President Donald Trumps defenders often frame his trade policies as prioritizing economic development over the free market. In their telling, America has an interest in manufacturing valuable goods domestically, even if producing such wares in the US is not maximally profitable right now. Our nation might not currently make semiconductors as well as Taiwan or electric vehicles as well as China. But if we protect our nascent chip and EV industries, they might eventually become globally competitive. And that could make America wealthier, as the international market for such technologies will be large and opportunities for productivity gains in those industries are significant. This is a reasonable argument for the utility of tariffs in some contexts. But it doesnt amount to a case for Donald Trumps tariffs.On Wednesday, Trump announced that he will impose a 10 percent minimum tariff on all foreign imports, and much stiffer rates on most nations: 20 percent for goods made in the European Union, 46 percent for Vietnam, and 54 percent for China. In a sign of the policys intellectual caliber, the president also ordered a 10 percent tariff on all exports from two uninhabited Antarctic islands (perhaps on the assumption that penguins will soon develop opposable thumbs thumbs and heavy industry).Traditionally, countries use tariffs and industrial policy to climb the international value chain to go from producing simple goods (like T-shirts) or basic commodities (like lumber) to making complex products that are more valuable.But Trumps trade policies would move the United States down the value chain. His tariffs are not designed to foster domestic production of a few highly valuable, cutting-edge products. Rather, he aims to move more or less all forms of manufacturing to the United States. His tariffs apply to all imported goods, from kitchen mitts to airplanes. As Bloombergs Joe Weisenthal notes, this would likely make the United States less competitive in the worlds most lucrative markets. If America lets poorer countries supply it with T-shirts and aluminum, it can dedicate more of its resources to producing semiconductors, airplanes, chemicals, medical equipment, software, and artificial intelligence. The more capital and labor we must devote to providing ourselves with socks and aprons, the less well have to expend on more fruitful enterprises. Trumps tariffs arent rooted in rational development aims. The president is not trying to dominate the industries of the future hes trying to bring back the economy of the past. Nostalgia is the point.Americas right-wing nationalists associate the manufacturing-heavy economy of the 1950s and 1960s with a favored set of social and material conditions. It was an era when rates of wage growth, marriage, and fertility were high, and regional inequality was low. And they believe that they can bend the arc of history back toward that golden age by dramatically increasing US manufacturing employment. But this is a fantasy. America can only return to the mid-century industrial economy in the sense that it can return to subsistence farming: It is technically possible to embrace an anachronistic mode of production, but only at immense economic cost. Why the right longs for the postwar industrial economyI dont mean to assert that nostalgia is the driving force behind Trumps trade agenda. Other motivations and intuitions are surely at play. For example, Trump seems to view trade as a zero-sum game, in which the loser is whichever country buys more goods than it sells.Nevertheless, nostalgia for the postwar industrial economy suffuses the nationalist rights rhetoric about trade policy, and informs its fixation on manufacturing employment. In the America first movements narrative of national decline, deindustrialization which is to say, the economys shift away from manufacturing and toward services is synonymous with economic devastation and moral rot. The basic story goes like this: In a bygone, golden era, American workers made things in factories, formed stable families, and coalesced into tight-knit communities. But then corrupt, globalist elites shipped US manufacturing jobs overseas, devastating middle-class workers in general and male ones in particular. Marriage rates collapsed, communities frayed, and moral standards declined. By reshoring production, Americas former greatness can be restored.As Trump explained in his first inaugural address, Americas fall from greatness began when factories shuttered and left our shores and the wealth of our middle class was ripped from their homes, leaving rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation while crime and gangs and drugs festered in the ruins.In his speech to Congress this year, the president gestured at similar themes, arguing that tariffs are not just about protecting American jobs. Theyre about protecting the soul of our country.For the Trumpist right, the US economys shift away from manufacturing and toward services not only had ruinous economic effects, but destabilizing social implications. The industrial economy put a premium on brute strength, which men are far more likely to possess than women. The post-industrial economy, by contrast, features somewhat less demand for brawn, and considerable need for soft skills commonly associated with women. Deindustrialization was therefore a crisis for men in particular. Over the last 30 years and more, government policy has helped destroy the kind of economy that gave meaning to generations of men, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley argued in a 2021 speech. Domestic manufacturing once supported millions of American men with good wages, who in turn started and supported families. Now that industry lies all but dead on the altar of globalism.Some pro-Trump conservatives explicitly blame mens declining economic advantage over women for falling marriage and birth rates. They argue that women tend to prefer singledom to partnering with a man who enjoys less economic status or earning potential than themselves. Therefore, to promote family formation, you need to improve mens economic outcomes at womens expense. As one influential right-wing influencer mused on X, you do not solve low birth rates by giving money to women, you solve low birth rates by taking money away from women. National Review contributor Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry recently endorsed another X users sentiment that fertility is a solved problem and tracks differential status between men and women.It is unclear whether Trump and his allies consciously see reindustrialization as a strategy for shifting gender relations in mens favor. But the broad sense that the industrial economy was good for male workers specifically and thus, for family formation permeates the nationalist rights rhetoric.The rights nostalgia for the industrial economy is understandable. From the end of World War II through the 1960s, more than one-quarter of US laborers worked in manufacturing (today, that figure is 9.7 percent). And those decades of high manufacturing employment witnessed exceptionally high rates of wage growth and economic mobility. Between 1948 and 1973, hourly compensation in the US climbed by 91.3 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Over the ensuing 50 years, by contrast, hourly wages grew by just 9.2 percent.Meanwhile, a child born into the bottom half of Americas income distribution in 1940 had a 93 percent chance of outearning their parents, according to economist Raj Chettys research. A child born into similar circumstances in 1980, by contrast, had just a 45 percent chance of doing so.Whats more, deindustrialization coincided with a profound shift in the relative economic power of men and women in the United States. Men bore the brunt of wage stagnation: From 1979 to 2019, the median male workers weekly earnings fell by roughly 3 percent, while the median female workers jumped by more than 30 percent.Courtesy of Federal Reserve Economic Data.The correlation between all these economic developments and the decline of manufacturing employment is not coincidental. In the postwar period, manufacturing workers earned significantly more than similarly skilled laborers in other occupations, enjoying a 12 percent wage premium in 1983, according to the Cleveland Federal Reserve. Thus, as the manufacturing sector hemorrhaged jobs, millions of (disproportionately male) workers transitioned into less remunerative employment.The manufacturing sectors unusually high pay reflected two key characteristics of the industry. First, it is easier to achieve productivity gains in manufacturing than in many service-sector occupations. Increasing the number of widgets a factory worker can produce in an hour is a more straightforward engineering challenge than, say, increasing the number of children an individual daycare worker can nurture over the same period. Second, the manufacturing sector was more heavily unionized than other parts of the economy. In 1980, 32.3 percent of manufacturing workers were organized, compared to 15 percent of all other private sector workers. The decline of manufacturing employment was therefore synonymous with the decline of unionization. And since unionized employers tend to pay higher wages than non-union ones, this likely contributed to wage stagnation.To be clear, the decline of manufacturing was not the sole or even primary driver of slowing wage growth or rising income inequality in the US over the past half-century. Productivity and GDP growth rates slowed during the past 50 years, which limited opportunities for wage gains. Meanwhile, pay inequality within all sectors of the economy grew, as high-skilled workers across industries saw their advantage over less-educated workers swell. Nevertheless, the decline of manufacturing explains about a quarter of the jump in US income inequality between the 1980s and 2000s, according to a 2019 IMF working paper.Deindustrialization also fed regional inequality, as localities that were economically dependent on manufacturing suffered wrenching economic decline while those dependent on the provision of high-end services such as finance or software development thrived. Some measures show a 40 percent increase in such inequality since 1980. Finally, there is evidence that the decline of manufacturing did in fact lead to lower marriage and birth rates, as a result of men losing economic status relative to women. The economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson have found that trade shocks in which localities suffer manufacturing job losses as a result of foreign competition reduce the earnings of young men relative to young women, and consequently see lower marriage and fertility rates.All of which is to say, right-wing nationalists arent wrong to believe that deindustrialization contributed to many of the economic and social trends that they decry.But it does not follow that Trump can reverse these trends by imposing giant tariffs on Vietnam, Bangladesh, and floating chunks of ice in the sub-Antarctic Indian Ocean.Why America cant tariff its way back to an industrial economyIn the nationalist rights account, the decline of manufacturing employment was the contingent result of bad trade policies: Were it not for the machinations of globalist elites, the past half-century of factory closures could have been averted.But this is false. Americas pursuit of free trade surely influenced the scale and speed of deindustrialization. With a different set of trade policies, manufacturing employment in the US could have been marginally higher today.Nevertheless, the United States was bound to see a massive reduction in manufacturing employment over the past 50 years, no matter what trade policy it pursued.The reasons are twofold: First, as consumers get wealthier, they spend less of their income on goods and more on services. Humanitys appetite for appliances, cars, and other physical objects is more exhaustible than its desire for better health or higher investment returns. In 1960, Americans devoted more than 50 percent of their consumer spending to goods; by 2010, that figure had fallen to 33 percent.Thus, to keep up with shifts in consumer demand, advanced economies need to dedicate more labor to the provision of health care, financial advice, and other services, and less to the production of durable goods.Second, manufacturing is easier to automate than services. Goods production requires the performance of repetitive tasks in a controlled environment. This makes it easier to mechanize than medical care, education, or even food service: Robots are better at assembling standardized products (such as cars) than customizable ones (such as Chipotle burritos).For these reasons, manufacturings share of employment has been falling in all rich countries over the past 50 years. Even in Japan, which has promoted manufacturing through protectionist trade policy and government subsidies, the percentage of workers employed in manufacturing has fallen to just over 15 percent. And this same trend is beginning to surface in China: Despite that nations massive trade surplus, its manufacturing sector went from employing 30.3 percent of all workers in 2013 to 29.1 percent in 2023.According to the Financial Timess Martin Wolf, were the US to entirely eliminate its trade deficit in goods, manufacturings share of US employment would at most return to its level from two decades ago, leaving roughly 85 percent of US workers employed in other sectors. There is little reason to believe that Trumps tariffs will actually succeed in strengthening US manufacturing. To the contrary, they will massively increase the costs of producing goods in the United States, inspire foreign nations to erect new barriers to American exports, and make companies more reluctant to invest in new factories due to economic uncertainty, all of which will hurt domestic manufacturing. But even if the presidents trade policies somehow proved exceptionally effective, they would not bring back the industrial economy of yesteryear. We dont need a time machine to raise working-class living standardsNone of this means that America must resign itself to low wage growth or high inequality. The decline of manufacturing may have been inevitable, but the rise of a more inegalitarian economic order was not. In social democratic Denmark, the decline of manufacturing employment coincided with falling inequality, according to the IMF.And although productivity gains have historically been higher in manufacturing than in services, this has become less true over time. Certain service sectors such telecommunications and transport have seen faster gains in output per worker hour than manufacturing in recent decades.America can build a more dynamic and egalitarian economy without reengineering mass manufacturing employment. Collective bargaining helped factory workers wield leverage over their employers in the postwar period. And it could help all workers do so today, if the US established a system of sectoral bargaining. Demand for manufacturing labor may be inherently limited. But in other sectors, demand for blue-collar labor is artificially constrained by regulation. America has 4.5 million fewer homes than it needs. By eliminating restrictive zoning laws, and providing cheap financing to the housing sector, we can meet one of our nations most pressing economic needs while expanding opportunities for manual workers. And one can tell a similar story about promoting infrastructure construction or the green energy buildout.Increasing the affordability of college and trade schools can further help workers acquire the skills demanded by a modern, services-dominant economy. And a more comprehensive social welfare state can ease the burdens of future labor shocks, such as the one that artificial intelligence threatens to deliver to some white-collar workers. The rights desire to increase mens economic leverage over women is morally objectionable, even if such inequality is conducive to higher marriage or birth rates. All Americans, regardless of gender, are equally deserving of opportunity. But reducing young mens unemployment and increasing their wages would enhance their well-being, while shrinking the number of women who involuntarily forgo marriage and motherhood due to an absence of financially independent partners.But Trumps policies are unlikely to advance any of his movements purported aims. His tariffs are poised to reduce real wages, depress housing construction, and increase unemployment. And his labor agenda aims to restrict collective bargaining rights, rather than expand them.Americans deserve an economy in which blue-collar work is more remunerative, opportunity is broadly shared, and material obstacles to family formation are less profound. But building that economy will require an unsentimental analysis of our economys present, not nostalgia-addled efforts to resurrect its past. See More:

In February, a group of men on a sports talk show casually spread a salacious and untrue rumor about the sex life of a teenage girl on national television, resulting in her being humiliated and relentlessly harassed. It felt as though it were 2007 again, and the talk show banter was a brief pause before our nations busy schedule of making fun of Britney Spearss breakdown.On ESPNs bro-y The Pat McAfee Show, the titular McAfee introduced a segment on NFL draft picks by gossiping about an undergraduate rumor hed heard: that a sorority girl at the University of Mississippi had cheated on her fraternity boyfriend with his father. McAfee didnt mention the young woman or her boyfriend by name, but later shared the clip on X to his 3.2 million followers (the post is still up, as of April 3). Barstool Sports personality Jack Mac then promoted a meme coin named after the girl in question: Mary Kate Cornett, a first-year college student. Cornett denies the rumor, but that hasnt stopped it from spreading like wildfire. As reported on the New York Times The Athletic, as the rumor spread, the harassment Cornett experienced ratcheted up. She had to leave her college dorm and move into emergency housing after campus police said she was at risk. Someone sent in a false tip to the police to have a SWAT team sent to her mothers home. Cornetts voicemail and text message filled up with degrading messages from strangers calling her a whore and telling her to kill herself; similar messages have also reached her 89-year-old grandfather. Cornett now says she intends to pursue legal action against McAfee and ESPN. ESPN and McAfee have declined to comment to The Athletic and other news outlets. Theres something so 2000s about this story the kind of thing you would read about on a feminist blog at the time. It has all the beats of a classic aughts slut-shaming: an anonymous teenage girl, the men on a talk show using her humiliation as idle chit-chat, the way that chit-chat picks up and runs rampant until the girl is getting anonymous threats from strangers. Its very Swiffer Girl, in which a graphic tape an eighth-grader made for the boy she had a crush on went viral. Its very Vanessa Hudgens in 2007, when she was forced to apologize to fans and scramble to save her Disney career when private nude photos of her were leaked. Its basically all the episodes that the talk show hosts of the 2000s have by now apologized for. The only part thats really new is the memecoin and the right-wing ecosystem of X that allows such gossip to flourish.Surely, a person might think, we have moved past this kind of national slut-shaming by now. We live in a post-MeToo world. The culture must have moved past the sexual humiliation of teen girls.Yet in a way, the Ole Miss story is the kind of thing thats been a long time coming. The right has been interested in reviving Bush-era raunch (think Girls Gone Wild) and purity culture (think: the obsession with Britney Spearss virginity) for years now. Purity culture and raunch culture walk hand in hand. The sexual objectification of raunch is enforced by the rigid shaming of purity. Both are united by the compulsory objectification and humiliation of women, whose bodies within this system are always controlled by men. As sociologist Bernadette Barton showed in her 2021 book The Pornification of America: How Raunch Culture is Ruining Our Society, raunch has become fundamental to the self-conception of the post-Trump right. Barton notes the number of pro-Trump memes that explicitly link provocative female bodies with Trump paraphernalia, or that contrast sexy conservative women with ugly, unfeminine liberal ones. No longer are misogynists confined to the old dichotomy framing women as virgins or whores, Barton observes. Raunch culture has facilitated a new sexist dichotomy: hot or not.The ideology claims all hot girls as their own and demands that they place themselves at the service of men, for their amusement. Taking on this position allows a woman a certain amount of cultural currency, which is why the right likes to crow that hot girls vote for Trump and only ugly girls are liberal. Yet being a hot girl also opens her up to the possibility of the kind of vicious, highly sexualized humiliation and harassment that Cornett is facing. That is the ideology that allowed the right to claim an apolitical figure like Hawk Tuah Girl as a MAGA symbol, and at the same time to smear Kamala Harris as the original Hawk Tuah Girl. The point of it is to degrade, to dominate, to make it clear that sex exists to gratify men. Humiliating an anonymous teenager for fun is the natural endpoint of this ideology. It was always what was lurking under the hot girls for Trump jokes.See More:

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on pretty much everything imported into the United States. Among other things, the tariffs include a 10 percent minimum tax of imports outside of North America, a hodgepodge of different tax rates on Canadian and Mexican goods, a 25 percent tax on cars manufactured outside the US, and a chaotic mix of country-specific tariffs ranging from 10 to 50 percent.Trumps tariffs are likely to deal a significant self-inflicted blow to the US economy. As of this writing, the S&P 500 a common index used to track US stock prices is down about 4 percent. The Budget Lab at Yale predicts that the tariffs will cause enough inflation to effectively reduce the average US households annual income by $3,789 in 2024 dollars. A similar analysis by Auckland University of Technology economics professor Niven Winchester predicts a $3,487 blow to US households.Thus far, Trumps second presidential term has been a series of staring contests between Trump and the courts. Trumps tariffs could lead to yet another, though the answer to the question of whether a lawsuit challenging them might succeed is quite unclear. And not just because the Supreme Court has shown great solicitude for Trump in recent years. The federal laws governing tariffs give the president very broad authority over trade policy generally, and specifically over tariff rates. A court concerned solely with following the text of federal law is likely to uphold Trumps tariffs.But the current Supreme Court is not such a court. During the Biden administration, the Courts Republican majority frequently used a novel legal doctrine known as major questions to strike down executive branch actions they deemed too ambitious. Under the doctrine, the courts are supposed to cast a particularly skeptical eye on executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance like, say, a new tax policy that is likely to cost the average American household thousands of dollars a year.The major questions doctrine cannot be found somewhere in the Constitution or a federal statute. It is fairly new, the Court has never explained where it comes from, and it appears to be entirely made up by the Republican justices. So it is difficult to predict whether those justices will apply it to a Republican president, or whether they will deem Trumps tariffs a violation of this entirely arbitrary doctrine.Still, the argument that Trumps tariffs violate the major questions doctrine is sufficiently straightforward that it would be easy for a judge to write an opinion reaching this conclusion. It might seem that Republican judges, especially those appointed by Trump, would hesitate to apply the doctrine in a manner that would harm him. Judicial politics, however, do not always align perfectly with the behavior of elected officials.Federal judges serve for life, so they do not need to fear electoral retaliation if they break with a president of the same party. And justices sometimes have ideological commitments that trump their loyalty to whatever transient agenda their partys political leaders are pushing at any given moment. The major questions doctrine centralizes power in the judiciary, something that members of the judiciary may find attractive. And a decision applying this doctrine to a Republican president would help legitimize it, as it has previously only been used against Biden.There is a very real chance, in other words, that five justices would place their commitment to judicial supervision of the executive above their commitment to Trump striking down his tariffs in the process.In his executive order announcing the latest round of tariffs, Trump claims the power to do so under a wide range of federal laws, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trade Act of 1974. Though these laws do impose some constraints on Trump and his subordinates, those constraints are largely procedural and impose few substantive limits on the scope and size of tariffs.Under one provision of the Trade Act, for example, the US Trade Representative, a Cabinet-level position currently held by Jamieson Greer, must make certain findings such as a determination that a foreign countrys conduct is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce, or that this countrys actions are unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce before the United States may impose new tariffs under this act.Once Greer does so, however, executive power to tax imports is quite broad. The government may impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the services of, such foreign country for such time as the trade representative determines appropriate.Trumps latest executive order, meanwhile, appears to rely heavily on his power to regulate trade after declaring a national emergency the order makes such a declaration in response to what he labels the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system.Notably, this law only permits the president to declare such an emergency to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, but the law does not define terms like national emergency or usual and extraordinary threat.Once a declaration of emergency is in place, the presidents powers are quite broad under the statute. Trump may regulate any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest.The Court doesnt pay much attention to the text of federal laws in its major questions decisionsThough the text of the laws governing presidential authority over tariffs give Trump and his administration a great deal of authority, so did another law known as the Heroes Act. That law gives the education secretary sweeping power to waive or modify student loan obligations as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency such as the Covid pandemic.But the Courts Republican majority paid no heed to this broad statutory language in Biden v. Nebraska (2023), which struck down a Biden administration program that would have forgiven $10,000 worth of student loans for most borrowers.Nebraska relied, at least in part, on the major questions doctrine, claiming that the student loan forgiveness program was illegal because it was simply too big. The economic and political significance of the Secretarys action is staggering by any measure, the six Republican justices claimed in that opinion, pointing to a University of Pennsylvania analysis that concluded that the student loan forgiveness program would cost between $469 billion and $519 billion.Trumps tariffs, meanwhile, involve similarly eye-popping numbers. According to the Census Bureau, there are about 127 million households in the United States. If Yales Budget Lab is correct that the average household will lose $3,789 in real annual income because of Trumps tariffs, that means that American consumers face a staggering loss of more than $480 billion in real income.In fairness, Nebraska also pointed to what it called the unprecedented nature of the Secretarys debt cancellation plan to justify its conclusion, and Trump may be able to point to a precedent for the kind of sweeping tariffs he recently announced. In 1971, President Richard Nixon briefly imposed a 10 percent tariff on nearly all foreign goods, and a federal appeals court upheld this tariff. Notably, however, Congress has since amended some of the laws that Nixon relied upon more than half a century ago.Additionally, there appears to be a bit of a debate over whether the major questions doctrine applies to laws that delegate power directly to the president as opposed to a statute like the Heroes Act, which empowers a cabinet secretary or other agency-level official. In Nebraska v. Su (2024), for example, the Biden administration argued that this doctrine does not apply to the president. Though the federal appeals court which heard this case did not reach this question, Trump-appointed Judge Ryan Nelson argued that it does in part because the separation of powers concerns that animated decisions like Nebraska apply equally regardless of whether executive power is exercised by the president or one of his subordinates.Its impossible to guess whether the current slate of justices will rule that the Nixon precedent justifies setting aside the major questions doctrine, or whether they will conclude that this doctrine does not apply to Trump. Again, this doctrine is brand new, is not grounded in any constitutional or statutory text, and appears to be entirely made up by the Courts Republican majority. So asking whether this fabricated doctrine applies to the president is a bit like asking your daughter if her imaginary friend likes to dance. The answer is whatever she wants it to be.Still, the case for applying the major questions doctrine to Trumps tariff is at least as strong as the argument for applying it to Bidens student loan forgiveness plan. And, while this Court has been extraordinarily protective of Trump in the past, there are cynical partisan reasons why its Republican majority may want to apply the major questions doctrine to Trump in this case Republicans would likely get crushed in the next election if Trump tanks the economy with his tariffs.See More:

The Trump administrations tariffs are, by every reasonable account, an economic catastrophe in the making. So why are they happening?One explanation is that this is simply democracy at work. President Donald Trump campaigned on doing more or less exactly what hes just done, and the voting public elected him. So here we are.Thats at best a partial story. In fact, its probably more accurate to see Trumps tariffs as a symptom of democratic decay of America transitioning into a kind of strange hybrid system that combines both authoritarian and democratic features.Were Americas democracy functioning properly, Trump wouldnt have the power to impose such broad tariffs unilaterally. Congress, not the presidency, has the constitutional authority to raise taxes and tariffs are, of course, a tax on imports.Yet the basic design of the American system has broken down, allowing the president to usurp far more authority than is healthy. In many policy areas, the presidency functions less like a democratic chief executive who operates under constraint and more like an elected dictatorship. And historically, dictatorships elected or otherwise suffer from a fatal flaw: they have no ability to stop the people at the top from acting on their policy whims and, in the process, producing national disasters. This tendency is why democracy tends to produce superior policy outcomes over the long run; why America, and not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, won the 20th century.The tariffs, in short, show the true stakes of democratic decline. Its not just a matter of abstract principle, but the difference between stability and disaster.Americas democratic decline caused the tariffsWhen Donald Trump and Elon Musk began laying waste to the federal government in February, the political scientist Adam Przeworski declared himself at a loss. Though Przeworski is one of the worlds most eminent scholars of comparative democracy, author of many defining pieces in the field, he could not find the right vocabulary to describe what was happening in the United States.Though Trump was elected in fair elections, his subsequent policy agenda amounted to revolutionary change of the relation between the state and society one that attempts to replace the rules and norms that define democratic politics with something very different.Understanding America in this more textured sense, as a country under a new and confusing regime that is both democratic and not, helps us make better sense out of the Trump tariff debacle.On the one hand, an electorate that picked Trump is getting one of Trumps signature policies. Sometimes, in democracies, demagogues win elections a problem so old that you can find a discussion of it in Platos Republic.On the other hand, democracies rely on legal rules constraining the executive to prevent any such demagogue from becoming a dictator. In the American system, that means a complex system of constitutional checks and balances one of which is the Constitution granting taxation powers to Congress and Congress alone. Yet instead of asking for statutory authorization to raise tariffs, Trump is exploiting broadly worded emergency legislation to do an end-run around the legislative branch.This is what a hybrid political system looks like in practice. The United States still has free and fair elections at all levels of government, and is in that sense democratic. But elections dont matter in the way that theyre supposed to, because the peoples representatives in Congress are not playing their constitutionally assigned policymaking role. This is the autocratic component of the current American system, one that enables the president to sabotage the global economy if he so wishes.The transformation of America, from democracy to Frankensteinian amalgam, has been in the works for decades.The primary culprit is Congress, which has due to a combination of partisanship and political cowardice become both unable and unwilling to act as the supreme lawmaking body. Instead, it began delegating significant amounts of its own authority to the executive.Sometimes, this was intentional authorizing the president to make policy through executive agencies, creating the administrative state conservatives decry. Sometimes, it was unintentional: Congress giving the president vague emergency powers that were supposed to function in narrow circumstances, but in practice allowed the president to act unilaterally in all sorts of normal policy debates. And sometimes, Congress simply did nothing on crucial policy issues forcing the president to try to address them with dubiously broad interpretations of their own powers.The judicial branch deserves some blame too. While the Supreme Court has occasionally stepped in to address presidential overreach, it has done so in a haphazard and partisan way. Moreover, it has long deferred to the president on key issues like immigration, trade, and war.Observers on both the liberal left and the libertarian right warned for decades that growing executive power posed a problem for democracy and good policymaking. Obviously, they were right to do so in hindsight. Yet part of the reason that they were ignored is that there were other checks on the president that seemed to keep the executive in line.Some of these were internal executive branch checks. The White House relied on the Office of Legal Counsel a group of senior executive branch attorneys to provide independent opinions on the legality of various policy options. Internal policy shops like the Council of Economic Advisers provided informed expert opinions that would steer presidents toward more evidence-based policymaking. In dire cases, the Justice Department would probe potentially criminal activity by executive branch staff.Other checks were more informal. Fear of losing the war for public opinion might prevent a president from taking a particularly radical stance. The presidents own moral code, a sense that there are just certain things one shouldnt do even if you can, also provided a kind of soft check on the abuse of power.But whats clear now is that all of these internal mechanisms were voluntary. Trump has neutered executive branch checks on his authority and (clearly!) does not possess the judgment we expect from people in the highest office. It turns out that the rest of the political system and especially Congress had created the conditions for our descent into a hybrid political system. The only barriers remaining were norms about how the executive branch should work, ones that a determined president like Trump could smash through with ease.The tariffs show why our hybrid system is so dangerousSometimes, the stakes in this kind of conversation can feel a little fuzzy. Why does it matter if we are living in a hybrid system rather than a full democracy? Sure, the president may be powerful, but if weve still got elections, then isnt everything going to be fine in the end? The tariffs provide one of the clearest examples of why this matters for everyone: without democracy, the quality of our policymaking gets dangerously worse.Political scientists have long found that, on average, democracies produce better outcomes for citizens than authoritarian states. They produce higher rates of economic growth, superior technological innovation, better public health services, and are even more likely to win wars.One of the key reasons for democracys success has been its formalized policymaking process. Because laws are changed through legal and transparent processes, ones subject to public debate and legal oversight, they are more likely to both be well-informed by the best available evidence and corrected if something goes badly. Authoritarian and hybrid regimes ditch these constraints, which allows them to make policy changes a lot faster. But it also enables one person, or a small group of people, to make radical decisions on a whim with disastrous consequences.Think about Maos Great Leap Forward in China, a direct product of the leaders adherence to a Communist ideology that was out of touch with reality. While Trumps tariffs are nowhere near as evil the Great Leap Forward killed somewhere between 18 and 32 million people the same formal problem contributed to both mistakes.For a more recent example, look at Russias invasion of Ukraine. The disaster began with Putins personal obsession with the idea that Ukrainian nationhood was fake and that the territory was rightfully Russian. This notion went from Putins personal obsession to actual war because no one could stop him.Trumps tariffs will, if fully implemented, be remembered as their own cautionary tale. While he campaigned on them, he wouldnt have been able to implement the entire tariff package had he gone through the normal constitutionally prescribed procedure for raising taxes. The fact that America isnt functioning like a normal democracy, with public deliberation and multiple checks on executive authority, is what allowed Trump to act on his idiosyncratic ideas in the manner of a Mao or Putin.Now, its still possible that Trump steps back from the brink. But even if he does, and the worst outcome is avoided, the lesson should be clear: the long decay of Americas democratic system means that we are all living under an axe.And if this isnt the moment it falls, there will surely be another.See More:

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visited West Virginia on March 28 to promote his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda at an event where he cruelly criticized state Gov. Patrick Morriseys weight. Kennedy suggested that he would host a public weigh-in and celebration once Morrisey had shed 30 pounds, and Kennedy had an idea about how the governor could do it: Were going to put him on a carnivore diet, Kennedy said.Weeks before, science journalist and meat enthusiast Nina Teicholz argued in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled Meat Will Make America Healthy Again that when the US government updates its dietary guidelines this year, it needs to keep meat firmly at the center of the plate. This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletterSign up here for Future Perfects biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more.Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com!The Trump administration can ensure that federal dietary guidelines recognize the role of high-quality protein in improving Americans health, Teicholz wrote. (In her view, high-quality protein comes from animals, while protein from plants is inferior.)Meat industry groups, such as the National Cattlemens Beef Association and the National Pork Board, have made similar pleas. Lucky for them, Kennedy and US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins who so far has acted in lockstep with the meat industry are in charge of publishing the new federal dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years. But the push to get Americans to eat more meat goes against what the governments own nutrition experts recommend. In December, a government-commissioned expert committee recommended the federal dietary guidelines be updated to encourage Americans to eat less red and processed meat and more protein from plant-based sources, like beans and lentils. And its unclear what era of meat supremacy Teicholz means to invoke when she says meat will make America healthy again. Americans are eating more meat and other animal products than ever, and it doesnt seem to be making us any healthier, though, as rates of diet-related diseases like cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes remain high.Teasing apart cause and effect in nutrition research is notoriously messy and complicated, and our high levels of meat consumption alone cant explain Americas high rates of chronic disease other factors, like consumption of highly processed sugary and salty foods, along with rates of exercise, alcohol and tobacco intake, health care access, and exposure to pollution, also determine health outcomes. But study after study has found that high meat consumption can increase our risk of diet-related chronic diseases. While many Americans might like to hear that our abnormally high levels of meat consumption is actually healthy and virtuous and that we need to eat even more of it nutrition research largely shows that we would be better off if we did the very opposite.Make America eat more plants A significant body of research shows that when people eat more healthy plant-based foods, like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes, they can lower their risk of heart disease, certain types of cancer, Type 2 diabetes, and premature death. When they eat more meat especially red and processed meats they can increase that risk. Two recently published studies bear this out.Last week, a paper published in the journal Nature Medicine found that eating more plant-based foods along with fewer animal products and ultraprocessed foods is linked to a higher likelihood of healthy aging, defined as reaching 70 years of age without suffering from major chronic diseases and maintaining good cognitive, mental, and physical health.Our findings suggest that dietary patterns rich in plant-based foods, with moderate inclusion of healthy animal-based foods, may enhance overall healthy aging, the researchers wrote. (There are many reasons to eat a fully plant-based diet, like animal welfare and environmental sustainability, but there isnt a strong case to be made that optimal health requires forgoing animal products entirely.)Many MAHA supporters fall prey to the same fallacy of many liberal food reformers: the belief that only what is natural is good.Weeks earlier, a paper published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine found that butter consumption was linked to increased risk of both cancer mortality and mortality overall, while consumption of plant-based seed oils was associated with lower overall mortality, along with lower cancer and cardiovascular disease deaths.The general consensus that more plants and less meat can improve public health has been promoted by the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and leading medical institutions. It has also driven the EAT-Lancet Commission, a large, global committee of nutrition and sustainability experts, to advocate for a diet that would reduce the average Americans consumption of meat by about 75 percent.For a time, going in that direction seemed like it might be possible. Americans ate less meat during the Great Recession, even if it was done primarily to save money rather than improve personal health. And through the 2010s, the term flexitarian rose to prominence as a significant share of Americans told pollsters they were cutting back on meat while the benefits of plant-based eating entered the zeitgeist thanks to celebrities like Beyonc and Lizzo. By the early 2020s, the hype around new-and-improved plant-based meat and milk products from startup darlings Beyond Meat, Oatly, and Impossible Foods became inescapable. But this all proved to be more show than substance American consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs has only increased over the last decade. And the proverbial vibe has shifted from the days of buzzy Impossible burgers and skipping meat on Mondays. The health halo around plant-based products has worn thin in part due to flimsy science and a mass PR campaign funded by the meat industry while meat consumption is once again culturally ascendant, as The Atlantics Yasmin Tayag captured last week. The signs are everywhere, Tayag notes: declining plant-based meat sales, Americas protein fixation, the rise of the manosphere, and the belief of some of its loudest voices that masculinity requires eating lots of meat.Messages of moderation in the annals of American nutrition research appear to be no match against the popularity of carnivore diet devotees, protein maxxing, and MAHA-aligned health influencers who rail against cooking with seed oils while praising butter and beef tallow.After decades of government hesitance to confront the roots of Americas biggest diet-related health crises, Kennedy and the MAHA coalitions promises to challenge large food companies and address chronic disease head-on is refreshing. But its prescription is more vibes and anecdotes than evidence. The MAHA coalition doesnt appear to ever question our high levels of animal product consumption, for example, but rather wants to increase it, and in supposedly natural forms: raw milk over nondairy milk, butter and beef tallow over seed oils, and grass-fed beef over feedlot beef.In this way, many MAHA supporters fall prey to the same fallacy of many liberal food reformers: the belief that only what is natural is good. But milk is now pasteurized because raw milk can make people terribly sick, plant-based seed oils are likely healthier than butter, and grass-fed beef is worse for the planet and hardly better for you. While beans and lentils are less protein-dense than meat and are less easily digested, as Teicholz rightly points out in her op-ed, if only slightly theyre also free of cholesterol, extremely low in saturated fat, and loaded with fiber, which, unlike protein, more than 90 percent of Americans are deficient in. (And theyre still a great source of protein.) Calls to make America healthy again by eating more meat than ever may be politically popular who doesnt want to feel empowered to do something that for so long people have been made to feel bad about? But there is a cost to this collective dismissal of nutrition and public health research: Some research has shown that countries would save on health care costs if their citizens ate more plant-rich diets. If the Trump administration is sincere about cost cutting, and RFK Jr. is sincere about making America healthier, they both ought to take that advice to heart. 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:

At Vox, I specialize in writing and editing all sorts of stories about animal agriculture and the future of food, from the strange ritual of eating turkeys on Thanksgiving to the policy debates around the fate of mother pigs in the pork industry. But the lives of Americas 9.4 million dairy cows have always been especially close to my heart, and to many people who care about farm animals, for reasons that will become clear as you read this comic. Id written a bit about dairy cows before, but to truly do the story justice, I knew I needed to narrate and illustrate, in depth, a dairy cows life from birth to death (and even then, there was so much from my research that had to be left on the cutting-room floor). Once you really see it, its impossible to look at milk the same way again.Sources and further reading: Spoiled: The Myth of Milk as Superfood, by Anne Mendelson The Cow with Ear Tag #1389, by Kathryn Gillespie Americans are drinking more cows milk. Heres why thats a problem. (Vox) 9 charts that show US factory farming is even bigger than you realize (Vox) Big Milk has taken over American schools (Vox) The truth about organic milk (The Atlantic) What happens at livestock auctions? (Vox) I just want to leave with the calf: The US activist befriending farmers (The Guardian) Newborn dairy calves endure long, grueling journeys across the United States (Animal Welfare Institute) Regrouping induces anhedonia-like responses in dairy heifers (JDS Communications, a journal of the American Dairy Science Association) Dont mind milk? The role of animal suffering, speciesism, and guilt in the denial of mind and moral status of dairy cows (Food Quality and Preference journal)

The world is trying to kill you, this much is true.Planes are crashing on a near weekly basis. Forever chemicals and microplastics are in our water, embedded in our beauty products and clothing, and even burrowed in our brains. Your kitchen utensils might be poisoning you and perhaps your food is, too. Mysterious diseases and not-so-mysterious diseases seem to be forever threatening another global pandemic. Alarming news coverage of violent crime has people on edge, concerned for their safety.With all these anxieties coursing through modern life, you might suspect the world is a fundamentally menacing place. In 2023, 40 percent of Americans said they felt unsafe walking home alone at night, the highest rate since 1993, according to a Gallup poll. Ongoing research suggests Gen Z sees more risk around them than other generations. You would, however, be wrong to assume that danger is everywhere. Violent crime has been down, air travel is as safe as its ever been, mortality from infectious disease largely fell throughout the 20th and 21st centuries (even the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic was blunted by the swift development of effective vaccines). While much more can be done to ensure the safety and well-being of people, animals, and the earth, Americans live longer, safer, wealthier lives than centuries past. Nothing is without risk, but fixating on certain perils may be misplaced, experts say. Risk and danger are non-negotiables in the great project of human existence. The line between sufficient self-preservation and excessive vigilance is thin and our own miscalculations on what actually constitutes a risk may only muddy the waters. But a life without risk is one without joys and excitements. Generations ago, risks were largely evaluated by the scientific and cultural knowledge of the day. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, some of the greatest risks came from natural causes: fires that razed homes and cities, infectious diseases, and unpredictable weather conditions. Absent any kind of data or expert guidance, people largely relied on their own experience and the experiences of others to weigh risk. If your cousin embarked on a transcontinental ocean voyage only never to return, your perception of such a trips risk would have been swayed.But as technology advanced, around 150 years ago, the risks also proliferated. New transportation, like railroads, held hazards for both passengers and workers. Mines, factories, and other industrial-era workplaces were hotbeds of danger. In order to assess the risks of industrial labor, states began collecting data about accidents and deaths.It was collected to make an argument about you should pay attention to this kind of risk, that the government should step in and try to manage the risk, says Arwen Mohun, a history professor at the University of Delaware and author of Risk: Negotiating Safety in American Society. The first widely collected data is about public health and about workplace accidents, and those were both big political issues. The numbers were meant to shift peoples perceptions of risk.People use both numbers and stories to build a narrative around what is safe and what isnt.These days, especially as mass media makes it possible to stay informed about all the bad and scary happenings the world over, data and statistics are in no short supply, documenting everything from the number of flu infections in a given year to the likelihood of winning the lottery. But the power of experience still shapes how individuals weigh risk. People use both numbers and stories to build a narrative around what is safe and what isnt. The problem is were not good at parsing either. Trust plays a huge role in what data, experts, and firsthand accounts we take into consideration, says Jens Zinn, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Melbourne. For instance, if youre sick and worried about the risk of getting sicker, you usually seek more information from a trusted source: perhaps a doctor. However, when people believe a source of information is trying to deceive them, theyre less likely to trust the information, even if they know it to be true.In a time when trust in institutions is at an all-time low, some might turn to sometimes misleading belief systems when weighing risk, Zinn says. Those who are skeptical of science or expertise may feel like subject-matter experts are corrupt and speaking in a language they dont understand and instead turn to what they know to be true, because theyve seen it themselves or heard it online from someone who did. Perhaps theyll turn to a content creator peddling so-called wellness cures or, a leader with convincing, but unfounded, claims about health and safety. When these messages align with your personal experiences and beliefs, theyre all the more compelling.Embodied truth is something [that] is much more convincing thanabstract reasoning, Zinn says. Unfortunately for scientists or academics who wish to sway skeptics based on facts, facts arent always convincing. If all of your car rides occurred without incident, you may incorrectly believe driving carries less risk than air travel, based purely on your own history.Although data appears objective, were not very good at interpreting this information, says Dirk Wulff, a senior research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. The human brain is ill-equipped to process large numbers. While a one-in-a-million chance of developing a rare cancer is hard for our brains to digest, people often think its more likely than it in reality is, Wulff says. The same goes for evaluating risk based on our own experiences. Its just objectively often wrong because we havent made enough experiences to see some of the bad things that could happen, Wulff says. If all of your car rides occurred without incident, you may incorrectly believe driving carries less risk than air travel, based purely on your own history.The most accurate assessment of risk, Wulff says, is to marry experience with data and expert-driven advice. But human miscalculations continually threaten that delicate balance. People tend to misjudge the risk for rare and extreme events they choose to gamble despite the low likelihood of winning, or opt out of swimming in the ocean due to the potential of a shark attack. The more information people have about the probability of experiencing a certain negative event, even if its high-risk, the less likely they are to perceive it as a risk. When it came to Covid-19, people considered their personal risk low, but saw the virus as posing a greater threat to others.The more in control you feel, the more comfortable you are with risk. People fear cancer more and heart disease less because they think they have control over heart disease, says David Ropeik, author of How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Dont Always Match the Facts, because the risk factors are [things] they think they can control, and the cancer fear is higher because the risk factors of things they feel they cant. Its wrong. The inevitability of riskIn todays hyper-connected world, were inundated with stories of danger. As a part of ongoing research into Gen Zs perception of risk, Gabriel Rubin, a professor of justice studies at Montclair State University, has found that an onslaught of information about a plethora of threats, like crime from small-town kidnappings to mass shootings and climate change has led to young peoples increased fears. A lot of people say that I could be kidnapped, I could be attacked, or crime is the worst its ever been, Rubin says. Which isnt true. Watching extravagant safety routines on TikTok videos that outline ways to intruder-proof a hotel room or home can add to young peoples beliefs that the world is a dangerous place. In the threat literature, they would call it availability bias, Rubin says, which is your bias towards something that you can imagine. With crime, they can imagine it happening to them.This tendency to assume highly publicized incidents, from plane crashes to true crime, pose more of a risk to you, personally isnt limited to young people. Constant news and noise about risks, real and imagined, raise alarm bells for all audiences. Persistent news coverage of plane crashes, violent crime, and toxic chemicals may lead readers and viewers to assume these events are more of an imminent danger than they actually are. Non-expert commentators and content creators also peddle misinformation about nonexistent risks on TikTok such as the supposed dangers of sunscreen in order to further their own agenda or to sell products. The popularity of true crime could contribute to peoples fear of violence despite evidence of decreasing crime rates. Persistent news coverage of plane crashes, violent crime, and toxic chemicals may lead readers and viewers to assume these events are more of an imminent danger than they actually are.This mismatch between what the evidence says is risky and the appropriate level of fear is what Ropeik calls the risk perception gap. When our fears dont match the evidence, he says, the gap between our fears and the facts becomes a risk all by itself. For instance, vaccine skeptics who fear the side effects of immunizations create a greater risk of illness or death by forgoing the shots. Their anxieties are simply centered around the wrong thing.A wealth of information may seem beneficial in allowing people to learn and gird themselves against dangers, but our system starts to short-circuit with too much data.Were not built for all the inputs that were getting, Rubin says. We have so much information flooding us. Our brain tries to keep us alive by emphasizing via our emotional system that this or that is scary, you should stay away from it. But in a world where seemingly everything poses a risk, how can you discern the imminent dangers from statistical anomalies? Living and coping with riskFeeling constantly threatened can lead to perceiving more threats and increased anxiety. All this stress has profound effects on the body, from increased risk of heart disease to suppressed immune system function. Our radar screens are more constantly filled with boogeymen, Ropeik says. That has a biological impact. It makes every blip on the radar screen look bigger.The result is a culture that highly regards safety. Generational shifts in child-rearing have given rise to helicopter and bulldozer parents who emphasize protecting kids from lifes difficulties and dangers at all costs. From a young age, children learn from the adults in their lives the dangers of certain behaviors running too fast at the playground, sleeping over a friends house and start to craft a risk-free life as they grow up. The tendency to assume if something bad happens to you, its your fault sends the message that one must be on-guard at all times. How to more accurately weigh risk in two stepsAvoid forming an opinion based on gut feelings: Do some research and read scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals or reports from trusted sources about the rates of the specific risk.Ask yourself why youre frightened: Is the topic capturing your attention because of news coverage or conversations on social media? Are you distrustful of the people or institutions involved? Do you feel at greater risk because of your gender or identity?Ask yourself questions about what psychological or emotional filters youre seeing the risk through, Ropeik says. Theyre like stained-glass windows. What kind of stained-glass windows are in the way between the risk and me that are making it feel the way it does?Meanwhile, virtual worlds and entertainment provide a supposedly risk-free alternative. Video games and social media provide safe environments to have vicarious experiences without the risk of physical harm. You cant break a bone or get kidnapped if you never leave your room, never log off. Of course, social media use carries risk for negative mental health consequences for adolescents and adults alike. And opting to spend more time alone binge-watching, doomscrolling adversely impacts mental and physical health. Especially this Covid generation, they think that being home is a safe space and it has no risk, Rubin says, and theyre suffering mentally which is a risk.Risk-aversion may be a lingering hangover effect from the pandemic. Research has found that Americans who lived through the Great Depression and the 2008 economic recession were less likely to take financial risks. The pandemic might have had a similar effect on risk-taking overall, says Wulff, the research scientist. Because nothing in this world is without risk its possible to die from loneliness or in your bed, fast asleep we must learn to live with it. Some perceived risks do have positive payoffs. Exploring the world, falling in love, and changing careers are among lifes richest experiences, but theyre far from safe. Taking chances and bouncing back from setbacks help build resilience and perhaps the chronically risk-averse need to feel comfortable with the possibility of short-term hurt for long-term gains. It used to be said that [challenges] built character, Mohun, the historian, says. That you needed to fall off, metaphorically or literally, because you needed to know that you could get up and walk away.Of course, theres no need to put yourself in dangerous situations. But with the help of a mental health professional, slow exposure to fear-inducing activities can help reduce anxiety. With each incident-free subway ride, you may be less avoidant, less likely to see danger in public spaces.Just because danger could lurk at every turn doesnt mean life is inherently unsafe. Risk is inescapable, as are death and taxes. But avoiding it means cutting ourselves off from everything pleasurable, too. And that isnt living its limbo. See More:

Democratic voters just won a 10-point landslide in a state that Trump won last year. How?The answer is a defining trend of modern elections: There are two different kinds of electorates who come out to vote in the Trump era.On Tuesday night, the liberal, Democrat-aligned Judge Susan Crawford defeated her Republican-backed opponent by nearly 300,000 votes a 10-point margin less than a year after President Donald Trump carried the state on his way to a battleground sweep.She achieved that victory as more than 2.3 million people turned out to vote, about two-thirds of last years electorate. Thats significantly more than the last time a high-profile court seat was up for grabs and nearly matches the level of turnout in the 2022 midterms.Crawfords victory has been cast as symbolic for many reasons. Its both a referendum on the months-old Trump administration and on Elon Musk for his involvement and spending in the race. It was a test of liberal organizing and Democratic enthusiasm ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as the partys base demands their leaders do more and they look for ways to resist Trump.But Wisconsins weird voting dynamics in the Trump era, combined with other national special and off-year elections, also demonstrate the role Trump has played in scrambling electoral coalitions and see-sawing the balance of power both in Washington and in the states. Two different electorates, polarized by education, class, and political engagement, have emerged one which benefits Democrats broadly, another which benefits solely Trump himself.Wisconsins recent see-sawingWisconsin in the age of Trump has been a curious place to watch. As a battleground for presidential and state-level contests, it has swung wildly between barely electing a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate, and delivering comfortable margins for liberals and Democrats running in off-year or midterm cycles. 2016: Red. Trump flipped the state, long a part of the Democratic Blue Wall (the Rust Belt, overwhelmingly white working-class states that used to elect Democrats) by a tiny margin of 0.7 percent, or about 20,000 votes. White working-class and non-college educated voters came out to vote for Trump, while minority voter turnout dropped, dooming Hillary Clinton.2018: Blue. Just two years later, the states progressive Democratic senator, Tammy Baldwin, won reelection by about 10 points, boosted by high Democratic enthusiasm and Trump disaffection. Suburbs and urban centers boosted Baldwins win, as college-educated, wealthier, and suburban voters around the country moved away from the Trump Republican Party and felt comfortable voting for a Democrat.2020: Blue. Joe Biden flipped the state back from Trump, but just barely. He won with a 0.62 percent margin, much closer than expected, as Trump was able to again get out more votes from his Republican base of white non-college educated voters. Turnout in cities and suburbs helped the Democrats outpace the number of new rural and non-college educated voters going for Trump. 2022: Red (barely). Two years later, during midterm elections that went much better than expected for Democrats, the states other senator, the conservative, ultra-MAGA loyalist Ron Johnson, retained his seat with a 20,000 vote or 1 percent margin. Most counties in the state shifted right during that election compared to 2020, making it a bit of an outlier among battleground states.2024: Red again. Trump would then go on to win the state in 2024, beating Kamala Harris by about 30,000 votes, or 0.86 percent, as he turned out even more rural voters. All but four highly urban and college-educated counties would shift to the right that year.What explains these wild pendulum swings?A clear story emerges when looking at overall turnout, county-specific demographics, Democratic enthusiasm, and polling in Wisconsin. And that story fits into a pattern of elections in the state. Wisconsins 2025 electorate was deeply Democratic: made up of not just the most informed and engaged voters, but also some lower-propensity voters who were persuaded to flip. As the data journalist Steve Kornacki pointed out ahead of the election, in off-year contests when Trump isnt on the ballot, pro-Trump blue-collar white voters have been less motivated to vote than have anti-Trump college-educated voters. That dynamic leads to results like Tuesday nights, when turnout in the most highly educated, Democratic parts of the state was much higher than turnout in the more non-college educated, pro-Trump places. An emblematic location was Dane County, home of Madison: Crawford received more net votes and a higher share of the vote than the Democrats 2022 Senate nominee Mandela Barnes.This dynamic may continue to repeat itselfWisconsin is just the latest example of how two different electorates are determining the balance of power in America. When Trump is on the ballot, lower-propensity, non-college educated, and (more recently) disaffected voters of color are more likely to turn out and vote for him, even if they dont necessarily vote for other Republicans. That was a factor that contributed not just to Harriss loss in 2024, but also to Senate and House Democrats overperformance in swing states. Democratic Senate candidates like Elissa Slotkin in Michigan, Ruben Gallego in Arizona, and Baldwin in Wisconsin all outran Harriss performance and won their respective races, in part because Republican turnout for Trump didnt trickle its way down the ballot.When Trump is not on the ballot, highly motivated, high-information, and disaffected anti-Trump voters (some of them former Republicans) still turn out, or turn out at even higher rates for Democratic candidates and those candidates still win over some share of Republicans who can be persuaded to vote for a Democrat. At the same time, lower-propensity Trump voters stay home. This is a historic shift. For most of the last 30 years, its been the Republican Party that has had the more attuned, higher-propensity voters who would turn out in off-year elections, and so would benefit from a smaller electorate. Democrats were the ones struggling to get their voters to the polls when Barack Obama wasnt on the ballot. But the Republican Party has been trading away many of those higher-propensity, college-educated, and wealthier voters to the Democrats in the Trump era, as Democrats lost more white, non-college educated voters.This pattern was again demonstrated in Wisconsin this week, but also in special elections across the country. In Floridas First and Sixth Congressional Districts, a share of Republican voters who turned out voted for Democratic candidates, particularly in the First District, which has more of a college-educated electorate. This was also a factor in the 2022 midterms, when states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia had plurality-Republican electorates that still ended up sending Democratic Senate candidates to Congress.Democrats are celebrating this most recent win in Wisconsin, and there are clear signs that the next year stands to see a score of Democratic victories in statewide and House elections. But the dynamic that is saving them in off years might not rescue them in the next presidential election (in which Trump will presumably not be on the ballot). They may have more lessons to learn about how to take advantage of the fundamentals that benefit them right now, and they surely have lessons to learn about how to counter Trumps influence before the next presidential cycle.See More:

If youd asked me a decade ago how I felt about my phone, I would have said: Wow, I love it. And also: How could you even ask me such a thing? 2015 was a quieter, happier time. Barack Obama was president, Uptown Funk by Mark Ronson featuring Bruno Mars was the No. 1 song, and I had a sleek, slim iPhone 6 in my pocket. Were now up to the iPhone 16, and while you already know the other details about our current reality, I will confess that I hide my phone from myself, on a daily basis, in order to feel something real.This sorry state of affairs led me to the Light Phone, a minimalist device that promises freedom from infinite feeds. The third generation of the device, which debuted in late March, represents a radical rethinking of what a smartphone can and should do, cutting off users from distracting features while directing them toward simple tools they need to thrive in a digital world, like a phone and a calendar. There is no web browser, no app store, no forms of entertainment not even a game to distract you. The Light Phone 3 is intentionally boring but useful. Thats the sales pitch anyways, and it arrives in a world where many are nostalgic for a time when we were far less subservient to our technology.I recently met Joe Hollier and Kaiwei Tang, the co-creators of the Light Phone and co-founders of its parent company, Light, in their Brooklyn, New York, workshop, where they walked me through the development of the Light Phone 3. Theyd given me the device to test out ahead of time, and while I loved the gadget in concept, I had a brutally hard time letting go of my iPhone, which I hate by the way. But how could I give up the many apps Ive become dependent on to do my job and keep up with my family? How could I get through the day without my algorithmically generated Spotify playlists? How would my brain work without the ability to Google random questions when they pop into my head? I think that moment when you find yourself pulling out the Light Phone for the fifth time and realizing it does nothing, thats like a very profound initial Light moment, where youre like, Now, what? Hollier told me.About nine out of 10 Americans own a smartphone, and Id guess many of them have passed a point of no return, when it comes to connected living. It feels impossible for some people parents, knowledge workers, Spotify fanatics to live without a smartphone. For others, its simply inconvenient. But ditching your smartphone is a way of liberating your free time and winning back your attention, which has led to a movement of people buying gadgets that are specifically designed to bridge the gap between our dumb phone past and a future where technology use is more intentional.Im about a week into trying to join this movement. Its not easy, but it sure does seem peaceful.Why you might need an intentional phone Smartphones and dumb phones think flip phones or phones that can only place calls and send messages are familiar categories to most people. But intentional phones phones designed to limit interactions with the device and to help users focus on being present are a new category, arguably created by the Light Phone itself. When you do something on an intentional phone, you intend to do it, and then you stop using the phone.The original Light Phone, your phone away from phone, launched as a Kickstarter campaign in May 2015. It was roughly the size of a credit card and could only place voice calls. That meant you could disconnect for an afternoon and go on a hike but remain reachable. The device sold out, while Hollier and Tang built its successor, the Light Phone II, which shipped in 2019. This phone had an e-ink display, like a Kindle, which refreshes too slowly to support easy scrolling and came with a handful of simple tools, like messaging and a music player, but lacked a web browser and email. So far, Hollier and Tang have shipped over 100,000 of these devices, and their staff still repairs the old ones in their Brooklyn studio.We dont want the device to try to fight for your attention, or be shiny. We wanted it to be calm, low key, and just disappear, even when you use it. Kaiwei Tang, co-creator of the Light PhoneThe Light Phone 3 takes things a stage further but not too much further. Instead of the gritty e-ink screen, the new model has a black and white OLED display with a coating that makes it less shiny. Theres a very basic camera on the back, which Hollier and Tang say is really for documenting things or taking pictures of receipts, since you cant post any photos from the phone. Theres an updated directions tool, and a directory that works a bit like the Yellow Pages: You search for something, say a coffee shop, and the tool provides a list of nearby businesses with some basic information, like their phone number and hours. Theres also a new podcast app that lets you download episodes of podcasts and take them with you when youre out, but you cant look up new content while youre out. The operating system is built by Light, and theres no data harvesting. We dont want the device to try to fight for your attention, or be shiny, Tang told me. We wanted it to be calm, low key, and just disappear, even when you use it.Its actually remarkable to use a piece of technology thats designed to be used as little as possible. Its beautifully boring. The Light Phone 3 is also just plain beautiful a slab of black anodized aluminum that fits neatly into a shirt pocket and just works. It retails for $799, although you can preorder one now for $599. The Light Phone 2 is still available for $299.There are other intentional phones on the market that give users more digital liberties. The Bigme Hibreak Pro runs a version of Android and supports all apps but has an e-ink screen that discourages scrolling. The Unihertz Jelly Max is a tiny smartphone that has a color screen, but its so small that youd be hard-pressed to watch a YouTube video on it. The Mudita Kompakt is a lot like the Light Phone 3, except it has an e-ink screen and a few more functions. Then theres the Sidephone, which starts shipping this year and can run critical apps, like Uber, WhatsApp, and Spotify, while otherwise offering minimal features. Its actually designed to work alongside a smartphone, with a dedicated phone number you only give to close friends. When I first started using it, the Light Phone 3 reminded me of my digital life not 10 but 20 years ago, when I left the house with an iPod, a Motorola Razr, a notebook, and a Nikon film camera. (Fun fact: Tang actually helped design the Motorola Razr way back when.) Each thing had its own purpose, and if I didnt need any one thing, I left it at home. If I got bored with my devices, I simply had to find something else to do.Today, theres something naive about imagining a return to life in 2005, when I was in my 20s. I have a wife, a baby, and a job that demands knowing whats happening in the world on a daily basis. Leaving the house with just a Light Phone 3 feels like a fantasy, albeit one that is appealing on days when I cant escape the ping of Slack messages or the buzzes of my news alerts.Toward a philosophy of digital minimalismIt was about a decade ago that our digital world started to get really dopamine-driven. Twitter was ascendant, and within a couple years, Facebook would buy Instagram and usher in an era of algorithmic feeds designed to keep users engaged. This is also when Gen Z started to come of age. It didnt take long for the first generation to live their entire lives online to have second thoughts about social media, smartphones, and technology in general.Gen Z adults are now leading the way in incorporating dumb technology into their lives, according to a 2024 Morning Consult poll. Millennials, like myself, are very close behind. Light says that 70 percent of its users are between 18 and 35 years old, and that 56 percent of them only use Light Phone. Hollier and Tang told me last week that Light Phone adoption has kind of happened in that order, too: Gen Z jumped on board first and more millennials seem to be buying the devices lately. I have to wonder if its because more millennials are noticing that theyre reflexively checking their feeds while also watching their kids at the playground. Ive done it, and it sucks. Young parents are also realizing that the Light Phone is an excellent way to stay connected to their children without giving them unbridled internet access. Jose Briones, a long-time Light Phone user, spent years and thousands of dollars in the smartphone upgrade cycle. A few years ago, Briones became more interested in finding technology that would help him optimize his time, instead of robbing him of hours spent scrolling. Briones now runs a YouTube channel where he reviews intentional phones, like the Light Phone, and describes himself as a digital minimalist. More people are coming to the realization that they dont want to live their lives through a screen, but instead, they want to experience it with their own eyes, Briones said.Digital minimalism is the philosophy that drives a lot of the conversations around the Light Phone. The term was popularized by Georgetown University computer science professor Cal Newport, who also coined deep work in 2016 and published a book about digital minimalism in 2019, at the same time Marie Kondos Netflix show dropped and not long before the pandemic made us all digital maximalists. 3 easy things to doNobody should feel helpless in our app-saturated world. But you can update a few simple settings to make your phone less habit-forming. Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, offered three tips in a 2018 Vox video that still make sense today:Turn off all nonhuman notificationsMake your screen grayscaleRestrict your home screen to essential, everyday toolsThere are now communities for all corners of this movement. Briones is a moderator in the subreddits for Light Phone fans as well dumb phones more broadly. Theres also a subreddit for digital minimalism, where people share their experiences of living life without smartphones or how to minimize screen time. Reading through the posts will give you a sense of how deeply some peoples dissatisfaction with the connected life runs and how passionate they are about finding technology that works for them, full stop.The market is starting to meet those needs. Will Stults and his girlfriend Daisy Krigbaum opened an online shop just for intentional phones called Dumbwireless in 2022, which stocks Light Phone models as well as a dozen other devices handpicked for their approach to intentional phone usage. Its also a side-gig for Stults and Krigbaum, who both have day jobs but are seeing growing demand for devices like this. But after I told him about my own slow start with the Light Phone 3, Stults reiterated that everyone quits smartphones for different reasons and has different needs.We almost want to put up a disclaimer on our site, like, The perfect non-smartphone does not exist, by the way, and thats kind of the point of this, Stults said. Youre going to make some sacrifices. Its going to be a challenge.Consider a weekend phoneAt a certain point, it feels like were coming full circle with some of these phones. If you strip away everything you dont like about your smartphone and then start adding it back in spurts, you eventually end up with digital clutter again. But if youre mindful of the clutter and keep tidying up as life goes on, you will enjoy some of the benefits from more dramatic moves, like going full Light Phone. You could even use your dumber device as a weekend phone when theres no particular need to stay so connected. This strategy is essentially what Casey Johnston, who writes a newsletter about health and fitness, described when she lobotomized her smartphone recently. Delete everything and then add back the apps intentionally in classic Marie Kondo-style. Johnstons tips for streamlining your smartphone are not that different from what Ive suggested myself, and I would highly recommend tweaking your settings so that newly installed apps do not appear on your home screen. I also like her advice to use an old phone plugged in at a specific location like a landline for social media, if you must.Im not going to throw away my iPhone any time soon. As a husband, dad, and journalist, Ive come to depend on certain apps and features and immediacy. You might even say living life with just a Light Phone seems like a real luxury. But this notion of being intentional with technology, using the right tool for the right job, and not being afraid of disconnecting its a worthwhile aspiration. I do aspire, at the very least, to take the weekend phone approach in the near future. Its also neat that there are now gadgets designed specifically for this, and I have to wonder if bigger tech companies, including Apple, will start taking the intentional phone movement seriously. Light Phone, after all, reminds me of the best of Apples design ethos: elegant products that solve problems. Only Light Phone is asking a bit more from its users.Every decision we made is intentional, Tang told me. Were hoping our customers will do the same.A version of this story was also published in the User Friendly newsletter. Sign up here so you dont miss the next one!See More:

This story originally appeared in Kids Today, Voxs newsletter about kids, for everyone. Sign up here for future editions.In recent weeks, colleges and universities have found themselves at the center of the Trump administrations efforts to reshape American society and culture. As the administration extracts concessions from universities and seeks to deport students based on their participation in protests, experts are raising questions about the future of the American academy and the countrys larger place on the world stage.A lot of rising college freshmen have a different, more basic anxiety, however: They just want to know if theyll be able to pay for school.The Trump administrations highly publicized efforts to dismantle the Education Department have some students questioning if federal student aid even still exists, according to nonprofits that support college access. Students are wondering if the FAFSA is still available, Marcos Montes, policy director of the Southern California College Attainment Network, told me.Others are concerned that they wont be able to get federal Pell grants or other financial aid they need to attend college, said Karla Robles-Reyes, chief program officer at OneGoal, a nonprofit that helps low-income students with college access. As of now, both Pell grants and the FAFSA, or free application for federal student aid, remain available. But some students fear that if they use the FAFSA to apply for federal aid, information about their families immigration status could be shared with ICE a concern that college counselors and advocates cannot fully dispel. That fear is contributing to a drop in federal financial aid applications, Montes said.Graduating seniors are concerned about other issues too, like whether theyll be able to exercise their freedom of speech on campus. But a lot of young peoples biggest worries are about the critical resources that they need to pursue their higher education, Robles-Reyes said and whether those resources are still available under Trump.Its a reminder that although colleges and universities have become a topic of heated political debate and students and professors a symbol of decadent liberalism to many on the right postsecondary education is also just an increasingly necessary career step that a majority of Americans undertake at some point. And for this years high school seniors, especially those who are low-income or the first in their families to apply to college, that step could get a lot harder to take.Just to be clear, the Education Department still exists, and cannot be closed without an act of Congress. However, the Trump administration has announced the layoffs of more than 1,300 department employees, and in March, Trump signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to close the department to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.One of the biggest functions of the Education Department is overseeing the federal student aid system, including Pell grants (need-based awards of up to $7,395 per year) and federal student loans. Grants and loans are critical for low- and middle-income students across the country at a time when average college tuition ranges from around $11,000 a year for public institutions to more than $43,000 annually for private schools (the average annual wage in the US, meanwhile, is around $66,000). As of the 2019-20 school year, 55 percent of undergraduates got some form of federal aid.So when high school students hear that the department could be closed or dismantled, theyre understandably scared. There is a lot of confusion, Montes said.Students are asking questions like, Should I just drop out of school and wait for another president, because I dont know if Im going to have the financial aid that I need to be able to pay for college? Robles-Reyes said.Trump has said that funding for Pell grants and student loans will not be affected by changes to the Education Department, and theres no indication that the Trump administration is planning direct cuts to student aid. But experts say that layoffs at the department and the administrations plans to move some of its functions to other agencies could cause errors in loan disbursement or a lack of support for borrowers. Students got a glimpse of what dysfunction in student aid could look like last year, when a new FAFSA form rife with technical issues led to long delays and application roadblocks for students and families.The largest amount of aid I receive is from the federal government, Nomar, a first-year college student who asked that his last name not be used, told me. He worries that if student aid gets moved to another department, his loans or grants could be delayed, preventing him from registering for classes.For students with parents or other family members who are undocumented, meanwhile, theres an added concern: that filling out the FAFSA could reveal their family members immigration status to the federal government, leaving them vulnerable to deportation (the form asks applicants for parents Social Security numbers, which undocumented immigrants often do not have). Federal law prohibits the use of FAFSA data for any purpose other than student aid, but experts are cautioning students that theres no guarantee the Trump administration wont use their data to target their family members for immigration enforcement.OneGoal tells students that they have no indication that FAFSA data is going to be used to initiate deportations, Robles-Reyes told me. But, she said, we cant promise that it wouldnt.Even beyond federal aid, students have financial fears. Lila, a high school senior in California who asked that her last name not be used, told me she worries about losing access to scholarships aimed at people of color and other historically marginalized groups. Many such scholarships were meant to address centuries of racism and other biases in education, but they are now being targeted as part of Trumps push to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Trumps anti-DEI efforts are also affecting colleges in other ways, with some overhauling or shutting down DEI offices, and others disbanding affinity groups for women, students of color, or LGBTQ students. College-bound students are left wondering if theyre going to have the same services available that students previously had, Montes said. Theyre not sure what going to college next year is going to look like.Young people have also been watching with concern as ICE officers arrest students who are in the US legally, apparently based on their participation in pro-Palestinian protests or advocacy. High school students have been asking for rights trainings and trying to figure out how they can make their voices heard, Montes said. I have to be careful with what I say, the opinions that I might put out in the world, Nomar, a green-card holder, told me. Disruptions to college could derail students futures and the countryThe heightened level of fear and uncertainty about college could have a serious impact on graduating seniors, Montes said. In California, the number of high school seniors completing the FAFSA was down by 25 percent in February, compared with the previous year, and the number of students with at least one undocumented parent applying was down 44 percent.For some, no FAFSA could mean no college. Without financial aid, college is very inaccessible for first-generation students and students from low-income backgrounds, Montes said.Forgoing college, in turn, could do long-term damage to students careers. College is the number one workforce training out there, Montes said.Its more than an individual issue. Our economy requires a skilled workforce, Robles-Reyes said. If these disruptions in the Department of Education lead to more students not enrolling, then our economy really is at risk.State policymakers can help college-bound students by making state financial aid applications more accessible, Montes said. In California, for example, students can apply for state financial aid without fear that their data will be shared with the federal government.When it comes to freedom of speech, Lila, the high school senior, wants to see colleges back up their students: What Im afraid of happening in colleges would be them buckling down under the pressure and just changing their policies to keep getting funds, she said.Universities and elected officials also need to keep students updated about how Trump administration policy could affect their education, Nomar said, so that when we start the semester, we dont have this huge worry or these huge questions that are going to take us away from what we came here to do.Despite the upheaval of the last two months, Nomar is clear on the purpose of college in his life. As a first-generation student who grew up in a place where education was scarce, he relishes the opportunity to expand my knowledge and grow as a person.For me, he said, going to college is the gateway for the world.What Im readingSen. Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and 22 other Democratic senators sent a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon this week, requesting information on how the Education Department plans to protect the rights of students with disabilities amid layoffs, cuts, and restructuring. The departments recent reduction in force will critically damage your ability to fulfill your statutory duties to students with disabilities by eliminating nearly half of your workforce, the senators wrote.A survey of 1,500 11- to 13-year-old Floridians found that having their own phone was actually associated with a number of positive outcomes, including higher self-confidence and even spending more time in person with friends. However, posting frequently on social media was associated with problems like an increased risk of anxiety and depression.Meanwhile, a recent poll conducted for Common Sense Media asked kids and parents what factors make families strong. For kids, the top answer by far was parents who listen to their kids, followed by parents accepting their children no matter what. (For parents, the top answer was quality education.)My little kid and I have been reading The Rock From the Sky, a 2021 picture book about a big rock that falls out of the sky, and how some small animals react to it. I choose to see this as a story about anxiety, the impossibility of predicting the future, and also, of course, the ever-present danger of falling objects.From my inboxThe Common Sense Media poll got me thinking about what kids and parents want and need from one another. If youre a parent, what do you think your kids most want from you right now? What do they need (which could be very different)? And for everyone: as a kid, what did you most want and need from the people who raised you? What do you think kids today need most from adults right now? Let me know at anna.north@vox.com!See More:

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.Welcome to The Logoff: Today Im focusing on Donald Trump saying hes imposing tariffs on products from around the world. If real and permanent two big ifs the policies represent a shift in economic policy that will have major effects on all Americans.Whats the latest? Trump today promised a 10 percent tariff on all foreign goods, with goods from many countries including some of our largest trading partners being taxed at a far higher rate. Trump also said certain foreign-made cars would face import taxes of 25 percent. Trump said the tariffs would take effect right away, though the exact timing is unclear.Is it real this time? This was Trumps most sweeping tariff announcement to date, and he announced it during a high-profile White House ceremony, suggesting these tariffs may be here to stay. That said, it was only a month ago that Trump announced tariffs on our largest trading partners, only to rescind or delay some of them days after they took effect. Can Trump do this without Congress? There will likely be legal challenges, but existing law gives the president wide authority to unilaterally impose tariffs.What do tariffs mean for you? In the short term, higher prices. Tariffs are taxes paid by importers and passed on to consumers, so, if they remain in place, you can expect to pay more for a sweeping range of goods. Economists also fear that this tariff policy could kick off a recession, particularly as other countries promise to counter with taxes on US exports.Whats the big picture? There are valid critiques of past US free trade policies particularly in how theyve hurt certain communities and segments of the labor force. But economists are skeptical Trump can bring back US manufacturing at anywhere near the scale hes promising, and theyre confident these new taxes will result in severe and widespread economic pain.And with that, its time to log off If you want a high-brow reprieve from the chaos, Voxs Unexplainable podcast has a great new episode about deep-sea microbes ancient organisms so different from the rest of the planets creatures that theyre raising questions about what it means to even be alive. (As an added bonus, Vox members can now listen ad-free!) I loved this podcast, but if youre having a just get through it kind of Wednesday, might I recommend 3 minutes and 23 seconds of tropical birds mating dances? Thanks so much for reading, and well see you back here tomorrow.See More:

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic should be one of the easiest cases the Supreme Court will decide this year. A federal law requires every states Medicaid program to ensure that any individual eligible for medical assistance may obtain that care from a competent provider of their choice. The question in Medina is whether that statute means anything, or whether it is a paper tiger that cannot be meaningfully enforced.In fairness, the Supreme Courts rules laying out when a federal Medicaid statute can be enforced through private lawsuits are somewhat complicated, but the 2023 decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski clarified those rules. There is now no serious argument that that law enabling Medicaid patients to choose their providers cannot be enforced.But, while the law in Medina is clear, the politics are terrible. The specific issue in Medina is whether South Carolina can cut health providers that also provide abortions out of its Medicaid program (Medicaid funds generally cannot be spent on abortions, but they can be spent on non-abortion care provided by Planned Parenthood). And the Supreme Court has a 6-3 Republican majority. So many of the Courts Republicans seemed to spend Wednesdays argument looking for a way to get around cases like Talevski. Its far from clear whether three key justices Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were persuaded by the anti-Medicaid arguments in this case. But, at times, it sure seemed like they wanted to be persuaded.That leaves the outcome in Medina uncertain. If I absolutely had to bet on the outcome, Id predict that Roberts and Barrett, at the very least, will ultimately reaffirm what the Court said less than two years ago in Talevski which means that Planned Parenthood will win. But none of the Courts Republicans appeared to see this case as easy.Whats the legal issue in Medina?As a general rule, if someone wants to file a federal lawsuit enforcing a provision of Medicaid law, they cannot sue under the law itself. Instead, they have to file their suit under a law known as Section 1983, which permits suits against state officials who deprive someone of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.In Blessing v. Freestone (1997), however, the Court said that this statute does not permit anyone to file any lawsuit to enforce any provision of federal law. Instead, because Section 1983 refers to rights, a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law.The test the Court uses to determine whether a particular federal law creates an enforceable right was recently reiterated in Talevski, which held that the key question is whether the provision in question is phrased in terms of the persons benefited and contains rights-creating, individual-centric language with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.Thus, for example, a statute which says that no state shall deny a person who is wearing pants the ability to take a walk would be enforceable through private lawsuits, because this statute focuses on the people who benefit from it (people wearing pants). A similar law that says states shall not interfere with walking may not be enforceable, because it does not have the same individual-centric language demanded by Talevski.With that in mind, here is the statute at issue in Medina:A State plan for medical assistance must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services.This law does everything Talevski demands. It provides a right to a specific individuals (any individual eligible for medical assistance under Medicaid), and it lays out the content of that right the right to obtain assistance from a provider of their choice. As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out early in Wednesdays oral argument, it is nearly impossible to even describe what this statute does without using the word right.A Court that intends to follow the rule laid out two years ago in Talevski, in other words, would hand down a very brief, unanimous opinion in holding that South Carolina Medicaid patients have a right to choose Planned Parenthood as their health provider.Many of the justices appeared determined to make this case more complicated than it isThough some members of the Courts right flank appeared to be probing for a way to rule against abortion providers, none of the justices proposed a coherent legal rule that would allow them to dodge Talevski. Justice Samuel Alito, for example, was unusually quiet on Wednesday, though he did speak up at one point to complain that Medicaid laws, which permit private lawsuits, are supposed to be something thats quite extraordinary.Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas asked a few questions emphasizing his belief that it should be harder to enforce federal laws that are tied to federal spending programs such as Medicaid, as opposed to laws enacted under Congresss power to regulate private actors.A few of the justices, meanwhile, fixated on a concurring opinion by Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee to a federal appeals court who complained that there is uncertainty about whether lower court judges should follow Talevski or a slightly different legal framework laid out in Blessing and Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association (1990). According to Richardson, lower courts continue to lack the guidance inferior judges need.In fairness, Roberts and Barrett sometimes seemed incredulous that theres any real confusion about whether Talevski lays out the proper rule. Barrent asked Planned Parenthoods lawyer Nicole Saharsky if the Court could just say in its opinion that lower courts should follow Talevski, and Saharsky did not object. Roberts said that the Court could simply say that we meant it when it handed down Talevski and a related case.Kavanaugh, however, was all over the map. South Carolinas primary argument is that the Medicaid statute must use specific magic words, such as the word right, in order to authorize private lawsuits. As Kagan pointed out, the Court has never imposed such a requirement in its past cases, and she warned against changing the rules midstream because Congress could not have known that it had to use certain magic words when it wrote the Medicaid statute or any other existing law.But Kavanaugh seemed to disagree, stating at one point that he isnt averse to magic words. Kavanaughs questions indicated that he is so concerned with coming up with a clear, easy-to-apply test that he is willing to sacrifice the rights of Medicaid patients to achieve this broader goal.Still, its far from clear whether Kavanaugh can find five votes for a magic words requirement, or even whether Kavanaugh will himself vote to overrule cases like Talevski.In the end, it does appear more likely than not that Planned Parenthood will prevail. South Carolina, like any other litigant opposed to abortion, made its case before a very friendly bench of mostly Republican justices. But the state will probably still lose because its arguments are just so weak under existing law.See More:

President Donald Trump is set to unveil the details of his tariff plans at 4 pm ET on Wednesday, April 2. He has vowed to impose reciprocal tariffs on all nations that he claims disadvantage American products through trade, tax, or regulatory policy.Trump has already imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum made outside the US, all products made in Canada or Mexico, all Chinese goods, and all foreign-made cars, among other things, claiming these moves will strengthen the economy long-term while downplaying concern theyll lead to a recession. The threat of tariffs have led to massive economic uncertainty, with Trumps on-again, off-again declarations tanking stock markets and souring consumer sentiment, though some longtime critics of globalization appear optimistic. Meanwhile, many Americans are worried and confused tariffs havent been as significant to the US economy in nearly a century and theyre understandably unsure about what tariffs are, how theyll affect their wallets, why governments would implement them, and whether the presidents policy will work on its own terms.Well help you make sense of this moment. Follow here for the latest news, analysis, and explainers.

Donald Trumps popularity is slipping. His honeymoon is over, views of the economy and his stewardship of it are souring, and while inflation and prices remain the publics top priority, they see his administration as focusing on other things.Yet the area where they think Trump is most focusing his attention is also the one where hes most popular: immigration. Its what the public thinks hes handling best, and its the issue buoying his overall approval rating right now.A couple recent national polls show how resilient this dynamic is. Take the latest March CBS News/YouGov poll. It finds that an outright majority 53 percent of the American public approves of Trumps handling of immigration. They approve of his mass deportation pledge, and the numbers remain largely unchanged since last month.That majority support on immigration stands in contrast to his other ratings in that poll. Some 48 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the economy, with 52 percent disapproving in late March. Thats down from 51 percent approval a month ago. And when it comes to inflation, specifically, just 44 percent approve, down from 46 percent last month.Those sharper marks on immigration come not only despite questions about the legality of the administrations methods, but also as news organizations reveal embarrassing and concerning revelations about who has been targeted for deportations and detentions.While this news coverage grows, and Trumps overall favorability continues to slip, its worth asking why his immigration agenda remains popular and just what might turn it negative.As the administration veers into a more authoritarian direction in its treatment of immigrants, these shifts will be crucial to track, particularly for those hoping to organize political pressure and public support.What recent polls tell usThe late March CBS News/YouGov poll of American adults conducted late last week shows basically no change from the last CBS/YouGov poll from late February. Some 53 percent of Americans approve of Trumps immigration handling in March, while 54 percent approved in February.The same when asking about the Trump administrations program to deport immigrants illegally. Among all adults, 58 percent approve essentially mirroring findings in February, when 59 percent of respondents approved.The second national survey that shows Trumps resilient immigration support is a AP-NORC poll from March. The public, this poll suggests, is split evenly: 49 percent approve of Trumps immigration approach, while 50 percent disapprove. Again, views of his handling of other issues are much more negative, but even one in five Democrats approve Trumps immigration approach, per the surveys results.The findings are revelatory, given the poll generally finds more negative views of Trump compared to other March polls conducted by other firms. Its an outlier, for example, in showing a double-digit net-negative rating for Trumps overall favorability: 56 percent disapproving and 42 percent approving.For now, theres not a clear reason for this sustained support. It might be a sign of Trumps effective messaging about the issue. From the start, this administration has embarked on a polished and digital-savvy media and advertising tour to frame their deportation efforts as a way to target immigrants who have committed crimes which happens to be the specific condition that is most popular when surveys offer respondents a variety of options for deportation policy. The administration has recorded and released social media videos, traditional TV advertising, and clips of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem tagging along with ICE agents, meeting with border agents at the southern border, and even speaking from the prison in El Salvador many deportees are being sent.In turn, this (essentially) campaigning on immigration may be amplifying the effects of polarization, since its hardcore conservatives and Republicans who care the most about immigration (both in the lead-up to the 2024 election and since Trumps inauguration). And these numbers might also just represent a deeper, wider reality for America. The American polity has generally polarized against immigration, and would prefer to see rates of immigration decline. Thats been true since the post-pandemic era spike in southern border crossings and asylum claims, and was a major 2024 campaign issue that Trump largely sees as responsible for his own election.Of course, there may also be survey-design limitations: These polls capture the vaguer idea of restrictive immigration policy that Trump came to represent, as opposed to the publics views on specific policies or scenarios. Public opinion tends to vary tremendously once you ask more specific questions about who might be targeted for deportation, how widespread those enforcement actions should be, and whether there should be conditions or more leniency given to some kinds of undocumented immigrants. And for now, its not clear yet what impact news coverage and the governments response to the most recent specific high-profile deportations will have.As news coverage, political debate, and outcry grow, (like over the role of foreign prisons and Guantnamo Bay in holding immigrants, and stories of specific, controversial cases), the public may end up polarizing against Trump. Thats what happened during late 2017 and 2018 the peak of Trump 1.0s anti-immigrant, kids-in-cages policies. It was around that time that public support for immigration of all kinds began to spike, and openness to more migration grew.Still, 2017 this is not. The public has not been this negative on immigration since the post-9/11 years, per Gallup tracking data. And Trump, again, remains more popular now than he was at this point in his first term, meaning he has room to spend political capital and advance his agenda while taking a hit in public opinion. In other words, eight years ago Trump saw how much he could get done with immigration while most of the public opposed him. This year, hes pushing to do even more, with a higher ceiling for what the public will tolerate.See More:

In God and Man at Yale, the 1951 book that made William F. Buckley famous, American conservatisms founding father argues that academic freedom is premised on a fiction.While professors claim that they are merely attempting to equip their students with the tools necessary to comprehend the world and succeed in it, they are in fact engaged in conveying a particular set of truths and values to their students meaning, at the time, liberal and socialist values. In response, Buckley argues, university trustees and administrators should banish favorable discussion of such ideas from the classroom, replacing them with a curriculum that emphasizes the eternal truths of Christianity and capitalism.In some ways, the Trump administrations aggressive approach to college campuses directly echoes Buckleys ideas. They are making transparently ideological demands of universities like Harvard and Columbia, and threatening to withhold funding if they dont comply. They have also adopted what looks a lot like a systematic policy of deporting foreign students who participate in pro-Palestinian activism.The Trump administration goes even further than Buckley in two critical respects.First, Buckley explicitly rejected government interference in the affairs of private universities the sort of thing that Trump has been doing throughout his second term. I should bitterly contest a preemption by the state of the duties and privileges of the alumni of the private institutions themselves to guide the destinies of the schools they support, Buckley wrote. Second, Trump has added a layer of ideological hypocrisy.Buckley explicitly rejected the idea of campuses as free speech zones, but the president has long claimed to be defending exactly this principle saying in 2019 that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions. Indeed, the notion that there is a free speech crisis on campus that must be addressed has become a mainstream conservative position in the era of wokeness and cancel culture.Yet, Trumps current approach to universities is a dire threat to the First Amendment. The breadth of the threat became painfully clear last week, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly bragged that he was revoking visas of hundreds of pro-Palestinian students in retaliation for their political beliefs and activism.The conservative position on higher education and free speech is thus profoundly muddled. While nearly everyone on the right believes that left-liberal domination of the campus is a problem in fact, has been a problem since the 1950s there is no obvious consistent position on why this is a problem or what role the government should have in solving it.The case of Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts graduate student who was snatched off the street by unidentified DHS agents, has brought these tensions into full view. Ozturk was in the United States on a valid student visa; her only apparent crime, so far as we know, was writing an op-ed critical of Israels war in Gaza in the Tufts student newspaper.Ozturks case is important not only because its an especially egregious abuse of power, but also because it provides a clear test for the various factions of the modern right.Do they truly care about free speech, or was that a convenient talking point right up until they obtained the power to create a new campus orthodoxy? Do they agree with Buckley, that the state should stay out of private university affairs, or get on board with Trumps increasingly aggressive approach? Do they really think that targeting hundreds of students like Ozturk, as Rubio suggested he was doing, could be squared with any kind of commitment to limited government and individual rights?The reactions from right-of-center publications divide into roughly four camps, aligning on a spectrum ranging from vocal approval to outright abhorrence. Yet the former was far closer to the center of gravity than the latter.The four kinds of reactions to Ozturks arrest1) The illiberal nationalists. This group endorses Ozturks arrest on the grounds that noncitizens do not have the same free speech rights as Americans and, thus, should be deported when they engage in speech the administration finds harmful.As a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, this is largely false: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that noncitizen residents have constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights (with only very limited exceptions). The illiberal nationalists do acknowledge this, but they argue that the court was simply wrong in conflict with the morally correct interpretation of the law.The Supreme Courts twentieth-century rulings are incorrect, Ben Crenshaw writes in American Reformer, a Christian nationalist publication. Non-citizen foreigners are under the goodwill and censure of US law, but cannot claim the full range of its benefits until they become citizens.The illiberal nationalists reject both the campus free speech argument and the Buckelyite vision of limited government. They believe the state has the right and responsibility to shape the American polity along their preferred lines, including by interfering in the management of private universities and curtailing allegedly dangerous speech.2. The whataboutists. These articles focused less on the actual question of whether it was right to deport Ozturk than the alleged sins or inconsistencies of Trumps liberal critics, on campus or otherwise.Writing at The Federalist, a staunchly pro-Trump outlet, John Daniel Davidson spends most of his word count attacking Never Trumper David French for the alleged hypocrisy of criticizing Ozturks deportations while also having worked at a publication that helped Facebook fact-check arguments about abortion during the 2020 election.French worked as a senior editor at an outlet that was paid to justify Big Tech censorship of pro-life views. Its reasonable to conclude that he doesnt care about free speech, no matter what he says about it now, Davidson writes.The weakness of Davidsons guilt-by-association move aside, his evasion of the substantive question is striking. Davidson does not weigh in on whether Ozturk specifically deserves deportation; he just speaks in generic terms about the presidents new policy of revoking the visas of foreign nationals who agitate for terrorist groups like Hamas.Ozturk didnt actually do this: Her op-ed doesnt even mention Hamas. But that doesnt matter. For the whataboutists, the key issue is always the sins of their enemies. Ozturk, academic freedom, basic civil liberties these are all merely collateral damage in the war on the left.3. The see-no-evil crowd. Evasion is also the key feature here. These people and publications simply chose not to say anything about Ozturk, despite a longstanding and preexisting interest in issues relating to campus politics, immigration, or Israel-Palestine. This was, in my research, the most common response from major right-wing outlets. Take the Daily Wire, the Ben Shapiro-founded media empire that has made the campus culture war and Israel-Palestine two of its primary foci. While the site publishes at a truly astonishing clip, the only mention of Ozturks case is a passing reference in a March 31st news roundup in which the author describes her as a Turkish national [whose] visa was revoked after the State Department found she engaged in activities in support of Hamas. That one line is the entirety of the Daily Wires coverage which, of course, amounts to no real coverage at all.Whatever the reason for this silence, it speaks volumes about their commitment to alleged free-speech principles.4. The principled objectors. I couldnt find many of these from conservatives other than people who were already Never Trumpers, but they do exist.The clearest example is a column from Jeffrey Blehar at National Review. Blehar, whose official position on the 2024 election was that Trump and Harris were equally bad, appears to be genuinely appalled by Ozturks arrest.To capriciously eject people from the country without warning merely for publishing an unpopular political opinion in a student newspaper is, no matter what Trumps defenders or special pleaders may beg, utterly abhorrent, Blehar writes. The idea that foreigners who are here on valid visas should live under fear that their every political opinion might become grounds for sudden incarceration in Louisiana or El Salvador is inhumane and close to un-American in spirit.This is, I think, the right reaction and it deserves to be commended unreservedly. That it was published in the magazine Buckley founded, the closest thing to a house organ for the pre-Trump GOP establishment, is also notable. See More:

One of the buzziest books in America right now is Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompsons bestseller on why our failure to build enough homes has contributed to soaring costs and needless political strife. And one of the most provocative movements in politics these days is pronatalism a coalition sounding the alarm on people not having enough babies. Pronatalists are gaining power in the White House (Trump recently dubbed himself the fertilization president) and the movement just wrapped up its second annual US convention in Austin, Texas. As housing supply and birth rates have become twin focal points in Americas policy conversation, a growing number of wonks are drawing connections between these two, arguing that expanding housing supply wouldnt just ease affordability it could also help boost fertility. The Institute for Family Studies a think tank which launched its own pronatalism division last summer recently published a report making this case, revealing how housing costs have become crushing for young adults. The median home now costs nine years of a young persons income, up from five years in 1969. Homeownership rates for Americans under 35 have collapsed from 50 percent to around 30 percent since 1980.Many of these young adults arent even living in their own rentals. The National Association of Home Builders found that in 2023, 19.2 percent of young adults (or 8.5 million people) lived with their parents, compared to less than 12 percent of young adults in 2000. As Robert Dietz, chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders, noted last month at a conference in Washington, DC, the surge of young adults living with parents represents a failure to launch that directly impacts marriage and fertility rates.Dietzs conclusions are supported by IFS. Living with ones parents has a huge negative effect on fertility according to the think tank, meaning that as more young adults delay moving into their own homes, they also delay or forgo having children. In fact, IFS researchers find that no other factor not undesired singleness, preference for leisure, schooling, child care costs, or student debt limited ones childbearing goals more than housing costs. As a 32-year-old woman getting married in two months and still renting this all strikes a chord. Much of my reporting focuses on ways to expand the desperately needed housing supply, and I am compelled by the argument that making it easier for people to live independently would, in turn, make it easier for them to form and sustain romantic relationships.But banking too much on housing misses deeper shifts in our social fabric. Housing affordability matters enormously, but exists within a cultural landscape where attitudes toward family formation and parenthood are fundamentally changing. Fewer young adults are prioritizing committed partnerships as a life goal, with many explicitly choosing to remain single.Perhaps most significant are the widening economic, political, and cultural divides between young men and women. Between 2012 and 2023, young women became dramatically more liberal while young men drifted rightward. By 2023, over 50 percent of young women identified as liberal, up from 32 percent 11 years earlier. As women have pursued more education and focused more seriously on careers, mens earning power has declined. Meanwhile, the rising cost of living continues to reshape everyones economic future.The 2024 election revealed that among voters under 30, the gender gap between women and men who supported Kamala Harris was twice as large as in other age groups. This isnt just about voting habits; 68 percent of Harris voters believed society should dedicate more resources to helping girls, while only 35 percent of Trump voters shared that view.Disagreements over issues like whether women should have access to abortion and birth control are just far more fundamental than quibbles around zoning and sluggish permitting processes. A majority of young Democrats now say they wouldnt date someone with opposing political views with women far more likely than men to draw this line. Moreover, in the backdrop of all this is a society that has grown increasingly hostile to parents and kids. Ive written about millennial mom dread and the increasingly grim ways motherhood is depicted in America, and last week pop star Chappell Roan lit up the internet after declaring that all her friends with kids are in hell. The latest cover of the New Yorker depicts a mother hauling a baby and stroller alone down into a subway station, symbolizing the lack of accessibility and support for parents in much of society. These portrayals often overshadow the profound fulfillment many parents still find in raising children, creating a distorted picture of family life that discourages young adults from seeing parenthood as viable.Can housing policy help address these deeper problems? The IFS report makes a number of sensible recommendations: loosening zoning codes, allowing accessory dwelling units, reducing minimum lot sizes. More affordable family-friendly housing would certainly help.But we should be clear-eyed about the limits of policy interventions. A bigger home for raising children looks a lot less attractive if the surrounding community still remains hostile, and our public spaces and cultural institutions increasingly treat children as unwelcome intrusions. A recent Pew survey found 69 percent of adults say its rarely or never acceptable to bring a child into a place thats typically for adults like a bar or upscale restaurant, and complaints about kids on planes abound. Journalist Stephanie Murray has written thoughtfully about the ways in which people feel comfortable making proclamations about disliking kids. The uncomfortable truth is that we dont yet know if voluntary policy measures like more affordable housing, safer streets for pedestrians, better stroller accessibility, paid leave, and subsidized child care will be enough to reverse declining birth rates. I feel comfortable taking the bet that they would definitely help and are intrinsically worth pursuing even if not but they cant address the deeper question of whether young men and women want to build lives together in the first place.See More:

The day this article goes up, April 2, has been pegged by President Donald Trump as Liberation Day: the day his suite of tariffs will go into effect and thus, in some unspecified sense, liberate the United States.The pre-history of this disastrous set of policies, which will only make America poorer and alienate it from its closest allies, is as long and weird as youd expect from Trump. Part of the story seems to involve him losing an auction in 1988 for a piano used in Casablanca to a Japanese collector, thus confirming that Japan was an economic threat. Sure, fine, that seems par for the course with this guy.But if you want to understand why not only Trump but now large parts of both parties have reoriented themselves to support tariffs, I think the key text is not Casablanca but a 2013 paper by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson thats almost as famous (among economists, at least). If you follow economic research at all, you know this as the China shock paper.This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter.Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.The authors found that the surge of US manufacturing imports from China between 1991 and 2007 led to large job losses in the US manufacturing sector, losses that were concentrated in a few particular geographic locations. Areas affected saw wages fall for a surprisingly long time, and uptake of government benefit programs like unemployment and disability insurance.The DC think tank worlds understanding of this finding was sweeping: Free trade didnt work. Bipartisan advocates like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had promised that deals like permanent normal trade relations or NAFTA would be win-win propositions, when in reality they hollowed out American manufacturing. After Trump won in 2016 on a fiercely anti-trade platform, aided by support in China shock-affected states like Wisconsin and Michigan, many Democrats saw the implication as obvious: It was time to turn their backs on trade, as a matter of political survival if nothing else.If you actually read the China shock literature you will notice that the authors do not come to any conclusions remotely this broad. The conclusions they do reach, though, can help us understand why Trumps particular policy response will be so damaging.Its the shock not the ChinaReading the original China shock paper and its follow-ups, something that sticks out is how little the literature is about trade policy per se. Autor, Dorn, and Hanson are clear that the shock came not just from changing US policy toward China, but from Chinas massive increase in manufacturing productivity during this period. That means the employment losses in certain areas werent solely due to the US loosening barriers, but also to changes within China that US policy couldnt alter.The authors are equally clear that trade wasnt the sole driver of declining manufacturing employment. They estimate that the China shock was responsible for about a quarter of the decline in manufacturing jobs over the period they study. Thats significant, for sure, but also underlines how much other factors like labor-saving technologies in the sector, or consumers shifting demand toward services were behind the hollowing-out of old factory towns. Even if China had stayed poor and not become a major exporter, the US still would have rapidly lost manufacturing jobs, just not quite as many.Id be remiss if I didnt mention that many researchers have found that Chinese imports have, overall, made Americans better off. That includes Autor, Dorn, and Hanson, who concluded that the gains to consumers from cheaper goods were somewhat larger than the employment losses. That doesnt mean the concentrated hurt from the China shock was okay. Clearly the US should have done a better job of helping affected regions transition to a more competitive economy. But simply not doing the China shock, even if that had been possible, would not have made the US better off as a whole. Nor would adding tariffs now, some 15 years after the China shock ended, do any good. Follow-up work by the team on the Trump tariffs during his first term found that they reduced US employment overall by inviting foreign retaliation.Rather than a jeremiad against free trade, its better to understand the China shock literature as explaining what happens when a specific region takes a big economic hit whether due to imports or something else. Autor has compared it to the losses West Virginia suffered as the US transitioned away from coal. The forward-looking lesson is not about how we contend with manufacturing competition, Autor told an interviewer in 2021. It is not even [only] about trade per se, but about adjustment for unemployed workers and hard-hit areas. How costly it is, how slow it is, and how we can make it work better.Its not the China part thats crucial: Its the shock.Maybe dont do another shock for no reason?Trumps suite of tariffs are, obviously, not going to bring manufacturing back to the US in any meaningful way. But theyre certainly shocking. Theyve introduced massive uncertainty to international trade and to supply chains that cross borders, like the deeply integrated Michigan-Ontario auto sector. Theyve forced manufacturers and retailers that depend on imports as inputs or sales items to scramble to adjust.This exact dynamic, this kind of massive economic shift imposed with little time to prepare or adjust, is what made the China shock so painful for certain regions. The tariff shock, far from undoing the effects of the China shock, could simply replicate its worst aspects, just without the corresponding benefit in terms of economic growth and cheaper goods.The Trump team, as Paul Krugman observed during the first trade war, is acting like a motorist who runs over a pedestrian, then tries to fix the damage by backing up and runs over the victim a second time.Its not yet clear if the damage will be as economically concentrated as the China shock was. Large-scale government layoffs and contract cancellations are threatening a localized DC recession, and tariffs on Canada and Mexico would disproportionately hurt border states, but the damage of higher prices and job losses from tariffs will be felt broadly across the whole country. Since part of the reason the China shock garnered so much attention was its concentration in presidential swing states, this might make the tariff shock less politically motivating.But in just about every aspect, the tariff shock is worse than the China shock. The China shock made prices cheaper for most Americans all those cheap appliances and toys but the tariff shock will raise prices. The China shock was concentrated in the manufacturing sector, and manufacturing-heavy regions; the tariff shock will affect many sectors.Perhaps worst of all, where the China shock was largely unavoidable, the tariff shock is entirely self-inflicted. Its being chosen by US policymakers, against the interests of their constituents and allied nations. They could just as easily not do it at all. Its an act of economic national suicide the likes of which the US hasnt seen in decades.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:

Today is Liberation Day, according to President Donald Trump the day he announces a slate of new tariffs. This is just the latest update to tariff policies that have already caused a good deal of whiplash since Trump took office in January. He threatened to impose tariffs on Colombia and canceled his plan to do so all in a single day. He rolled out a tariff plan for Canada and Mexico, only to postpone implementing it shortly after some tariffs went into effect. And hes been threatening both allies and adversaries with broad and aggressive tariffs for reasons ranging from cracking down on fentanyl to closing a TikTok deal.The chaotic nature of Trumps tariff policies has unnerved investors, and the stock market has plummeted since the president made it clear that hes not afraid of a trade war. It has also made tariffs look like an inherently bad idea. To be fair, Trumps tariff proposals are bad policy: They are far too broad, haphazard, and have confusing rationales.But tariffs are not fundamentally unwise. The reality is that tariffs can be, and have been, effective policy tools for promoting industrial development when theyre done in a targeted strategic way and when they are matched with other complementary policies, said Adam Hersh, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. So what would good tariff policies actually look like?When tariffs can be goodA tariff is a tax thats imposed on goods imported from other countries. Oftentimes, the cost is passed on to consumers because companies will raise their prices to offset the tax. One of the biggest reasons countries would be interested in levying a tariff is to protect domestic industries from unfair competition. Take the example of Chinese steel. China, which heavily subsidizes its steel industry, produces more than half of the worlds steel. Because demand for steel within China has not kept pace with supply, Chinese steel has become much cheaper, potentially selling at a loss in international markets. That makes it extremely difficult for steel manufacturers elsewhere to compete, which has prompted governments to respond. Last year, the Biden administration implemented tariffs aimed at curbing imports of Chinese steel in order to protect US manufacturers.Another example of unfair competition comes from countries with bad labor standards and very low wages. If, for example, Chinese products are cheaper than American products in part because of extremely low labor costs, the US shouldnt respond by lowering wages to keep local companies competitive. Instead of a race to the bottom, the US can respond by imposing tariffs on certain Chinese products. That allows American companies to pay their workers well without having to sacrifice their competitiveness in the market. Tariffs work best when they are tailored to a specific problem. We have to start by making strategic choices about, What are the industries that are important to support with public policy? Hersh said. That could be for a national security reason, it could be for an economic reason, it could be because of broader social goals like fighting the climate crisis.Other times, a country might be interested in propping up a certain sector to make the supply chain more stable. If the United States is too reliant on other countries to provide certain goods, it can be caught in a crisis when supply chains are disrupted. This was a lesson learned painfully during the COVID-19 pandemic when everyone was scrambling to source personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and critical medicines unavailable domestically at the necessary scale, Hersh wrote in an article with Josh Bivens, the chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute. Tariffs, in other words, can help ensure that there isnt a monopoly over crucial imports so that supply chains arent completely disrupted in the event of war or, as we learned in 2020, a pandemic.Why Trumps tariff policy is misguidedOn his first day back in the White House, Trump announced that he would try to build a whole new agency called the External Revenue Service to collect taxes on imports. His goal is very simple: to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and let all the outsiders pay, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Fox News in February.But while tariffs were a main source of revenue for the US government before it introduced federal income taxes in 1913, Trumps supposed plan to replace the IRS with an External Revenue Service is a terrible idea. For starters, tariffs essentially act as a flat tax on spending, which ultimately puts a higher burden on lower-income consumers. Its also impossible for tariffs to raise nearly as much money as income tax.This strategy also highlights why Trumps tariff proposals are so poorly planned: He simultaneously wants to raise a significant amount of money from tariffs while also pledging to get rid of tariffs if other countries agree to his terms. Trumps tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, for example, were placed in part, he says, to stop fentanyl from flowing into the United States. So what would happen if those countries end up meeting Trumps demands? If Trumps plan is just to raise revenue, then clearly he wouldnt want to come to an agreement with those countries. If his plan is to curb fentanyl, then he clearly doesnt want tariffs to be a permanent source of revenue.The Trump administration has not been targeted or strategic. They have so many different rationales for why theyre pursuing tariffs, not all of them have to do with industrial revitalization, Hersh said. The broad-based approach is also expected to be seriously disruptive, spiking prices on all kinds of products all at once. Even Trump seemed to suggest that would be the case. WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!), Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, his social media platform. BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.Another problem is that Trump seemingly believes that tariffs can stand on their own. But tariffs in and of themselves are not a solution. To be effective at protecting American companies and jobs, tariffs should be coupled with other policies that help spur investments.Trump has proposed repealing the CHIPS and Science Act, which former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The law invested tens of billions of dollars in Americas semiconductor industry by subsidizing companies that want to build new manufacturing facilities in the United States and by funding research and development.If Trump is actually interested in using tariffs productively, he should start by first figuring out what his policy objectives actually are. He could also turn to his predecessor for answers. The Biden administrations approach to propping up the semiconductor industry, for example, was to impose some tariffs in addition to the CHIPS Act, using tariffs as just one tool of many to support industry growth. Trump, by contrast, wants to just rely on tariffs without committing to long-term investments. That wont deliver the same goal.Ultimately, its important to remember that just because Trumps approach to tariffs is bombastic and unpredictable, that shouldnt necessarily be a reflection on tariffs more broadly. At the end of the day, tariffs exist for a reason, and, if implemented well, they can be a beneficial tool to shore up jobs, promote better wages, and advance national interests. We cant judge the tool, Hersh said, by the craftsman that is mishandling it.See More:

After a long, expensive, and closely watched race, Wisconsin went to the polls on Tuesday, and voted in a new state Supreme Court justice.Susan Crawford, a liberal county judge backed by Democrats across the US, defeated the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, who was backed by the national GOP.In a conversation for Voxs daily newsletter Today, Explained, I asked politics reporter Christian Paz to break down the big race and its impact. Heres what he had to say. (Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.)So, tell me about what happened in Wisconsin.Wisconsins Supreme Court has a seat thats opening up because one of the Democrats is retiring. (The states Supreme Court is technically nonpartisan, but there are liberals whom Democrats support and conservatives whom Republicans support.)Right now, Democrats currently have a one-seat ideological majority on the court, and Tuesdays race was about which party would have the majority for the foreseeable future. Tuesday night, it quickly became clear that would be the Democrats. For people living in Wisconsin, the chance to decide the ideological makeup of the court was a big deal. Nationally, though, the race became important for a few other reasons.One, this was the first major statewide race happening in a swing state, or really any state, since Trumps inauguration. Democrats did poorly in swing states in the 2024 election, so this race is seen as a test of whether Democrats can still win races.Two, were about 10 weeks into Trumps second term, so this race was viewed as a referendum on the Trump administration so far.Three, this race was also a referendum on Elon Musks power and influence. He managed to make the race in Wisconsin about himself, by spending tens of millions of dollars in support of Schimel, and by testing the limits of campaign finance rules, finding as many ways as possible to offer people money to pay attention to the race, including by giving away a million dollars to voters. Hes poured millions of dollars into canvassing, and even went to Wisconsin to hold a rally on Schimels behalf.Finally, this election gives us a new data point to try to answer a question political scientists have wrestled with for a long time: Are there two electorates? Conventional wisdom suggests the answer to that question is yes, that there are lower propensity voters who only turn out in presidential elections, and then there are higher propensity voters who are very tuned into politics who turn out in every election, be it presidential, midterm, or special. However, political polarization and the level of loyalty Donald Trump inspires has some wondering whether that still holds. Tuesdays result helps suggest that it might.This is an off-cycle race, and because of that, some political commentators saw this contest as favoring Democrats a little. Last year, Kamala Harris performed particularly well with voters who said that they followed news closely, the classic high propensity voter. Again, high propensity voters tend to reliably vote in non-presidential elections, and the thinking was, those same Harris voters might help Crawford. And it seems like they did.There are other races coming up this year, and midterms next year. Does Wisconsin tell us anything about those?We shouldnt put too much stock in one race.That said, you could argue Susan Crawfords win makes some kind of blue wave next year appear a little more likely.There are a few factors that made this a somewhat unique case for Democrats, which makes it a little difficult to draw broad conclusions. As I mentioned, the fact that this was an off-cycle election probably helped Democrats, and theres another unique factor that may have helped too. Elon Musk wasnt the only person pouring in money; wealthy Democrats did too, as did grassroots donors. Thats in part because this was the only big race going on; if youre a liberal donor or a fundraiser, where else can you send your money? That wont be the case in the midterms next year.That said, Crawfords win does buttress conventional wisdom. Political science would tell us that you cant be an unpopular president with an unpopular agenda, leading an unpopular party, and flip a seat in a statewide race like this. And Republicans did fail to flip this seat.That failure could have some implication for next years midterms. Those elections tend to favor the party out of power, with voters trying to use them to put a check on the incumbent administration. If the other races coming up this year like Virginias gubernatorial race shake out like the race in Wisconsin, Democrats may decide their best bet is to just try to ride an anti-Trump, anti-Musk, anti-status quo anger to midterm victory.The result is also a huge warning sign about the power of Elon Musk. Last year, a lot of people ridiculed his canvassing efforts on behalf of the Republicans, and his funding of external groups outside of the political party system to turn out voters. Then Trump won, and his strategy suddenly looked good. Wisconsin suggests there are limits to the idea that the worlds richest man can pour money into politics to influence minds, making voting essentially a financial transaction, and it will pay off.See More:

The boys are alt-right. At least thats what polling and voting data suggests. Men under 25 were nearly 20 percent more likely to vote for Donald Trump than women in that age group in the 2024 election, revealing a gender gap far larger than those in older generations.Democrats have been freaking out about their young men problem. Theyre starting podcasts. Theyre talking about sports. Theyre cursing more. And increasingly theyre courting Hasan Piker: a 33-year-old Twitch streamer some are calling the Joe Rogan of the left. Piker livestreams for eight hours or more nearly every day. He has millions of followers, a group that skews young and male. Piker is a self-described leftist. Hell vote Democrat as the lesser of two evils, but hes been very critical of the party, especially over its handling of Israels war in Gaza.Hes overtly political but also an entertainer. During a recent streaming session, Piker bantered about his squat form and riffed on Andy Sambergs face, before pivoting to a long interview with New York Times politics reporter Astead Herndon. The message is equal parts self-improvement and how to fight for a better world, emphasis on fight. His message to his followers and to Democrats seeking a way forward is to get more antagonistic in pushing for what they believe in. You should fight back, Piker told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. You should be like, No, this is what I believe. Why do you not want to give health care to poor people? Like, whats wrong with you?Pikers conversation with Today, Explained ranged from his protein intake, to Lyndon B. Johnsons thoughts on race, to the warm blanket of right-wing media. Make sure you listen to the whole thing at the link below or wherever you get your podcasts. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Whats your protein intake? Is there a lot of protein going on?Yes, I consume about 200, at a minimum, 220 grams of protein every day.Amazing.I mean, its alright. I eat a lot of chicken. I love chicken. So this is fine. Just straight white chicken breasts every day.Oh! How much do you feel like being kind of yoked is like part of your draw and your persona?I think it initially in leftist circles is aits a negative. People look at me and immediately assume that I am a right-wing dude. At this point its hard to say that because obviously most people know what my politics are. But if you dont know who I am from afar, you think like, Oh, thats like an alpha bro potentially right kinda guy. My demeanor also is like that too. Im just authentically myself. I do not like putting on a show. I dont even think Id be capable of lying and being inauthentic for 10 hours a day in real time especially as Im responding in real-time to both news that is happening, but also then to people who are trying to argue with me about it. Its just who I am. Theres not much I can do to change it. And I dont even want to change the way I behave.What is your read on why this male optimization, (getting, you know, really beefed up) has a left-right divide? And what is that divide about?Theres a bunch of different reasons for it, but I think, like a lot of these guys, they dont think too hard about politics and then they find themselves trapped in this right-wing bubble. And then I think that they just like to associate that with self-improvement and self-help with that in general. Self-help inherently is not like a leftist or a right-wing thing. But it does seem like a lot of the content creators that are promoting that and presenting themselves as that are definitely, at the very least, right-wing. But I think part of it is because thats just the domineering attitude in general, if you dont really think about things too much and you kind of find yourself susceptible to social conditioning. And that does have a right-wing slant, the whole commonsense narrative. Its like, Oh, this is just common sensetwo genders: commonsense.You didnt put a lot of thought into it. Thats just what you learned your entire life. So of course you kind of slot yourself into the right-wing in that regard.I guess the other reason is because self-improvement can turn into hyper-individualism very quickly, which is also another incredibly American attitude in general, but thats what it is.You try to couple self-improvement with helping others, which feels really critical in this moment where a lot of people feel lost, but that leads to them becoming more inward, introverted, even angry. How do you feel like youre fairing in that battle right now to not just improve yourself inside and out, but to be more considerate of those around you?I dont know. Im justIm a stubborn dude. Im not doing deliberate gym content specifically because I want to penetrate the alpha bro fitness space. Its just something that I have always liked to do organically. And, the content creators that I watch from this space are people that I end up collaborating with or have at least some mutual interests. It feels like were at a pretty important juncture for young men, right? And theres a lot of people telling them to regress, to be expecting women to take their last names, and to stay at home and to make lots of babies and to not ask too many questions. And then, I dont know, it feels like youre on the other side of that fight trying to tell men to grow.I dont tell people like, Women have to stay in the kitchen, or Women dont have to stay in the kitchen. Im just more like: Treat women as individuals, you know? Just like you would your sisters or your mother with respect as like a normal human being. Let them do whatever they want to do. Thats my attitude on it at least.I think that the reason why the right is so successful at capturing the attention of young men in particular is because theyre taking a lot of the worst aspects of the hopelessness that I was just talking about that everyone in the next generation is experiencing. And right-wing commentary is like a warm blanket that you can surround yourself with that says: Youre right to be angry and you should be angry at vulnerable populations. You should be angry at people who have no power over you. And then if you dominate them a little bit, then that gives you a little bit of power, right?It reminds me of the LBJ quote about telling the lowest white man that he is higher than any Black man.If you can convince the lowest white man, hes better than the best colored man. He wont notice youre picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and hell empty his pockets for you.I think what youre getting at here is the vision that the right is selling to young men is very compelling, because it doesnt necessarily involve growth or progress. It just affirms what they already believe or maybe what their fathers and their fathers before them believed. But you seem to do something special which is you create an alternate vision for young men, for young people, what keeps you hopeful?The one area of hope that I have right now is the momentum that Ive seen from AOC and Bernie Sanders, who are going out and speaking in front of tens of thousands of people, people that may have not even voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, right? Like people from all different walks of life both Democrats and maybe even some not Democrats coming together and being like, Yeah, everything is messed up. We need to do something about it.So theres definitely a lot of interest amongst the American working class to to change things. Some people have associated that change with Donald Trump. I find that kind of change to be worse because I think Donald Trump is further breaking the system that was broken previously prior to this.The fact that some people recognize that there must be a difference, there must be a different mechanism for change. And they find Bernie to be a vehicle for that is somewhat positive, but it entirely depends on where it goes from here. Does the Democratic Party turn around and go, Okay, we got to do that. Enough with this, you know, third-way neoliberalism.This kind of [neoliberal] attitude is ridiculous. I think its academic, its smug, its elitist, and its wrong. Its demonstrably wrong. And I think people dont want to hear it anymore.So, I hope the Democratic Party recognizes that, and then more and more people run for office and say, No, I dont want corporate donations. Im done with the billionaires and millionaires. Im done with you. Im done with the rest of the Democratic Party. Im going to be a Democrat, but Im done with the Democratic Party.Thats what Republicans did over the course of many, many years as well. They feared their base. They did not worry about the potential political repercussions of pushing for incredibly unfavorable and unpopular policies. And look where theyre at now. They got rewarded consistently time and time again. Or at least doing something.Thats the attitude that many Americans have. Theyre just like, Yeah, everything is messed up. At least this guy wants to break the system. And I dont really like the system anyway. I dont like the institutions anyway. They, what have they done for me? So lets test this out.See More:

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.Welcome to The Logoff: Today my colleague Nicole Narea and I are focusing on the Trump administrations admission that it wrongfully sent a migrant to a Salvadorian mega prison a reminder of the danger of suspending due process.Whats the latest? The administration admitted yesterday that it made an administrative error when it deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia one of more than 100 people sent in March to a Salvadorian prison that is a legal black hole with documented human rights abuses. The administration says its unable to bring Garcia back from foreign soil, despite an immigration judge ruling in 2019 that Garcia could stay in the US pending further proceedings.How did this happen? Trump invoked an 18th-century wartime powers law to deport Garcia and others who his administration accused of gang ties. A judge ordered Trump to halt those deportations mid-flight, but the administration did not. As a result, the migrants were denied due process deported before their cases were legally resolved. Is this an isolated incident? The Trump administration concluded some migrants were gang members based on criteria that included tattoos and clothing, the New York Times reported yesterday. Those criteria have resulted in multiple cases where non-gang members were quite possibly swept up.Whats the big picture? Its possible that, in time, some of these men will be proven criminals. Garcia, for example, has been accused but not convicted of ties to the gang MS-13. But thats beside the point: In a functioning justice system, we use due process to first adjudicate guilt, and then levy punishment.Thats partly why a federal judge ordered the deportation flights halted to begin with: to give the legal system time to figure out what rights these men did or didnt have. The Trump administration, however, defied that order, and now it has imposed an extreme punishment it says it cant take back all while were still trying to figure out who these men are and what they did.And with that, its time to log offI am not, by any stretch, a knower of poetry, and so Im lucky that, once long ago, I came across this poem: The Summer Day. I find it helpful on days like today, when its easy to feel exhausted or ungrateful. Its a reminder to use our time well, particularly in a last line both haunts and inspires me: Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?Thanks for reading. I hope you have a good night, and well see you back here tomorrow.See More:

In mid-March, President Donald Trump invoked an almost-never-used federal law, claiming that it gives him the power to deport many immigrants at will with minimal or no legal process to determine if these deportations are lawful. The text of that statute, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, does not give presidents the power Trump claims.For the moment, at least, a lower court order blocks Trumps Alien Enemies Act proclamation; that order is still in effect, although there is ongoing litigation about whether the Trump administration defied it by sending dozens of Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador after the lower court ordered the planes carrying these immigrants to be turned around.Now Trump wants the Supreme Court to halt the lower court order and effectively allow him to resume deportations without any meaningful review, and without having to prove the immigrants targeted by his proclamation have actually done anything wrong. The case, which is known as Trump v. J.G.G., is before the Court on its shadow docket, a mix of emergency motions and other matters which the justices often decide after only cursory review of the case. A decision on the case could come any time in the next few weeks.In J.G.G., Trumps lawyers make three arguments that, when combined, would give him virtually unchecked authority to remove any noncitizen from the United States. First, Trump claims the unprecedented authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act during peacetime, and against a nonstate actor in this case, Tren de Aragua, a criminal gang that originated in Venezuela. That law, which does give the president sweeping authority to remove foreign nationals when properly invoked, only applies during a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or during a military invasion or predatory incursion of the United States.Congress the only branch of government that can declare war has not declared war on Venezuela, and the alleged presence of civilian criminals in the United States is not a military operation. Also, the Alien Enemies Act only applies to military actions by a foreign nation or government. Tren de Aragua is not its own nation, nor does it control the government of Venezuela.Second, Trumps lawyers argue that the immigrants challenging his proclamation may only bring their case in Texas federal court, under a legal procedure known as a habeas proceeding, which typically can only be used by a single individual to challenge their own detention. That matters for two reasons. Federal cases brought in Texas appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a far-right court that routinely interprets the law in creative ways to benefit right-wing causes and the Republican Party, something likely to put anyone trying to stop a deportation at a disadvantage. Additionally, if challenges can only be brought on an individual basis, it may no longer be possible to obtain a broad court order blocking his entire proclamation.Third, even if an immigrant targeted by Trump could convince the Fifth Circuit to shield them from deportation, they are unlikely to ever get that chance. As Judge Patricia Millett, one of four lower court judges whos already heard the J.G.G. case, explains, the administrations position is that once Trumps proclamation goes into effect it can immediately resume removal flights without affording Plaintiffs notice of the grounds for their removal or any opportunity to call a lawyer, let alone to file a writ of habeas corpus or obtain any review of their legal challenges to removal.RelatedThe Trumpiest court in AmericaIf the Court were to accept this third argument, Trump would be able to deport people so quickly that, by the time a lawyer or judge learns they were deported, it will be too late to do anything about it.Trumps peacetime invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is illegalThe Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked three times in American history: during the War of 1812 and during both world wars. In all three instances, Congress had formally declared war.Its likely that presidents have been reluctant to use this power in the past, even during other wars, because the authority provided by the Alien Enemies Act is extraordinarily draconian. When properly invoked, the law permits the federal government to arrest, detain, and remove all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized. So during a declared war with Germany, the president may order nearly all German citizens removed from the United States, regardless of whether those German nationals took any aggressive or criminal action whatsoever.Trump now claims that he can use this law during peacetime to target alleged members of Tren de Aragua.Even setting aside the fact that the Alien Enemies Act only applies to foreign nations or governments and Tren de Aragua is neither there appears to be no legal authority whatsoever supporting Trumps claim that this law can be used against a foreign gang engaged in ordinary criminal activity. In its brief to the justices, the Trump administration claims that Tren de Araguas alleged presence in the United States constitutes a predatory incursion under the Alien Enemies Act. But the only source Trumps lawyers cite to support this claim is a 1945 trial court decision that quotes President John Tyler (who became president in 1841) using the term predatory incursion to refer to military raids during a war between Mexico and the then-Republic of Texas.So this 1945 opinion offers no support for the proportion that a predatory incursion can be committed by civilians during peacetime. And, in any event, its notable that the only legal source Trumps lawyers could come up with is an 80-year-old decision by a single, low-ranking judge.The J.G.G. plaintiffs brief, by contrast, quotes from numerous founding era dictionaries and other historical documents that use this term exclusively to refer to a military raid, including a letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, which used predatory incursion to refer to a British raid on American military supplies in Virginia.Trumps proclamation, in other words, relies on a wholly novel interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, one that posits it can be used in peacetime, despite what the text of the law says. And his lawyers did not find any support whatsoever for this new interpretation in over 200 years of American legal history.Trumps attempts to cut off judicial review are also meritlessPerhaps recognizing that its interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act is unprecedented, the Trump administration spends the bulk of its J.G.G. brief raising procedural objections to the lower courts order blocking Trumps proclamation, particularly its claim that this proclamation can only be challenged in habeas proceedings in Texas.Habeas proceedings typically must be brought in the jurisdiction where the prisoner is held. The Trump administration incarcerated the J.G.G. plaintiffs in Texas, so it claims that their suits must be brought in Texas federal court.However, habeas proceedings are a way often the only way for someone in federal prison to challenge their detention. And the plaintiffs in J.G.G. do not challenge the governments ability to detain them while a valid removal case against them proceeds. They simply challenge the Trump administrations attempt to remove them without due process under the Alien Enemies Act. And the Supreme Court has held that habeas is not the right remedy when a plaintiff does not challenge their detention.As the Court said in Skinner v. Switzer (2011), there is no case in which the Court has recognized habeas as the sole remedy, or even an available one, where the relief sought would neither terminat[e] custody, accelerat[e] the future date of release from custody, nor reduc[e] the level of custody.That decision means Trumps attempt to shunt any challenge to his proclamation into individual legal proceedings, where the individuals bringing those proceedings can be deported before they can even speak to their lawyers, should have no merit. If one of the J.G.G. plaintiffs also want to challenge their detention, that case may need to be brought in Texas, but the Trump administrations attempt to shut down a broader challenge to the Alien Enemies Act proclamation cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent.Additionally, a different federal immigration law cuts against Trumps claim that immigrants challenging the Alien Enemies Act proclamation must be brought in individual habeas suits. The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that it lays out the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be removed from the United States. This law, moreover, gives immigrants a variety of procedural rights, such as the right to claim asylum. It does permit expedited proceedings against some immigrants, including those that commit serious felonies, but even those noncitizens are entitled to notice and a hearing before they are removed from the country. And this law undercuts the administrations argument that it can summarily deport people.Of course, any legal analysis of any Supreme Court case involving Trump must come with a caveat. This is the same Court that ruled over the summer that Trump can use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, so there is no guarantee that these justices will follow existing law.Nevertheless, the law as it is understood now is quite clear that Trump cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to cut off due process for immigrants during peacetime.See More:

If you check in on any of New Jersey Sen. Cory Bookers social media pages today, youll probably notice that hes been talking for a while.Hes standing on the Senate floor (occasionally resting against his desk) to criticize the Trump administrations agenda and the work of Elon Musks Department of Government Efficiency. Hes also showing his fellow Democrats what it looks like to do something when youre locked out of power in Washington DC.Now well past the 18th hour of a marathon address on the Senate floor, Booker is engaging in a not-quite filibuster an old congressional tradition. Usually known as a filibuster, these kinds of marathon addresses are a procedural tool. They take advantage of the Senates rules that allow for unlimited debate or speaking by a senator unless there have been special limits put in place. Senators recognized by the presiding officer can speak indefinitely, usually cannot be forced to cede the floor, or even be interruptedbut must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously, according to the Congressional Research Service.But Bookers address isnt a filibuster theres no legislation that hes trying to hold up. Instead, its a form of political theater and protest against the Trump administration. And it comes at a time when overwhelming shares of his partys membership think their elected leaders arent putting up a tough enough fight to resist Donald Trumps agenda. About two-thirds of Democratic voters would prefer their leaders stick to their positions even if this means not getting things done in Washington a March NBC News poll found. This kind of show of political force, at least, has been what top Democrats were saying when warning about Trump on the campaign trail last year.They would prefer congressional leadership use whatever tools they have available to slow down the administrations work: One recent poll, for example, even found that about three-quarters of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters support the idea of using procedural tactics like the filibuster to prevent Republican bills from passing.Still, attention-grabbing moments like these arent guaranteed to have staying power. Its far too early to tell whether Booker is galvanizing a lasting opposition as he might have hoped, or whether this will be drowned out by another Trump story. Still, its feeding the Democratic bases hunger for (any kind of) Trump resistance as he overruns traditional checks on his power.Thats not easy to do when youre locked out of power, so Bookers gamble is yet the latest attempt of Democrats trying to figure out how to fight back.Bookers speech started on Monday evening, when he announced he would be speaking as long as he is physically able to lift the voices of Americans who are being harmed and not being heard in this moment of crisis.These are not normal times in our nation, he said. And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.Since then, hes only stopped to allow the Senate chaplain to deliver a traditional prayer at noon, and to allow fellow Democratic senators to ask him questions and give him a bit of a rest. Yet he has remained standing, and only taken a couple drinks of water. Hes already entered the top rankings of the longest Senate speeches delivered. (Only one other sitting senator, Republican Ted Cruz of Texas, has delivered a longer address, when trying unsuccessfully to defund the Affordable Care Act.)This kind of show of political force, at least, has been what top Democrats were saying when warning about Trump on the campaign trail last year. Yet many in the Democratic base have felt like since Trump entered office, their leaders werent acting with that kind of urgency. Poll after poll shows that the Democratic rank and file feel adrift, leaderless, and dissatisfied.That fury intensified last month, when Democrats voted for a GOP-brokered spending bill to keep the government open. The thinking at the time was that a shutdown would do more harm than good, but many in the partys base saw it as an unforgivable cave.Bookers speech is an attempt to try something else. And whether or not it works, its something different.See More:

Vox Members now get ad-free listening on all of our podcasts. Its just one of the great benefits that come with supporting our journalism, along with unlimited reading on Vox.com, member-exclusive newsletters, and more. (Not a Vox Member yet? Join now.)If youre a Vox Member, you can access your ad-free podcasts by going to your account page and clicking on the new podcast section to get started.Need more help? More detailed instructions are below.We support Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Podcast Addict, Castbox, BeyondPod, Downcast, Player FM, and Breaker. Follow the instructions below to access your ad-free listening. Youll access your ad-free podcasts by setting up special private feeds via your Vox Membership account. (You will not find them by searching within Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your podcast player of choice.) 1. Go to your account page and navigate to the podcasts section. (Make sure youre signed in.) 2. Click the Set Up button next to the podcast youd like to listen to without ads.3. If youre on your phone, just tap the logo for your favorite podcast player and follow your prompts to subscribe.If youre using Apple Podcasts or Spotify and have any issues, click here for further instructions.If youre on a desktop computer, you have a couple of options: Text yourself a link to add on your phone or scan a QR code to do the sameAdd directly to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube Music on your computerOnce youve completed the steps, your ad-free podcast will be available in that app. 4. Repeat these steps for the other podcasts you want to listen to without ads. 5. You can unsubscribe from the regular, ad-supported feed youll now get your episodes ad-free through your private feed.If you have any questions, contact our customer support team at membership@vox.com.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:

Our world has too much information and not enough context. Weve been hearing this a lot lately from those of you in our audience understandably so, these are chaotic times. There is simply too much news, too many push alerts, too much confusion about whats happening. Its leaving many people feeling overwhelmed and at a loss for where to even start. Worse still, we hear from people who say theyre avoiding the news altogether, at a moment when the stakes for our democracy have never been higher.We want to help solve that problem. At Vox, we have always been committed to helping you understand what truly matters and how to think about it. Thats why today, we have a couple exciting announcements for our audience. The first is that today, were rolling out a new tagline and mission statement that we think better captures what Vox can do for you in this current era of information overload. And we wanted to tell you about it because its inspired by what were hearing from our audience every day.Our new tagline is Making sense of it all. Our new mission statement is: Our world has too much noise and too little context. Vox helps you understand what matters. If this sounds like what were already doing, then thats good news for us. Its been at the core of Vox since our founding more than a decade ago, and its hopefully already reflected in the work were doing. But were making it explicit because we consider this our promise to you we wont drown you in panic-inducing headlines or an endless stream of notifications. Well sift through the noise and help you make sense of what matters and why. Well offer clarity, insight, and tools to help you live a better life. And well have some fun, too. A good example of what were trying to do is The Logoff, our new daily newsletter that tells you briefly about the one important political news story you need to know about each day. Youll start to see more story formats where we tell you about a topic in 400 words or explain it with one chart.And second, were delighted to announce a new benefit as part of the Vox Membership program: Members will be able to access ad-free versions of Vox podcasts. We know that this has been one of the most-requested perks by our Members, so were excited to be able to thank our most loyal audience members with this new podcast listening experience. Youll be able to listen to all your favorite shows, like Today, Explained, The Gray Area, Explain It to Me, and Unexplainable, with no ad breaks. If youre a Member, you can find instructions on how to access your ad-free podcasts here. (And if not, you can join here.)Vox exists for you. Our mission is to help you stay informed in a world of too much noise. Tell us how we can be useful.See More: Vox Press Room

Each year, in late spring and early summer, female sea turtles will crawl out of the ocean under moonlight to lay their eggs in the sand, often returning to the same beach on which they were born many years earlier.Sometimes when the turtles emerge to nest, researchers like Julianna Martin are watching patiently from the shadows.Julianna Martin collecting tears from a female sea turtle on a beach in Florida. Her research was carried out in accordance with UCF Marine Turtle Research Group permit MTP-171. Courtesy of Julianna MartinFor her doctoral research, Martin, a PhD student at the University of Central Florida, has been analyzing sea turtle tears. Yes, the tears of sea turtles. So on several summer nights in 2023 and 2024, shed stake out beaches and wait for the turtles to start laying eggs. At that point, the reptiles enter a sort of trance, she said, allowing scientists like her to collect samples, including tears. Martin told me she would army crawl up to the turtles on the sand and dab around their eyes with a foam swab, soaking up the goopy tears they exude. Sea turtles regularly shed tears as a way to expel excess salt from their bodies. (As far as we know, they are not sad.)Martin would then take those tears back to her lab for analysis. This odd work serves a purpose. Martin is examining sea turtle tears to see if they contain a specific kind of bacteria. Such a discovery, she said, could help unlock one of biologys biggest and most awe-inspiring mysteries: how animals navigate using Earths invisible magnetic field.The holy grail of sensory biologyAfter baby turtles hatch, they dig their way out of the sand and crawl into the ocean, where they embark on an epic journey that can take them thousands of miles across the open sea. Loggerheads that hatch in Florida, for example, swim across the Atlantic and reach islands off the coast of Portugal, before eventually returning to Floridas beaches as adults to nest. Remarkably, the turtles typically return to the same region of Florida or even to the same beach. These young turtles can guide themselves along that 10,000-mile migratory path despite never having been in the ocean before and despite traveling on their own, said Kenneth Lohmann, a biologist at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies sea turtle navigation.A green sea turtle with visible tears covered in sand nesting on a beach. Getty Images/iStockphotoResearchers like Lohmann have learned that sea turtles, like many other species, seem to navigate using Earths magnetic field. Thats the subtle magnetic force generated by the planets molten metal core that surrounds Earth, not unlike the force around a bar magnet. The intensity and direction of the field vary across Earths surface, making it useful for navigation. Plus, the magnetic field is present even when other spatial cues, like light, are not. What remains a mystery, however, is how animals sense these magnetic forces. Decades of research have failed to turn up a mechanism for so-called magnetoreception or any kind of specialized organ that can sense magnetic force. As Martins adviser Robert Fitak has written, its like knowing an animal can respond to something visual but not finding any eyes. Its the last sense we effectively know nothing about, sensory biologist Eric Warrant has said about magnetoreception. The solution of this problem I would say is the greatest holy grail in sensory biology.Scientists have proposed a number of theories for how this might work. And all of them are totally bonkers. The prevailing theory is rooted in quantum mechanics, and it is extremely complicated. The theory posits that when certain light-sensitive molecules known as cryptochromes absorb light, they produce something called radical pairs two separate molecules each with one unpaired electron. Those two unpaired electrons are quantumly entangled, which essentially means that their spin states are interdependent: They either point in the same direction or opposite directions, and they ping-pong between the two. This theory suggests that Earths magnetic field influences the spin states of those radical pairs, and that, in turn, affects the outcome of chemical reactions in the body of animals. Those chemical reactions which animals can theoretically interpret, as they might, for example, smells or visuals encode information about Earths magnetic field. (If you want to dive deeper, I suggest watching this lecture or reading this paper.) Another theory suggests that animals have bits of magnetic material in their bodies, such as the mineral magnetite. According to this theory, those magnetic bits are influenced by Earths magnetic field just like a compass and animals can sense those influences to figure out where theyre going. Martin and Fitaks research is exploring this latter theory, but with an important twist. They suspect that sea turtles and other animals might rely on magnetite to sense Earths magnetic field but may not produce the magnetite themselves. Instead, they suggest, sea turtles may have a symbiotic relationship with magnetite-producing bacteria literally living compasses that sense the magnetic field and somehow communicate information back to the turtle. This isnt an outrageous idea. Magnetic bacteria more technically, magnetotactic bacteria is real, and quite common in aquatic environments around the world. Plus, theres evidence that magnetotactic bacteria help another microscopic organism, known as a protist, navigate. The question is, could they help turtles navigate, too?Magnetic bacteria is a thing Magnetotactic bacteria are extremely cool. These microscopic organisms have what are essentially built-in compass needles, said Caroline Monteil, a microbial ecologist at the French research institute CEA. The needles comprise chains of magnetic particles produced by the microbes, which you can see under a microscope (shown in images below). Remarkably, those needles align the bacteria with Earths magnetic field lines, just like a real compass needle does. As the bacteria roam about, they move in line with the direction of the planets magnetic force. Magnetotactic bacteria under a microscope. The black arrows point to chains of structures that contain tiny magnetic particles. NPJ Biofilms and MicrobiomesMagnetic sensing is useful for the bacteria, said Fitak, an assistant professor at UCF. Magnetotactic bacteria need specific levels of oxygen to survive, and those levels tend to vary with depth. Deeper levels of sediment in a stream, for example, might have less oxygen. In most of the world, the direction of the magnetic field is at least somewhat perpendicular to Earths surface meaning, up and down allowing the bacteria to move vertically through their environment to find the optimal habitat, as if theyre on a fixed track. In at least one case, magnetic bacteria team up with other organisms to help them find their way. A remarkable study published in 2019 found that microscopic organisms in the Mediterranean Sea called protists were able to sense magnetic forces because their bodies were covered in magnetic bacteria. When the authors put the north pole of a bar magnet next to a water droplet full of protists, they swam toward it. When they flipped the magnet, the protists swam away. (Different magnetic microbes are attracted to either north or south poles, often depending on where on Earth they live.)You can actually see this in the video below. Its not clear how the magnetic bacteria are actually guiding the protist, said Monteil, the studys lead author. Now, returning to the turtles: The theory that Fitak and Martin are exploring is that sea turtles, like protists, might also have magnetotactic bacteria those living compasses in their bodies, and somehow be able to read them. Some microbes in the microbiome aid in digestion. Others provide directions. Maybe. One idea, Martin says, is that the bacteria could aggregate near nerves in the turtles that provide information about their position in space. Some of those nerves are near the tear ducts, she said which is ultimately why she was army crawling on the beach to collect turtle tears. The goal, she said, is to figure out if those tears contain magnetotactic bacteria. That would be one indication that these animals might be using bacteria for navigation. Were not entirely sure how magnetotactic bacteria could be facilitating a magnetic sense, but that seemed like a good place to start, Martin said. Martin swabs a green sea turtle on a boat in Floridas Indian River Lagoon. Her research was carried out in accordance with UCF Marine Turtle Research Group permits MTP-231 and NMFS 26268. Courtesy of Julianna MartinWhile her research is still underway, Martin has yet to find evidence of magnetotactic bacteria in the tears of the 30 or so turtles shes analyzed so far. Thats disappointing, she said, but it doesnt rule out the possibility that these bacteria exist somewhere in the body of a turtle and help them navigate. There are so many other ideas about ways that magnetotactic bacteria could provide information to an organism about Earths magnetic field, she said. Theres a variety of other locations and other taxa that might be better for studying this theory. Other scientists who study animal navigation are skeptical. Its unlikely that symbiosis with magnetotactic bacteria is what enables sea turtle navigation, said Monteil. Part of the problem is that theres no known mechanism through which the bacteria would communicate with the turtle. Its also not clear what magnetotactic bacteria would get out of this relationship, if it is indeed symbiotic could sea turtles provide the conditions bacteria need to survive? Maybe. Maybe not.Whats more, Monteil said, is that magnetotactic bacteria are widespread in the environment, so even if Martin did find them in sea turtle tears, it would do little to prove the theory. Just because magnetic bacteria are present doesnt mean theyre helping the animal navigate.But then again, other theories are still entirely unproven, too and some of them are a lot weirder.I dont think it is impossible, Monteil said of sea turtles and other organisms using magnetic bacteria to navigate. Nothing is impossible. Life is amazing and has found ways to do things that we couldnt imagine centuries before.We dont know until we know.See More:

Theres so much to be said about and to be gained from the magic of nature, especially with spring upon us. So what happens when we lose the natural worlds most special places? This months cover story takes a look at the vanishing tidepools of California for answers. Youll find a piece about the wonders of gardening after a long winter, and an illustrated feature on the life of a dairy cow.Its also a time for some more interior reflection, as we look at how to think about personal risk in a risky world, what it means to quit your government job now, and even the appeal of astrology. Plus, we answer all sorts of questions like: Why do we want to smell like food? And what religious divide helps explain politics in America today?At the edge of the ocean, a dazzling ecosystem is changing fastBy Byrd PinkertonThe Democrats Michelle Obama problemBy Christian PazAsk a Book Critic: I want a book that wont stress me out before bedBy Constance GradyComing April 2Im doing good work in my government job. Should I quit anyway?By Sigal SamuelComing April 2By Katherine KelaidisComing April 2Everyone wants to smell like a doughnutBy Kyndall CunninghamComing April 3The life of a dairy cowBy Marina BolotnikovaComing April 3How to live with lifes inevitable risksBy Allie VolpeComing April 3Why are so many people into astrology?By Alex Abad-SantosComing April 4When your garden fails, the magic happensBy Natalie PatilloComing April 4See More: The Highlight

Donald Trump has said that tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary. And throughout his first months in office, the president has given Americans plenty of cause for googling that words definition.Since January 20, Trump has announced tariffs on steel and aluminum made outside the US, all products made in Canada or Mexico, all Chinese goods, and all foreign-made cars, among other things. And on April 2 a date Trump has dubbed Liberation Day he has vowed to impose reciprocal tariffs on all nations that allegedly disadvantage US products through trade, tax, or regulatory policy. The presidents prolific and haphazard tariff declarations have tanked stock markets, soured consumer sentiment, and thrilled some longtime critics of globalization. Meanwhile, theyve left some Americans concerned and confused; tariffs arguably havent been this relevant to the US economy in nearly a century. So many are understandably unsure about what tariffs are, how they affect consumers, why governments would implement them, and whether the presidents policy will work on its own terms.Heres the short answer: Tariffs are a tax on imported goods. They generally make affected consumer products more expensive. In theory, well-designed tariffs will also encourage targeted industries to produce more in the United States. And manufacturing certain goods domestically instead of importing them from abroad may have national security or economic benefits. Trumps own rationales for his tariffs are numerous and shifting: The president sees them as a tool for raising revenue, enhancing national security, and revitalizing the US economy by increasing domestic manufacturing jobs. But the presidents tariffs are so broad, high, and ever-changing that they could actually backfire.What are tariffs? How will they affect consumers? To understand what tariffs are and how they work its helpful to consider a concrete example. On April 3, Trump will impose a 25 percent tariff on all cars made outside the United States. This means businesses that import foreign-made automobiles such as car dealerships will need to pay a 25 percent tax on every foreign vehicle that they purchase.When a businesss costs rise, it typically tries to compensate by raising prices. And the president actually needs his auto tariffs to raise the prices of foreign cars: The official point of this tariff is to encourage Americans to buy more domestically produced cars, so that more auto manufacturers locate production in the US. If the tariff doesnt make foreign-made cars more expensive for US consumers, it wont give them any incentive to buy American.In practice, Trumps auto tariffs are likely to increase the prices of all cars, including American-made ones. This is for two reasons: First, US car manufacturers will need to pay tariffs on foreign-made auto parts. And second, US auto companies will face weaker competition. Previously, American carmakers couldnt raise prices without fearing that doing so would lead potential customers to purchase a German, Japanese, or South Korean car instead. Trumps tariffs make that much less of a concern. For these reasons, economists have estimated that Trumps tariffs will raise US car prices by between $4,000 and $15,000 per vehicle. These same basic dynamics apply to tariffs on other goods. Put a tariff on foreign-made washing machines, and US retailers that import such appliances will raise prices. American washing machine makers, meanwhile, will be able to charge more due to weaker competition. And this actually happened: In 2018, Trump put a tariff on washing machines, which stayed in effect until 2023. During the four years that those tariffs were in place, the cost of laundry equipment in the US rose by 34 percent, much higher than the overall inflation rate over that period.Trumps current tariffs are poised to have an even bigger impact on Americans finances. According to a recent estimate from the Yale Budget Lab, Trumps tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China alone could reduce the average US households disposable income by as much as $2,000.If tariffs hurt consumers, why would governments impose them? What are the benefits of tariffs?There is little question that tariffs are bad for consumers. But in theory, they could still serve a nations interests in at least three ways: By generating revenue. Since tariffs are a tax, they provide the government with revenue that it can use to pay down debts or finance spending. The US government actually used tariffs as its primary revenue source from the republics founding until the Civil War. But since the federal income tax was introduced in 1913, tariffs have become an increasingly marginal source of funds for the government.Donald Trump says he wants to change this. In fact, he has called for replacing income taxes with tariffs. And his administration claims that its auto tariffs will bring in $100 billion of revenue this year. By nurturing highly valuable domestic industries. Many nations have successfully used tariffs to facilitate economic development. For example, beginning in the 1960s, South Korea sought to build up its domestic car industry. But getting such an industry off the ground is difficult. In their first years of operation, South Korea carmakers had little hope of producing automobiles that were competitive with foreign ones in quality or price. By placing high tariffs on foreign-made cars, the South Korean government ensured that its domestic automakers would have a market for their less-than-stellar vehicles. Today, South Korean brands like Kia and Hyundai are globally competitive.Americas car industry is much more mature today than South Koreas was in the 1960s. But American auto manufacturers cannot make electric vehicles as efficiently as China can. Economic analysts disagree about whether it is important for America to have a globally competitive EV sector. But if we do want to nurture our electric vehicle industry, it makes some sense to put high tariffs on Chinese EVs as both Joe Biden and Trump have done. By improving national security. Some goods and commodities have military value. Relying on foreign nations for steel, ammunition, advanced semiconductors, or various other technologies could undermine a countrys national security after all, foreign nations could theoretically choke off Americas access to militarily valuable technologies in the midst of a conflict. And many of Trumps tariffs are officially intended to enhance Americas capacity to produce materials necessary for war.How have recent administrations used tariffs?The United States had used tariffs to nurture its infant industries during the 19th and early 20th centuries. But in the wake of World War II, America pursued the open exchange of goods across borders. With much of Europe and Asia in ruins, US manufacturers did not need tariffs to dominate global industry. Meanwhile, Americas foreign policy establishment feared that communism would take root in Western Europe and Japan if they did not successfully rebuild their industrial economies. Therefore, to foster healthy capitalist growth abroad while lowering prices for Americans the US pursued tariff reduction.The United States did occasionally enact new tariffs between the Second World War and Trumps first election. For example, in 1987, Ronald Reagan put a 100 percent tariff on Japanese computers, televisions, and power tools, after Japan blocked US-made semiconductors from its market. But the general direction of US trade policy between Harry Trumans presidency and Trumps first term was toward freer trade. What will be the effect of Trumps tariffs specifically? Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that Trumps tariffs will generate reliable revenue, strengthen American manufacturing, or improve US national security. (And their odds of advancing Trumps more peculiar trade policy goals, such as coercing Canada into becoming the 51st state, are even slimmer.) There is a simple problem with tariffs as a revenue source: The more a tariff encourages consumers to buy domestically produced goods, the less revenue it generates. For example, if a tariff on foreign cars leads everyone to buy American vehicles, then the car tariff will cease generating revenue. Thus, for Trumps tariffs to provide a steady source of revenue, they would need to be so low that importers continue purchasing lots of foreign-made goods (and thus paying taxes on them).But Trumps tariffs in many sectors are very high, precisely because he wants Americans to purchase fewer foreign-made goods. So the presidents tariffs cant plausibly provide enough consistent revenue to offset his proposed tax cuts (let alone, to fully replace the federal income tax).Meanwhile, his tariffs could actually hurt US manufacturing for at least three reasons: First, Trumps tariffs apply to a vast number of industrial inputs, such as metals, energy, and electronics. This will raise costs for US manufacturers, forcing them to raise prices, which will render their products less appealing to foreign consumers. Further, tariffs on inputs will also give companies an incentive to locate factories in other countries, where they will not have to pay, for example, a 25 percent tax on parts and materials made in Canada or Mexico. Second, Trumps tariffs will reduce the real wages of American workers. If the average US households disposable income drops by $2,000, that family will likely spend less money on goods. This could ultimately reduce demand for US-made products. Indeed, the market research firm Cox Automotive believes that this is precisely what will happen with Trumps car tariffs. In its analysis, US car plants will likely have to cut production by 30 percent, as consumers will respond to rising prices by postponing car purchases. Third, foreign countries are retaliating against Trumps trade policies by placing tariffs on American-made goods. And that will limit the global sales of American manufacturers. This will be especially true of Americas most innovative and advanced industries, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and medical equipment, which are more likely to sell their wares globally. Weve already seen Trumps tariffs backfire for these reasons. According to a 2019 Federal Reserve analysis, the tariffs Trump imposed during his first term reduced manufacturing employment in affected industries.Finally, the tariffs hypothetical national security benefits are dubious. Americas security likely depends more on strong international alliances than the amount of steel we produce domestically. And Trumps tariffs have antagonized Americas closest allies while undermining our nations credibility as a dealmaker: In 2018, Trump himself reached a trade agreement with the governments of Canada and Mexico. Yet he nevertheless applied 25 percent tariffs on both countries this year, in direct violation of his own trade deal. If the United States is unwilling to abide by the terms of the agreements it orchestrates, other countries have less incentive to cooperate with us. In sum, Trumps tariffs are likely to raise prices, weaken US manufacturers, and undermine Americas alliances and global influence.How long will Trumps tariffs be in effect?Its unclear how lasting Trumps tariffs will prove to be. The president has framed some of the duties such as his 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico as a potentially temporary bargaining chip in negotiations over trade and border security. But he has suggested that others will be permanent. As the costs of Trumps trade policies to US consumers and manufacturers mount, it is possible that the administration will decide its agenda is politically unsustainable. Already, the presidents tariffs are deeply unpopular, with 61 percent of voters disapproving of them in a recent CNN poll. See More:

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.Welcome to The Logoff: Today, Im focusing on Donald Trumps comments about a third presidential term and what we should make of them.What exactly did Trump say?Asked about seeking a third term, Trump told NBC: A lot of people would like me to do that. But, I mean, I basically tell them: We have a long way to go, you know. Its very early in the administration. About whether hed been presented with potential plans for a third term: Well, there are plans. There are not plans. There are, there are methods which you could do it.Asked about a specific scenario where Vice President JD Vance wins in 2028 and passes the baton back to Trump: Well, thats one. But there are others too. (He declined to name the others.)About whether he was serious: No, no, Im not joking. (Check the transcript here.)Could he do that? The Constitutions 22nd amendment says, No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Trump was elected in 2016 and 2024 and does not have the support he needs to change or repeal that amendment. To serve a third term, Trump would have to violate the Constitution.So is this a crisis for our democracy? If Trump said he was definitely running for a third term or took any steps in that direction, it would be a full-blown and immediate crisis a president stating his intention to remain in power regardless of a constitutional prohibition. This isnt that, but by even asserting a right to serve a third term, Trump is opening the door. That alone is concerning, and a reason to watch this topic extremely closely.And with that, its time to log offThis past fall, I set out to get rejected as often as I could. Thats the opening line to this excellent Vox piece about how to view rejection not as failure, but as a step toward success. Thats helpful advice as we pursue our goals not just for ourselves, but for our families, communities, and countries. Thanks for reading. See you back here tomorrow.See More:

The warming spring air is a welcome relief from the bitterly cold winter across much of the US, but millions of seasonal allergy sufferers are getting buried under a pollen tsunami, with sneezing, headaches, watery eyes, and stuffed sinuses sending them right back indoors. Already, Atlanta has broken its pollen count record, with 14,801 grains per cubic meter spewing from pine, oak, and birch trees. Houston also reported its highest pollen counts since 2013, when records began.RelatedGet ahead of allergy season this yearThe Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) projects that 2025 will be yet another brutal year for seasonal allergies across the country, with the worst-afflicted cities in the southern US. Your red eyes and runny noses dont deceive you seasonal allergies are getting worse, a miserable reality for nearly one in three US adults and one in four children.Why? Sneezing and sniffles are some of the sirens of climate change. In fact, because of warming, pollen is now a nearly year-round menace in some parts of the US. Pollen, the main seasonal allergy trigger, is emerging earlier in the year, in higher concentrations, and lasting longer year after year. In the springtime, the first pollen allergens are from trees, and that is starting 20 days earlier than it did 30 years ago, said Kenneth Mendez, CEO of AAFA. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are directly inducing plants to produce more pollen while extending the temperature conditions that trigger pollen production in plants. We hear all the time, Ive never had allergies before and now I suddenly feel like I have allergies, or I feel like my allergies are getting a lot worse and thats because the allergic load is that much higher because of climate change, Mendez said. For most people, seasonal allergies are an unpleasant nuisance. But with millions feeling blergh at the same time, it adds up to a huge economic burden in lost productivity. Asthma, allergic rhinitis the condition you probably know of as hay fever and related allergy conditions cost the economy billions of dollars each year in lost work days, medications, and doctors visits. There are also people for whom pollen is a more serious problem and can lead to dangerous complications or exacerbate other health issues. One study found that tree pollen allergies lead to 25,000 to 50,000 emergency room visits per year, two-thirds from people under the age of 18.Over time, as pollen counts increase, more people with a higher sensitivity threshold are finding out the hard way that these tiny grains are a hazard. Other people are also finding out that doors and windows cant protect them as some of the tiniest pollen grains seep in. If the trendlines continue, I think more people are going to feel miserable from allergies, Mendez said.How we keep making allergies worse for ourselvesThe problem for allergy sufferers is that their bodys defense mechanisms sometimes overreact to something benign. Usually, it leads to mild, easily treatable symptoms. But allergens can also trigger more serious complications like asthma attacks, causing wheezing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. In rare cases, they can lead to anaphylaxis, a whole-body reaction where the airways can swell shut and blood pressure drops to dangerously low levels. The vast majority of pollen allergies are more annoying than dangerous, but seasonal pollen is so ubiquitous that its almost impossible to avoid, sneaking indoors through vents, window seals, on clothing, and in pet fur. Some people are more sensitive than others, but the relentless, growing exposure can add up to misery even for those with mild allergies. Pollen grains range in size from 100 down to less than 10 microns, allowing them to penetrate deep into the lungs and irritate airways. Many types of plants release pollen as part of their reproductive cycle. Generally, trees spread pollen in the spring, grasses over the summer, and ragweed in the autumn. Airborne cloud of pine pollen from male pine cones in Arizona. Wild Horizons/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesHowever, the historical pollen timing patterns have already shifted. Tree pollen is wafting off of branches earlier in the season almost every year. Some grass species have seen their pollen release days delayed by almost a month while their overall season has grown longer. As a result, grass pollen increasingly overlaps with the ragweed pollen season, which itself has been extended by more than three weeks in some parts of the country since 1995. There are two key mechanisms driving this trend, both induced by humanitys appetite for fossil fuels. Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning coal, oil, and natural gas directly induce many plant species to produce more pollen. Carbon dioxide can make plants grow bigger and faster, and produce more flowers, which leads to more pollen. More pollen leads to more seeds, which means even more plants spraying pollen the next season. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are also warming the planet and changing the climate. In general, that means warmer, shorter winters and earlier springs, which leads to longer growing seasons for plants. These trends will continue as global average temperatures go up, making allergies a significant public health burden. Some parts of the country, such as Texas, are on track to see pollen counts almost double by 2050 compared to 2000. For many people, allergies are an added complication on top of other health and environmental conditions. Air pollution from ozone, particulates, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds can cause their own breathing problems, but when they intersect with allergies, they can make symptoms even worse. Pollution from roads can make pollen from nearby plants more potent at triggering allergic reactions. Smoke from wildfires can also exacerbate allergies. Cities may not offer much refuge. Changes to the landscape like urbanization can create a more favorable habitat for plants like ragweed. City centers also tend to warm up faster than their rural surroundings and experience higher concentrations of air pollutants, compounding the effects of allergies. These factors are especially potent in low-income and underserved communities. Pollen isnt the only allergen changing with the climate either. Rising temperatures and precipitation in some areas are increasing the number and duration of allergenic mold spores. Extreme weather further worsens the problem, as the damage and destruction create conditions for more mold. That was evident in New Orleans last year as storms like Hurricane Francine soaked the city. When these storms come through, they create so much damage over the landscape of the state. Some communities have resources to immediately move in and repair roofs and patch windows, and then we have a lot of folks that simply dont have those resources. With leaking roofs, you have mold growth indoors, said John Carlson, who leads the high-risk allergy division at the Ochsner health system in New Orleans. Because its so warm here, we can grow mold year round as long as theres moisture. High winds from storms can also whip up dust, which can then trigger asthma. Additionally, theres a phenomenon called thunderstorm asthma, where the weather conditions can rupture pollen grains into smaller, more allergenic fragments, triggering asthma attacks. Its not clear whether the overall number of people with seasonal allergies is increasing. The US may be approaching a plateau in the number of people who are susceptible to pollen, Carlson said. At the same time, there are other conditions that can present with allergy-like symptoms, and at high enough concentrations, even people without allergies will wheeze. In New Orleans, we have a ton of oak pollen I mean, just so much oak pollen in the air and you commonly have a lot of people who dont have oak pollen allergy nevertheless with itchy eyes and the sneezing from just the irritant effect of the particles, Carlson said. The good news is that there are ways to contain the worst effects of seasonal allergies. For people with a history of bothersome seasonal allergies, seeing an allergist and finding out what their specific triggers are and what medicines work is key. It may make sense to start taking medications like nose sprays or over-the-counter allergy drugs before pollen ramps up.Related4 tips for dealing with a ferocious allergy seasonWe generally say to have your medications in your system close to two weeks ahead of time because it takes some time to build up, Mendez said. For people who dont know if they have allergies but are concerned about the threat, pay attention to your symptoms and see an allergist if you do start to experience irritated eyes and airways. There are also more aggressive interventions for people with severe allergies who dont respond to other medicines like desensitization therapy, also known as allergy shots.Some of the same measures for avoiding air pollution also work for pollen. Pay attention to pollen forecasts in your local area. Avoid being outside and close doors and windows during high pollen release times, particularly in the morning. Leave your coat and shoes outside or locked away before you settle down at home. Wipe down your dog after a walk. Use a HEPA air filter in your living spaces. Over the long term, its prudent to curb emissions of heat-trapping gasses that worsen climate change and allergies. For now, keep the tissues close. See More: