont think anyone disagrees with continued scientific research on interventions were providing to the American people, whether that be pharmaceuticals or the other 4.6 billion prescriptions were writing in America a year. And even what you mentioned about the Childrens Health Defense, you didnt say that theyre attacking all vaccines in general. You said theyre questioning the pharmaceutical schedule. Theyre questioning specific ingredients. We should be scrutinizing each formulation. Thats a good thing to do. Noel KingOur parents are old enough to remember polio. Were in the millennial generation and polio feels like it was a million years ago. It really wasnt. Americans broadly are susceptible to conspiratorial thinking. Let me offer you the concern as Ive heard it articulated: Americans are going to decide they dont trust vaccines broadly. They are not going to vaccinate their children. And that will return us to a generation and a time that most people just dont want to go back to. Calley MeansI think you just painted an extremely pessimistic and nihilistic view of the American people. What an unfounded statement to say that theyre prone to conspiracy thinking. Thats kind of a dismissive statement. Noel KingI myself am prone to it.Calley MeansWell, maybe thats being rational. Maybe thats being prone to questioning things. This is what President Trump and Bobby talked about during the campaign. I strongly believe the American people are rational. The American people dont want their kids to be sick. I really commend and respect the media hearkening back and their concern for polio and polio coming back. But I would push you if you or anyone else is concerned about childhood health, which is the real issue here. We should be concerned about whats happening right now. We have a chronic disease crisis. We have a truly societally destabilizing event happening. Yes, I agree. We should keep polio at bay. But thats not even on the top 10 list.Noel KingFair enough. Let me ask you one last question. If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, MAHA, the Make America Healthy Again movement, is very close to being inside the system, maybe even in a couple of years it will be the system. Some people might say, Well, thats when the work gets really hard, right? Its easier to be an outsider than it is to be an insider. Do you have any thoughts on what it might be like for this outsider movement to operate on the inside? Do you think itll be tough?Calley MeansBobby a reform-minded person I would say a magnetic, incredible leader and he is putting a stake in the ground that we need to move to a more preventative model and a more chronic disease reversal focused model of health. Thats his stake. I had a really profound conversation with the dean of a medical school recently, and he was honest. He said, listen, everyone in the faculty lounge thinks Bobby is a whack job. If you steer NIH funding to more preventative outcomes, theyre going to kick and scream and complain and say thats stupid, but theyre going to write grants for what the NIH is saying they want. If you can win and keep this vibe and this movement toward that more preventative pull in four years and six years, Bobby will be gone, but if we keep heading in that preventative direction, in six years, itll be the norm. In six years it wont be about Bobby being crazy. It will just be how things are done. Thats the stakes right now. Weve lost our way a bit. Our health incentives are too focused on waiting for people to get sick and then managing those conditions and, I would argue, profiting from those conditions. What were trying to do is get conflicts of interest out of the system and steer the sizable incentives that the government creates toward a more preventative future that asks, How can we actually prevent and reverse these diseases?Thats the fight right now. And we just have to continue to win that argument. Its not going to be total shock and awe. Were not going to be able to change everything at once. But we really have changed the country. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Within days of taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump implemented a blanket ban on entry from seven Muslim-majority countries. It was met with furious pushback, public outcry, and a string of defeats in court.This time around, despite signing an initial barrage of executive orders, Trump has not implemented a travel ban. But that doesnt mean its not coming. One of his Day 1 executive orders, experts say, takes the first step toward a new travel ban one that could be even more extensive than the first time around.The order lays the groundwork for a future ban by directing Trumps Cabinet members to report back within 60 days on countries with deficient vetting and screening procedures for travelers. Its not clear exactly what kind of punitive measures citizens of those countries could face. But the order leaves open the possibility of a partial or full ban on their entry to the US that could go beyond previous restrictions.Experts say such an order could potentially be used to deport people who were issued visas in the last four years, not just to block future arrivals; it could also include provisions that could target those people based on their political beliefs, not just their country of origin. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Trumps plans.Trumps slower approach to implementing a potential travel ban seems geared at avoiding the court losses that saw two versions of the 2017 ban struck down, experts say. This time, Trump is being more cautious about his legal strategy and gathering the kind of evidence he could use as justification for future travel bans, rather than immediately announcing one.In his first term, Trump announced a ban without specifying why the targeted countries raised national security concerns and did not initially articulate any review process by which the bans could be lifted. That is what doomed the policy in court, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School and author of a textbook on immigration law.I think that theyve learned from their mistakes in the first administration, setting things up so that if they want to do a travel ban, its fairly likely to be upheld in court, he said.What a new travel ban could look likeTrumps first travel ban, enacted in January 2017, targeted travelers, including green card holders, from seven Muslim-majority countries. That ban was struck down in court for discriminating against Muslims. The Trump administration then revised the ban twice more, excluding green card holders and adding North Koreans and certain Venezuelan government officials to the list of those banned. That third version was the one that the Supreme Court upheld in 2018 and that remained in place until 2021, when former President Joe Biden rescinded it after taking office.The framework Trump is laying out in his new executive order seeks to expand on that. Though it does not name any particular countries, experts anticipate that at least Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan, all of which were already hit with travel bans in Trumps first term, could be targeted since those countries do not share vetting information with the US. It would potentially apply not just to future arrivals from those countries, but also to those who obtained temporary visas in the last four years and do not have permanent status in the US as green card holders or citizens. Trumps executive order leaves open the possibility that those people already in the US could be deported.According to Csar Cuauhtmoc Garca Hernndez, a professor at Ohio State University College of Law and author of several books on US immigration enforcement, including Welcome the Wretched, Trumps early executive order appears to be setting the stage for more intense and longer-lasting surveillance of migrants already in the US, including a provision calling for a report identifying how many nationals from those countries [with deficient vetting] have entered or have been admitted into the United States on or since January 20, 2021.If such nationals are included in a potential ban, that might become the basis for a legal challenge: Garca Hernndez told Vox that unless migrants leave the country or get convicted for the type of crime that leads to deportation, once admitted into the country migrants are legally permitted to stay as long as they comply with immigration law requirements.In addition to its vetting requirement, Trumps recent executive order also states that the US should not admit travelers who have hostile attitudes toward US citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles or who advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security. Its unclear what that might mean in practice. However, Trump did promise on the campaign trail to impose travel bans on Palestinians from Gaza, as well as what he described as Marxists, socialists, and communists from entering the US. Relatedly, he signed an executive order Wednesday to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses last spring.Those who come to enjoy our country must love our country, Trump said in June, adding, Were going to keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists, and socialists out of America.This would potentially introduce a new kind of ideological vetting into the visa application process, which could go beyond screening for criminal or terrorist activity and begin targeting people based on their political beliefs.That possibility has already raised alarms, Abed Ayoub, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, an Arab-American advocacy group that has condemned Israels war in Gaza, told Vox.The language that stands out to us is the language about the ideological exclusion, Ayoub said, bringing that practice back where folks who may not be from the banned countries may still get their visas denied or maybe banned from entering the US if its deemed their ideology is not aligned with the Trump administrations or its deemed to be un-American.Even a much stricter travel ban, however, might well fall within Trumps authority. Federal law gives Trump significant leeway to implement travel restrictions.Specifically, Trumps executive order invokes an authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the president to suspend the entry of certain noncitizens or impose any restrictions on their entry that they deem appropriate for as long as their presence is detrimental to the interests of the United States.This is a sweeping authority that has been routinely used by presidents other than Trump. For instance, Biden used it to block noncitizens who were determined to have enabled corruption in the Balkan states.But the authority is not without limitations. It cannot override other aspects of federal immigration law, such as the right to seek asylum once in the US. There is also an unresolved legal debate about whether the authority can be invoked to address purely domestic concerns about the presence of noncitizens, such as costs to taxpayers or high unemployment.Depending on the exact language of any future travel bans, those could be areas in which immigrant advocates could ground legal challenges. But such challenges may not find success with the conservative majority on this Supreme Court.I think that immigrants rights advocates will try to find a friendly court to challenge whatever new travel ban comes out, and they may get an injunction, Yale-Loehr said. If the new travel ban is like the provision set forth in this executive order, and like the travel ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court back in 2018, then I would predict that the Supreme Court would also uphold this travel ban.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President Donald Trump's new tariffs on chip-makers outside of the US could have huge ramifications for the Nintendo Switch 2, potentially making the console pricier

There are reports that GTA 6's release date has been revealed by a retailer, but there's something that doesn't quite add up just yet - here's all we know so far

GTA Online makes too much money for Rockstar not to make a new one for GTA 6 (Rockstar)Unlike the original GTA Online, its rumoured that GTA 6s online component will be an optional standalone purchase.Although Rockstar Games has yet to say anything about it, everyone is assuming GTA 6 will come with a separate online multiplayer mode just like GTA 5 did.Given how lucrative GTA Online has been its impossible to imagine there wont be an equivalent for GTA 6, with an insider report from last month claiming a significant online mode is being developed to generate revenue for years.Following that, some fans have latched onto a new rumour that GTA Online 2 (or whatever it ends up being called) will be a separate purchase at launch.The rumour suggests Rockstar and publisher Take-Two Interactive will offer GTA Online 2 as a standalone product, but it will also come bundled with copies of GTA 6, which is currently expected to launch this autumn.This comes courtesy of dataminer Tez2, who has also shared rumours of Rockstar games in the past, such as cancelled remasters of Red Dead Redemption and GTA 4; a claim later corroborated by a separate report.Tez2s comment comes from a GTA Forums thread in response to discussions about the rumours of GTA 6 being priced at $100, which they dont seem to believe is likely.GTA 6 will be the first game where online is sold separately at launch, while story mode will be part of the full package that covers both, writes Tez2.They will have to factor the online standalone price into the total cost. What portion of the base price will be the onlines price? And what would be the story mode upgrade price for those whove bought the online standalone?However, he doesnt seem to consider that a bundle including both GTA 6 and GTA Online 2 may itself be the source of the $100 rumours. Would you pay for GTA Online 2 on its own? (Rockstar)Tez2 has made frequent claims about GTA 6 in the past (such as the game getting new cities via DLC), but it remains unclear how many of them are accurate given how little Rockstar has so far confirmed.More TrendingLikewise, Tez2 doesnt indicate if their claim about GTA Online 2 is based on insider info or is their own speculation. One thing they do theorise is that the standalone online could be sold at a reduced price and allow customers to pay an upgrade fee to access GTA 6.For what its worth, the original GTA Online launched a couple of weeks after GTA 5 and initially wasnt available on its own. It was just a free add-on exclusive to GTA 5.Nowadays, though, GTA Online can be purchased separately for 17.99, but only on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S. So, at the very least, its not unreasonable to assume therell be an option to buy GTA Online 2 separately too. Official info on GTA 6 is long overdue (Rockstar)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralSign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy