During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump had a pointed tagline for his energy policy: Drill, baby, drill.That statement is emblematic of where Trump is poised to focus his efforts in a second term: Hes pledged US energy dominance and everything from new pipelines to new refiners that amp up fossil fuel production. This approach marks a stark shift from the Biden administrations and puts the USs emphasis more heavily on producing oil and gas than on attempting a transition to clean energy sources. In addition to touting the need to boost fossil fuels, Trump has disparaged subsidies for clean energy investments and called for terminat[ing] the funds that were allocated for those subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act. His stance ignores the role that burning fossil fuels has played in climate change and could cause considerable harm to US efforts to address the issue. Related:Several of his nominations are indicative of these goals. Hes chosen oil industry executive Chris Wright a fracking evangelist to head up the Department of Energy. Hes named North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum who connected Trump to oil executive donors during the campaign as the lead for the Interior Department and as an energy czar. Hes also tapped former Rep. Lee Zeldin whos emphasized his commitment to deregulation as his chief of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Theres only so much the administration can control, however. Although Trump can take notable steps to try to increase fossil fuel production, actual upticks in oil and gas extraction will depend heavily on the private sector and the economics of the industry. Still, while Trump faces some constraints, he has significant policy levers he can pull to encourage production of fossil fuels. Wright, Burgum, and Zeldin have also signaled theyre prepared to execute on the president-elects vision, including changes to drilling on public lands and speedier permitting for oil and gas projects. President Trump and his energy team Mr. Burgum, Mr. Wright, Mr. Zeldin can go to considerable lengths to make expanded production attractive and relatively easy, Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan environmental policy professor, told Vox. How Trump could increase fossil fuel productionTrump has two key avenues he can utilize to boost fossil fuel production. One, he can open up more public lands and waters for exploration, development, and extraction. Two, he can ease the regulatory processes that govern fossil fuel work.Trump could offer more oil and gas leases on public landsAs president, Trump will oversee the Interior Department, which includes the Bureau of Land Management as well as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, both of which manage a substantial fraction of the countrys public lands and waters. Hell also oversee the Agriculture Department, which contains the Forest Service, another body that has oversight of some public lands. The Bureaus of Land Management and Ocean Energy Management, as well as the Forest Service, are the three main entities that issue oil and gas leases on public spaces. These leases effectively allow fossil fuel companies to rent parcels of public land from the federal government so they can extract resources from these areas. Once land is designated as available for lease, leases are typically auctioned off to the highest bidder.Those bureaus, and the Forest Service, have major discretion to determine if more leases can be issued and where. But the president can issue an executive order instructing them to prioritize the subject: Trump could call on agencies to make identifying suitable public lands a top agenda item, for example. If you have an administration that says we want everything that could be leased to be leased, theres a lot of discretion to be able to do that, says Stan Meiburg, the executive director of the Center for Environment and Sustainability at Wake Forest University. Trumps first term, during which he also made moves to expand the acreage of public lands available for oil and gas drilling, is likely a sign of whats to come. Per a study from Science, he mounted one of the largest reductions in protected public lands in history, rolling back the acreage of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to allow for additional oil and gas exploration in these places.Data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that there was an increase in total acres offered for oil and gas leases during Trumps first term compared to President Barack Obamas second term and Joe Bidens current term. Though Trump could again expand the number of leases available, its important to note that wont necessarily translate to more production. Leases are subject to environmental rules that means new leases could well be challenged in court for potential violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, or other federal laws. Another factor could limit production too: corporate interest. Companies may not be interested in these new leases since many of the parcels might not be home to fossil fuels. And businesses could also lease the land but fail to utilize it. The White House could make expanding production easier for the private sectorThe second avenue Trump could pursue is rolling back regulations to make fossil fuel production easier and faster for the private sector.Much of this will involve undoing policies the Biden administration put in place like the pause on permits for liquefied natural gas exports and expediting federal approvals for oil- and gas-related projects. Trump could use the executive branchs authority to rescind certain proposals. For other rules, the White House could need Congresss help. By utilizing whats known as the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the ability to roll back rules that agencies have recently put in place. In other cases, it might need to pass new legislation: The EPA has just begun imposing a methane fee on oil and gas companies, and because that fee was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, it would need an act of Congress to undo. Under it, these businesses must curb their methane emissions or suffer a financial penalty. Repealing policies like the methane fee and the natural gas export permit pause would curb the restrictions oil and gas companies currently face, creating more opportunities to export products abroad and making fossil fuel production less costly. Another area where both the administration and Congress have power to ease regulation is on the issue of permitting reform. Currently, any oil and gas project such as building a new pipeline must go through many layers of approval by federal agencies like the EPA. (Many clean energy infrastructure projects also need to go through this process.) For these projects, companies have to obtain a hefty number of permits, slowing their ability to execute on these plans. The Biden administration managed to outstrip the pace at which the Trump administration issued permits for drilling on public lands. Under Trump, federal agencies could try to further streamline such approvals, says Mark Squillace, a University of Colorado-Boulder Law School professor and former staffer at the Interior Department. We certainly could see some efforts to pull back on environmental standards, to make it easier to permit different kinds of facilities, Squillace told Vox. Trump could also take executive action to direct agencies to cut as many unnecessary steps as possible and to simplify their processes. More expansive permitting reforms, like policies that put firm limits on the time needed for legal challenges and federal approvals of a project, would need the backing of Congress, however, and have had bipartisan support in the past.The combination of loosening restrictions currently placed on oil and gas companies and making new projects easier to pursue all tie back to Trumps pledge to slash the red tape on the industry. As is the case with expanding access to public lands, its not clear that these policy changes will result in more fossil fuel production since much of that will depend on how private companies respond.Trump can make production a little easier, but the market for fossil fuels is also a factorDuring the Biden administration, the US produced more oil and gas than any country in the world. Companies incentives to increase production will depend on whether they think its financially sound for them. As more countries including the US have invested in clean energy sources, there is more competition in the market, which could factor in to whether businesses see it as a smart move to dial up their fossil fuel output if given the chance.As we watch a movement toward more solar and wind development, there is less demand for the oil and gas products that weve been producing, Squillace says. Though the administration has stressed that its all-in on fossil fuels, its not evident that it can turn away from clean energy investments to the degree that Trump has urged. Defunding the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, would prompt legal challenges, short of an actual repeal by Congress. The administration could well take some contradictory stances, too. Although Trump has long denigrated energy sources like offshore wind and subsidies for electric vehicles, his allies include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whos the head of an EV company. Musk is among the tech leaders whove attained notable influence in the administration and who also has deep ties with the government due to his role leading SpaceX. All of this means that, ultimately, even though Trump will have the power to try making good on this campaign pledge, it may not work out the way he promised. 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:

Welcome to Know-It-All. In the age of intellectual property grabs, docudramas, and so very many sequels, it can be difficult to find a way into the complicated worlds we see on screen. In this series, Vox experts explain what you need to know to get into the latest hot release.Like a friendship between a popular blonde princess and a dour lime-skinned outcast, the story of Wicked is a bit more complicated than it looks. Wicked is billed as the true story of Glinda the Good and the Wicked Witch of the West, the very famous, very what-you-see-is-what-you-get witches from The Wizard of Oz. Its based on a well-loved, very catchy Broadway musical thats been around for 20-plus years. It also stars pop queen Ariana Grande and powerhouse Cynthia Erivo, and the movies very expansive, very expensive marketing campaign seemed determined to forever alter the way we think about pink and green.Wicked is everywhere. Surely it cant be that impenetrable! But did you know that the Broadway musical was based on Gregory Maguires revisionist novels which were, in turn, inspired by L. Frank Baums beloved series of over a dozen books about Oz? And that a major plot in the novels involves sentient, talking animals that love sonnets and science? Or that Wicked is really a political thriller about corrupt government officials scapegoating a minority and creating an enemy of the state?Beneath the movies airy aesthetics and its bubblegum pop moments is a broiling, chaotic tale of power, greed, and discrimination. The more you know about Wicked, the weirder and weirder it gets. With that in mind, I asked my colleague Constance Grady to help us navigate the world of Wicked and Oz. Grady has read Gregory Maguires original novel multiple times, the Baum novels as a child, seen the Broadway production, and like me, saw the movie this week. We discussed everything from anti-goat fascism, to Grandes delicious performance, to what from the book didnt make it into the adaptations. Heres what you need to know about the movie musical of the moment. Do I have this correct? Wicked is a movie musical adaptation of the Tony-winning Broadway show Wicked, which is an adaptation of the novel Wicked, which is a retelling of The Wizard of Oz. Youre right, but theres another adaptation layer in there.All those layers. The whole thing starts with the L. Frank Baum childrens novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which he published in 1900. Baums book was so successful that it was almost immediately adapted into a Broadway musical of its own (now largely forgotten) and an entire franchise worth of sequels, 13 of which Baum wrote himself. Then in 1939 we got the most famous and, for most people, canonical version of the story: The Wizard of Oz, the Judy Garland film based on the Baum novel. The first Wicked was Gregory Maguires novel, first published in 1995 as Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Maguires gimmick was to take Margaret Hamiltons cackling, green-skinned Wicked Witch of the West from the 1939 film surely one of childhoods scariest villains and make her the beating heart of his novel. He renamed her Elphaba, a name suggested by the initials of L. Frank Baum.Wicked the musical came in 2003, with music from Stephen Schwartz and a book by Winnie Holzman. It was a smash hit success when it came out, and its still running on Broadway now, 21 years later. Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba in Wicked. You cant tell here, but she is green. Wicked/UniversalThe musical was such a hit that Universal, which owns the rights, has had various versions of the film in development for a very long time now. Finally and at last, in 2021, Universal put director Jon M. Chu of Crazy Rich Asians on the task. Chu split the stage musical into two halves, with Wicked Part 1 to premiere in November 2024 and Wicked Part 2 set to come in 2025. And now here we are! Do you have a favorite? At different times, all of the Oz stories have been my favorites.I grew up on the 1939 movie like everyone else. When Dorothy opens the black-and-white door to her Kansas home and walks out into brilliant, Technicolor Oz? Thats what cinema was made for, baby! When I was around 8 or 9 I came upon the L. Frank Baum novels, and I was tickled to find that they contained such an expansive and playful mythology. I gobbled up those books like candy. Then at around 11 years old, I read Wicked and was entranced by it: all that moral complexity, all the political intrigue, all those slippery, winding sentences. When the musical came along, I immediately resented it for being a glitzier, simpler story than the book was really boiled down to the complicated friendship between Elphaba and Glinda, set against the backdrop of the Wizards manipulations but when I was 17 I saw it on Broadway and was overwhelmed by the sheer spectacle of it and the gleeful drive of the songs. When Elphaba started flying at the end of act one, I burst into tears. To be fair to 17-year-old you, there is at least one person, if not 10 to 20 people, bursting into tears at every performance when Elphaba defies gravity. Its a spectacle. Its monumental. Its as important to Broadway as the chandelier coming down in Phantom of the Opera.God, its truly so good. For that moment, I even forgive Schwartz for writing the lyric Nessa, Nessa, Ive got something to confess-a.Wicked is famously one of only six musicals I enjoy. And I feel like the movie sticks to the musical. How well do the musicals stick to the book? The musical is very, very loosely based on Maguires book.What Gregory Maguire wanted to write was a really sophisticated allegorical exploration of the nature of evil itself and what might drive Elphaba to wickedness. As such, his Wicked is bleak, at times self-indulgently so. Maguires Elphaba is raised by missionaries in a Southern Gothic childhood right out of Flannery OConnor. After she abandons both religion and schooling and is politically radicalized by the cause of Ozian Animal rights, she becomes a terrorist, complicit in multiple acts of violence against civilians. By the end, however much you might sympathize with Elphabas cause, you understand why people call her the wicked witch.Wicked: Part I (the official name of this movie) feels less like, Wow, this lady is really wicked, and more like, Oh, shes just misunderstood. Maybe we havent gotten to the full terrorist part yet, but I cant imagine Elphabas morality is ever going to be as ambiguous as the novel. Absolutely. The Wicked of the stage show is a much sweeter and sillier version of the story. Schwartz and Holzman ditch as much of the religion and the politics as they possibly can to focus on the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda, the Good Witch of the North or Galinda, as she originally calls herself. Ariana Grande as Glinda, the good witch. Wicked/UniversalMaguire imagined Glinda as Elphabas college roommate, and shes key to Elphies college years, but he largely abandons her after Elphie drops out of school to go into politics. Schwartz and Holzman, however, make comic, superficial Glinda into the heart of the story. Perhaps in part to make room for the shift in focus, Elphabas misdeeds are significantly toned down, and as for Maguires dark, heartbreaking ending lets just say it gets, um, revised.The movie convinced me that Glinda is actually the splashier, better-written role. Ive always envisioned Glinda as an SEC-coded mean girl blonde, bubbly, a bit passive aggressive rather than aggressive aggressive. Grande gets us there, and seems to really understand what makes this character so surprisingly funny. So buy or sell: Oscar nominee Ariana Grande?Oh, man. I buy.This movie struggles a lot with its tone. It doesnt know whether it wants to be as silly as the stage musical or as serious as the Maguire book, and as a result, it ends up veering wildly around. The only element of this movie that never has this problem is Grandes performance. Grande nails it top to bottom. She makes spoiled, selfish Glinda so gleefully mean, so deliciously phony in all her virtue-signaling, that you want to laugh at her the way you would laugh at Regina George and then she shows you Glindas tender, insecure heart, and you fall in love with her. Grande has always had an uncanny knack for vocal mimicry, and here she pitches her speaking voice into something halfway between Judy Garlands earnest Dorothy tones and the distinctive showbiz patter of Kristin Chenoweth, who originated the role of Glinda on Broadway. You wouldnt think you could combine the two, but Grande does, and she makes it make sense. As for the singing well, that kind of goes without saying, doesnt it? Shes in phenomenal voice.Whatever happens with the Oscars race this year, Ill know that Grande is the Academy Award nominee of my heart.Tonally, the movie goes from Legally Blonde to The Fugitive. The last 10 minutes are absolutely bonkers. What in the world?Yikes, right? For me, this tonal mismatch is the big flaw of the film, and I think its a byproduct of this very long and winding adaptation process. When Schwartz and Holzman adapted Maguires Wicked, they stripped away as much of his rather baroque mythologizing as they could while still allowing the plot to make a modicum of sense. The vibe of this musical is generally: Why go on and on about the ontological differences between humans and animals if we could be singing fun bops about being popular? It doesnt all have to be so serious all the time.In their version of the story, the Wizards plans are vague, but clearly evil, and Elphabas resistance to his regime is likewise vague, but clearly righteous. The Wizards main sin in the stage musical is that he is lying to his people to stoke up their fears and marshal support to his own side, because this musical hit Broadway in 2003, when George W. Bush was just about to invade Iraq. Other than that, we dont know that much about why hes so bad. We dont really care, either. It all pretty much works if you just sit back in the theater and let the songs wash over you.Chu, however, takes Wicked very seriously indeed; so much so that hes stretched out the musicals 90-minute first act into a lugubrious two hours and 40 minutes, mostly by keeping the pacing slow and solemn. The side effect of moving so slowly, though, is that it puts a lot of pressure on the political subplot of this musical to not only make sense, but to be emotionally impactful. Unfortunately, all of the background that could make it work got left behind in Maguires novel. Are we supposed to care this much about anti-animal fascism in the movie? Or the musical? Do the people who adapted Wicked care that much?Yeah, this is one of the big plotlines where the cracks in the adaptation show. It also makes for a kind of interesting timeline of how different authors have thought about Oz.One of the inconsistencies of L. Frank Baums Oz is that its a land where animals can talk and go on quests and be guests at dinner parties, and so on youll recall the Cowardly Lion but also all the characters are constantly eating meat. Its the kind of minor quirk in world-building that a childrens book can skate right over, but it becomes weird and confusing in an adult novel.So when Maguire wrote Wicked, he imagined an Oz that distinguished between Animals, who are talking and intelligent beings who wear clothes and hold jobs and can be invited to dinner parties, and animals in lowercase, who are non-sentient and can be killed or treated as chattel. In Maguires Oz, the Wizard consolidates his power in part by making the Animals into a scapegoat race. Emphasis, quite literally, on goat. Over the course of the novel, we see them go from full citizens to living under restrictions to slaves who are occasionally cooked and eaten. Elphaba is radicalized into terrorism when her favorite college professor, the Goat and Animal rights agitator Doctor Dillamond, is assassinated by the government. Doctor Dillamond, voiced by Peter Dinklage. This is a CGI goat. I (Alex) do not particularly enjoy looking at CGI goats. Wicked/UniversalWhen Schwartz and Holzman got their hands on the story, they were transforming it once again into a childrens tale, so they didnt particularly have time for this piece of world-building. They ditched the distinction between Animal and animal, so that Doctor Dillamond becomes a guy in a silly goat costume who exists to nudge Elphaba into realizing that the Wizard might not have her best interests at heart. It would be a stretch to think that the stage musical really wants the audience to care about animals in general, or Doctor Dillamond in particular.Chu, characteristically, seems to want to give the animal plotline more gravitas. He makes Dillamond an eerily photorealistic CGI goat who appears in one of Elphabas visions shivering and cringing in a cage, in a dark foretelling of the Wizards eventual goals. Under Chus solemn and slightly heavy-handed touch, you can feel how important the animal rights plotline is to Elphabas character arc. But the part of Maguires novel that made you care about the animals, and about Elphabas commitment to their freedom, was jettisoned long ago. Its an uneasy balance.This contradiction is part of why, I think, Grandes Glinda feels so much like a breath of fresh air whenever she appears on screen. The part of this story that Schwartz and Holzman cared about was Glinda and Elphaba, so thats the part of the story architecture that remains rock solid. No matter what happens, you cant not root for their friendship.Are we going to get more of that in Wicked: Part II? Are people going to want to see the second half of this musical if its all about authoritarianism? I am very curious to see how Chu handles Wicked: Part II, because the second act of Wicked is famously much worse than the first half. All the iconic songs are over by then (although personally, I quite like No Good Deed), the storytelling gets bogged down in mythology that never becomes either clear or interesting, and Glinda and Elphaba spend most of the act in separate places, effectively depriving the show of its strongest dynamic for long stretches of stage time. In the stage show, youre generally invested enough in the characters on the strength of the first half to sit through the second half with minimal complaints, but for that act two to hold its own for a full movie? Tricky! As for the anti-animal fascism, though, we can all breathe easy. As originally staged, Wickeds act two focuses on the animal rights plotline for exactly as long as it takes to hook Elphaba up with her iconic flying monkeys and not a single second longer. Well see if Chu keeps it that way.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: Culture

Congress member-elect Sarah McBride became the first openly trans person ever elected to the House this November, marking a historic milestone for the body. Her arrival, however, is being met with a targeted and anti-trans attack by Republicans in Congress that rejects the existence of trans people. On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that he is barring trans women from womens bathrooms in the Capitol, following a proposal from South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace (R) to do just that. I want to make sure that no men are in womens private spaces, and its not going to end here, Mace told reporters on Tuesday. This kind of thing should be banned.Related:When asked if the action was in response to McBride coming to Congress, Mace was clear, noting, Yes and absolutely and then some. Maces office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Johnsons office pointed to statements hes made about his belief in treating everyone with dignity. The new rule is the latest extension of ugly attacks Republicans have levied on trans people during the recent campaign cycle and in the past few years. Dozens of states have introduced anti-trans bills that restrict childrens access to gender-affirming care, that limit athletes to playing on sports teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth, and that prevent trans women from using womens bathrooms. All of these policies are based on and advance a rejection of the idea that trans women are women.As Voxs Aja Romano has explained, Republicans have used their focus on this subject to rally their base against a common enemy, framing trans people as threats, including to other womens safety in bathrooms. A 2018 UCLA study on the issue found no evidence that trans people using bathrooms that match their gender identity has increased safety risks, but that data has not changed GOP rhetoric. Instead, the GOP has kept investing in anti-trans attacks and channeling more harm toward trans individuals, who are already the disproportionate subjects of violence and who already experience high rates of self-harm. Now, House Republicans push highlights how central such ideas have become to the GOP agenda and how open they are to singling out a colleague to prove a point. Capitol Hills new, anti-trans bathroom policy, briefly explainedBecause the speaker of the House has wide-ranging jurisdiction over facilities in the House, Johnson has significant say in imposing rules like the new bathroom regulation. In a press release he issued on Wednesday, Johnson said, All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms are reserved for individuals of that biological sex. In practice, this means that trans women are not able to use womens bathrooms. Johnson noted that each Congress member has a bathroom in their office, and there are also unisex bathrooms available in the Capitol that could theoretically serve as an alternative. Women deserve womens only spaces, he said in a statement. In addition to discriminating against McBride, the rule poses serious practical obstacles: The Capitol complex is a massive set of buildings, and lawmakers are often dashing from the main chamber to committee meetings to other events. By depriving McBride of access to the womens room, the policy is effectively asking her to run back to her office, which is located in a separate building, use the mens restroom, or find a unisex bathroom.Limiting a members access to bathrooms simply makes their job much harder and more inconvenient. The Hills new bathroom rules are part of broader Republican anti-trans attacksMcBride responded to Maces initial proposal in a post on X on Tuesday, calling it a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars, she added. In a post on Wednesday, McBride reiterated this message and said that while shell abide by Johnsons rule, she found this whole fight to be a diversion from other policy concerns.Republicans have made anti-trans policy a focus on par with the sorts of economic concerns McBride highlighted. During the 2024 campaign, President-elect Donald Trump invested millions in ads criticizing Vice President Kamala Harriss past support for funding gender-affirming care for incarcerated people. And it wasnt just Trump: Republicans and their allies spent at least $215 million on anti-trans ads last cycle. Those ads appear to have resonated with some swing voters, and the GOP now seems further emboldened when it comes to going after trans people. Ahead of the election, as Voxs Nicole Narea and Fabiola Cineas wrote, there was an explosion of anti-trans bills in state legislatures in 2023, with at least 19 states approving such laws. As Narea and Cineas explained, those bills were fueled in part by right-wing evangelical members of the Republican base (and by lawmaker attempts to pander to that faction). But more recent actions from the election ads to Johnsons new rule show an attempt to take anti-trans policy into the mainstream. Overall, Republicans actions signal that they plan to double down on the anti-trans culture war in the years to come. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump said he will use the military to carry out mass deportations the centerpiece of his immigration agenda in his second term. He has not gone into detail about his plans, but legal experts have suggested he may be able to rely on a combination of federal laws to implement the deportations with the militarys help. The notion of the president deploying the military domestically may seem like a nightmare scenario, but its not implausible given his broad executive powers.On Monday, Trump responded to a post on his social media network Truth Social, claiming that he would declare a national emergency and will use military assets to carry out mass deportations, saying it was TRUE!!!Its not immediately clear what he means by that: whether he intends for the military to enforce the nations immigration laws, for military funds to be redirected toward supporting mass deportations, or something else. A representative for his transition team did not respond to a request for comment.But Trump has a few avenues through which he could activate the military and its resources. Those include the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the power to deploy the military domestically; emergency powers, like redirecting funds to military construction projects; and other presidential powers like requesting national guard assistance in carrying out military missions.Immigration advocates are readying to challenge mass deportations. Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Monday after Trumps announcement that his organization is preparing for litigation.However, the law does give presidents significant leeway to use the military at their discretion, and courts have historically been wary of overstepping, though they may intervene if the civil liberties of immigrants are being violated.The United States has a very permissive legal regime regarding how the president can use the military, said Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. Again, those powers arent absolute, however. There are downstream implementation matters that I think are more susceptible to litigation, Mirasola said.The Insurrection Act, briefly explainedAccording to the New York Times, Trump is planning to invoke the Insurrection Act to bring in the military to carry out mass deportations. The law is a key exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military to enforce federal law without the permission of Congress or the Constitution. Only in rare instances have presidents invoked the Insurrection Act. President George H.W. Bush was the last one to do so amid the 1992 Los Angeles riots that broke out in response to the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. President Dwight D. Eisenhower also notably used the Insurrection Act to facilitate the desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.The provision of the Insurrection Act most likely to apply in Trumps case is one that allows the president to unilaterally activate the military domestically to enforce federal law whenever they determine that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable [to do so] by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.Mirasola said Trump would have a relatively easy time making the case that cartels trafficking immigrants across the border constitute an unlawful obstruction to the enforcement of US immigration law. Trump has in some ways appeared to begin building his case for invoking the Insurrection Act through his rhetoric on the campaign trail this year by describing an invasion of criminals coming across the border.But Mirasola said it would be harder for Trump to argue that it is impracticable to enforce immigration laws through the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. Thats because presidents have done so for decades, and border crossings are no longer unusually high: They have sharply declined this year and are down even from certain points in the first Trump administration.However, the law gives the president sole discretion, in most instances to determine whether the criteria necessary to activate the military have been met, according to 2022 congressional testimony given by Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Joseph Nunn, the Centers counsel in the national security program.Goitein and Nunn also argued that the vague and broad criteria for invoking the Act, combined with the lack of any provision for judicial or congressional review, render it ripe for abuse. At that point, their concern was that Trump could have used the Insurrection Act to interfere with the certification of the 2020 election results. The use case is now different, but the potential for overreach is the same.That is to say, while advocates may challenge Trump on whether the two key criteria for invoking the law have been met, the law gives presidents a wide berth and the courts little power.For all practical purposes, courts have been cut out of the process, Goitein and Nunn write.The presidents emergency and other powersThere are other potential authorities that Trump could invoke to surge military resources to his mass deportation plan.As Mirasola writes in Lawfare, Trump has a nonemergency power under federal law to request the assistance of state national guards in a federal military mission. Under the National Defense Authorization Act, that mission can be to assist US Customs and Border Protection in ongoing efforts to secure the southern land border. The law does not provide parameters limiting the kind of assistance that the military can provide, be that boots on the ground at the border or intelligence analysis support.Emergency powers could be helpful in creating the infrastructure needed for mass deportations. Stephen Miller, one of Trumps key immigration advisers, told the New York Times in November 2023 that a second Trump administration would construct vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers for immigrants facing deportation. Mirasola writes that, to do so, Trump could invoke federal law allowing the secretary of defense to undertake military construction projects ... not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support the armed forces in a national emergency. If Trump declares a national emergency with respect to immigration, that law would essentially allow him to bypass the need for congressional approval to get the funds he needs to construct these holding facilities. He previously used the same law to try to get funding for his border wall during his first term. Whether he could do so was never settled. Pro-immigration advocates challenged the use of that law to fund the border wall in Trumps first term. Their years-long litigation over the border wall became moot when President Joe Biden took office, but they were not expected to win if the issue had come before the Supreme Court. Advocates could again mount a legal challenge, but they may only succeed in delaying the construction of the facilities.However, pro-immigration advocates might have a stronger case if they file lawsuits over the conditions in these yet-to-be built holding facilities and over potential violations of civil liberties for immigrants subject to mass deportations. Those might involve, for example, violations of their constitutional right to due process. That sort of challenge, over inhumane detention conditions previously seen in CBP facilities (including a lack of access to basic hygiene products and a lack of food, water, and basic medical care) was successfully made during the first Trump administration. Immigrants might also file suits arguing their constitutional protections against unlawful searches were violated: Doris Meissner, senior fellow and director of the US Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said mass deportations of the scale Trump is imagining would likely involve violations of peoples civil rights, profiling, all of those kinds of harms that poor policing brings about. That will present a key test for the courts, Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, said in a statement: Will [the courts] use their power to enforce long-standing protections for individuals? Will they uphold the rule of law? Or will they bow to political pressure and allow the executive to expand its already ample power?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:

Did you donate to charity in the past, but no longer do so? If the answer is yes, youre not alone. For the second year in a row, the philanthropy research foundation Giving USA reported that fewer Americans are donating to nonprofits than they used to, and the total amount of giving is declining once inflation is taken into account.Some in the philanthropy world are calling it a generosity crisis fewer than half of American households now give cash to charity. Twenty million fewer households donated in 2016 than in 2000. And the money that is being given is increasingly coming from a small number of super-wealthy people.The only surprising thing about these findings, to me, though, is that anyone would be surprised.Why arent people donating to nonprofits?One big, and rather intuitive, reason why fewer people are donating money to registered nonprofits these days is the general state of the economy. The number of donors started sharply declining right around the tail end of the Great Recession in 2010. Of households that stopped donating money to nonprofits between 2000 and 2016, most earned less than $50,000 per year.Young people are also less likely to donate to registered charities than older people. The relationship between age and willingness to give away money makes sense the younger you are, the fewer years youve had to earn money. The Vox guide to givingThe holiday season is giving season. This year, Vox is exploring every element of charitable giving from making the case for donating 10 percent of your income, to recommending specific charities for specific causes, to explaining what you can do to make a difference beyond donations. You can find all of our giving guide stories here.But the age gap has grown over the past few years. In part, this can be explained by high costs of living, student loan debt, and inflation. Younger donors simply dont have money right now, said Rasheeda Childress, a senior editor at The Chronicle of Philanthropy.But we cant blame the economy for everything. The decline in organized religion might be the biggest factor in the decline in charitable giving. Religious institutions are major hubs of philanthropy highly religious adults volunteer nearly twice as much as other adults in the US, and roughly half of them volunteer through a religious organization. A report by the Do Good Institute, which conducts philanthropy research at the University of Maryland, found that people who belong to community groups, religious or otherwise, are more likely than others to volunteer and donate money. Its not that religion necessarily makes people more charitable. Community does specifically, community where charitable giving is centered and expected. But as participation in organized religion declines, so does giving.Beyond religion, people seem to be losing faith in institutions the government, the media, and nongovernmental organizations like nonprofits. Nonprofits are one of the most trusted institutions in the US, but only about half of Americans have faith in them. Political polarization may be partially to blame organizations that are colored by partisan values, like religious organizations and civil rights groups, are less trusted than nonprofits focused on more bipartisan issues like wildlife conservation. For Nonprofit Quarterly, Ruth McCambridge speculated that, as the gap between rich and poor gets wider, people are more likely to view nonprofits as compliant handmaidens to an unjust system. Its not that people are less generous, its because they dont trust organizations that cater to the rich donors they depend on, McCambridge added.At the same time, a survey of over 2,100 adults in the US found that, of those who stopped giving to charity over the past five years, 47 percent said that they chose to stop donating because they believed wealthier households should be pulling more weight.Historically, reaching out to small-dollar donors has not been an effective use of time for nonprofits, even though many nonprofits particularly those in less affluent communities depend on recurring small donations to stay afloat. Why pour energy into persuading 10,000 people to donate $10 each, when you could get all $100,000 from one wealthy donor?Its almost becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, Childress said. By catering to the wealthy, nonprofits are going after where the money is right now, but theyre not growing where the money is going to be.The charitable tax deduction system was literally designed to benefit the rich. If you dont earn a lot of money, claiming charitable donations doesnt make much sense, especially after former President Trumps tax cuts in 2017 reduced the need to itemize deductions.A totally reasonable reaction might be, Who cares? Rich people have money to spare. Let them pay for everything!But if we let rich people dominate philanthropy, we give them the power to shape how nonprofits operate. You dont want to be beholden to anyone, said Phil Buchanan, president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy and author of Giving Done Right. If an organization that ought to be grounded in generosity and community is visibly propped up by a handful of billionaires and corporations, its not a great look. If donors are not immersed in the community an organization is trying to serve, theyre less likely to understand what that community really needs. And centering the wealthy certainly doesnt convince already-suspicious young middle-class adults to get involved.The Generosity Commission, a nonpartisan team led by The Giving Institute and Giving USA Foundation, has spent years trying to figure out where all the non-wealthy donors have gone. Theres certainly a monetary giving crisis, Childress said. But if you look at the data, people are being generous just not in ways that were familiar with.In other words, the apparent generosity crisis may not be a crisis of generosity at all. Measuring generosity is a bit like measuring happiness or loneliness weird. Trying to nail down a feeling with statistics requires quantifying something that cant really be quantified. Inevitably, the final score will be an imperfect reflection of the feeling, heavily skewed by whats possible to measure.Today, measuring cash donations to registered charities is relatively simple. These gifts are reported to the IRS, leaving behind a paper trail that can be tracked by organizations like Giving USA. A 2020 study conducted by the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society found that people in the US give in ways that extend far beyond tax-exempt donations to nonprofits.These forms of giving are harder to trace, though. When I gift a guitar to my neighbor who wants to teach his kid to play, for example, theres no official record of that transaction just a couple Facebook comments and a face-to-face conversation. The IRS cant trace it, so in the eyes of Giving USA, it never happened.Mutual aid or the reciprocal exchange of resources within a community has existed worldwide for thousands of years. But it entered the spotlight in the US during the pandemic through community fridges, child care collectives, and healthcare funds. For a population that increasingly distrusts political institutions and craves human connection, mutual aid can feel more impactful than donating to a nonprofit whether it really is or not. A survey conducted by GivingTuesday, the organization behind the post-Thanksgiving global day of giving, found that 76 percent of respondents between 18 and 34 prefer to give directly to individuals in need, and not nonprofits only 46 percent of those over 50 agreed.Donations raised through crowdfunding also grew 33.7 percent in 2022, with 6,455,080 crowdfunding campaigns launched across the world that year. The crowdfunding market is projected to grow to as much as $300 billion by 2030. But while a GoFundMe donation counts as generous in my book, Giving USA cant track it so, we have a generosity crisis.But we know that humans, for the most part, are generous. In 2022, the Charities Aid Foundation found that 4.2 billion people 72 percent of the worlds adult population gave money, time, or service to someone they didnt know that year.Over the past several years, the Generosity Commission has been working to tell the full story of generosity, so nonprofits can better understand how people want to make their communities better. In a report published in September, the Generosity Commission identified several possible explanations for declines in volunteering and donations, including the Great Recession, declining religiosity, and delays in traditional adult milestones like marriage, home ownership, and parenthood but they note that further research is necessary.Related:Are Americans generous?So, what should we do? To be clear: nonprofits do a lot of good, both in the US and abroad. Especially in smaller, less affluent communities, they absolutely depend on normal, not-super-rich donors like me and were not pulling our weight.One could argue that, because I am, temporarily, a member of the richest 1 percent of the worlds population, I am morally obligated to donate a portion of my income to charity. At least in theory, if I schedule recurring donations to highly effective charities, I could save a number of lives in nations where my money will stretch much farther than it can in the US. But such effective philanthropy has always been the exception in fact, giving to international causes actually declined by 1.6 percent after inflation in 2023. The vast majority of charitable giving in the US is domestic. Most donors arent paying for malaria-preventing bed nets overseas theyre mainly donating to Ivy League schools and religious organizations. Just this week, Michael Bloomberg donated $1 billion dollars to Johns Hopkins University to pay for med students tuition. If I were in med school, Id be thrilled student debt sucks. But med students, especially from prestigious schools like the No. 2 ranked Hopkins, generally go on to make loads of money. Helping them out is less effective than, say, sending $1 billion dollars to directly help flood survivors in Kenya. Personally, I dont currently donate a portion of my income to registered nonprofits, highly effective or otherwise. Im still earning back the savings I drained as a freelance journalist (after spending six years on a grad student stipend). Michael Bloomberg didnt pay for my Ivy League education, and with tens of thousands of dollars in undergraduate student loan debt hanging over my head, I laugh every time I receive, and promptly delete, a fundraising text from my alma mater.But I do give. I regularly support Kickstarter campaigns, gift household items to my neighbors, and donate to a mutual aid fund supporting sex workers in my community. That makes me like other zillennials in my cohort, who tend to direct their money toward more informal charities than traditional nonprofits. That may not necessarily count in the IRSs statistics, but I dont think its fair to call us ungenerous.Given the current state of democracy writ large, it makes perfect sense to me that so many of us value direct, tangible impact over indirect measurements of effectiveness. Informal community-centered giving can feel more impactful, even if it doesnt score as high on a utilitarian scale. And what giving within your community can do whether in the form of cash, time, or stuff is build connection at a moment when we need it more than ever.Middle-class people arent unwilling to give. They just seem to be giving differently, and philanthropic organizations are still figuring out how to measure charitable giving beyond tax-deductible donations to 501(c)(3) nonprofits.Whether channeled through money or not, people perform acts of kindness all the time. Hopefully, the philanthropy sector will start to see them.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!Update, November 20: This story was originally published on July 10 and has been updated to include details about the Generosity Commissions September 2024 report. 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:

Vox reader Jen Hawse asks: Why do hotels pump in very strongly smelling perfume into their lobbies and sometimes their guest rooms?What we think of as a nice hotel often comes down to a certain je ne sais quoi. Sure, it has all the amenities a luxe restaurant and bar on the premises, hotel room beds with soft Egyptian cotton sheets, perhaps a decadent spa but beyond all that, it should have an ineffable ambience thats both welcoming and sensual, cozy and yet exotic.Scent can be what helps clinch this vibe. You might have noticed an alluring aroma wafting through the air as you enter a hotel lobby, or even a hotel room; this is likely a custom fragrance that hotels diffuse into the air. While some use mass-market scents available to consumers, many use their own signature scent developed by a master perfumer.Scent marketing, as the practice is called, isnt just limited to the hospitality scene, but pervades the retail sector. Just think of the thick miasma of cologne that used to radiate from every Abercrombie & Fitch store. Its (usually) a more subtle marketing tool than a giant light-up billboard, calling back to happy memories and altering your mood so you feel more satisfied in a space which, in turn, can nudge you to stay there longer, spend more money, book a room again, and recommend the experience to someone else. Some companies are even spritzing smells in the office to make the return-to-office more pleasant. In so many of the places we spend time in, an appeal is being made to your nose.Whats the psychology behind scent marketing?Scent marketing has been around for decades, with Las Vegas casinos being some of the earliest pioneers to use it. In the 1990s and early 2000s, though, its purpose wasnt just to invite a pleasant aroma to an otherwise neutral space it was to counteract a lingering, distasteful odor.There was a while there where most resorts were drawn to environmental scenting because they wanted to do something about the cigarette smoke, Jim Reding, CEO of the environmental scenting company Aroma Retail, says. Sign up for the Explain It to Me newsletterThe newsletter is part of Voxs Explain It to Me. Each week, we tackle a question from our audience and deliver a digestible explainer from one of our journalists. Have a question you want us to answer? Ask us here.A growing number of companies outside hospitality are developing ambient scents for their retail spaces, says Caroline Fabrigas, CEO of Scent Marketing Inc. Recently, Fabrigass firm helped create a custom scent for Wayfairs new Chicago store that smells like linen and fresh-cut grass. In food and drink establishments, focusing on smell makes immediate sense: You smell pizza, you think of pizza, you crave pizza. Starbucks works hard to keep its coffee aroma from being sullied by food and other smells in its stores employees arent even allowed to wear fragrances.For other spaces, the basic theory is that a distinctive smell becomes something customers immediately associate with a brand our sense of smell is connected to the part of the brain related to memory, like a certain laundry detergent taking you straight back to being wrapped up in blankets when you were home sick from school. Using an ambient scent can cement brand recognition, and improve how well customers remember aspects of a product or service.A nice smell also puts you in a good mood. A 2021 study by researchers from the Barcelona School of Tourism, Hospitality, and Gastronomy conducted a trial in a four-star hotel by comparing guest experiences in rooms scented with lavender and rooms without any scent; guests who stayed in scented rooms appeared to show higher happiness levels when in the room than those in the neutral room. Studies have also shown that a scented environment can make customers stay longer in a restaurant (while underestimating the length of their visit), thus spending more money time flies when youre enjoying yourself. An experiment an automaker conducted in the early 90s even tried to determine if spraying certain scents on salespeople would make them more likely to be perceived as trustworthy, though its unclear what the outcome of this trial was. How do hotels decide on a signature scent?Hotels and resorts spend a lot of time matching up their brand image to a signature scent, especially today. (Although it might be very similar to a popular fragrance.) One of the trends in hotel design right now is to play up how distinct a space feels.Everything has become hyper-local now, says Lori Mukoyama, a global leader of hospitality practice at the architecture and design firm Gensler. Gone are the days where were stamping out the same brand, exactly the same, in 50 different cities across the world. Having a tailor-made scent is key to building the feel of a personalized hotel lobby, according to Mukoyama.I totally feel like its a logo in the air, says Fabrigas, whose company develops ambient scents for businesses. Its a backdrop against which all else plays. For some brands, having one signature scent isnt enough. The now-closed Mirage hotel in Las Vegas, for example, used two separate fragrances for two separate spaces. In the lobby, it used a buttery coconut vanilla scent, Reding says, to evoke a tropical theme that matched the giant aquarium behind the front desk. It gives us a feeling of warmth and safety, he says. But then the casino used something more energizing a tropical cocoa mango to give it a party-feel that might encourage exciting risk-taking rather than relaxation.One reason why environmental scenting is so commonplace in hotels is that its a place where the perception of cleanliness is sacrosanct. Reding says hotels often tell him they want something that smells fresh and clean, but tend to eschew anything that might remind people of cleaning products. It goes back to how we associate smells with certain contexts a whiff of lemony Pine Sol is going to make you think of a bathroom, or a mop, rather than the luxurious, crisp cleanliness that hotels strive for.For some, hotel fragrances are an olfactory delight they want to recreate in their own homes. Several online retailers sell hotel and resort scents for consumers or at least, an approximation of their bespoke scent and Reding says this is the bulk of his business today. But not everyone is a fan of scent marketing. Whats a good or bad smell is highly subjective, and people with sensitive noses in particular might bemoan not being able to escape a headache-inducing fragrance.Thats what really makes it tricky that youre diffusing in public spaces without the publics consent, Reding says.This story was featured in the Explain It to Me newsletter. Sign up here. For more from Explain It to Me, check out the podcast. New episodes drop every Wednesday.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:

Measles, mumps, and polio are supposed to be diseases of the past. In the early to mid-20th century, scientists developed vaccines that effectively eliminated the risk of anyone getting sick or dying from illnesses that had killed millions over millennia of human history.Vaccines, alongside sanitized water and antibiotics, have marked the epoch of modern medicine. The US was at the cutting edge of eliminating these diseases, which helped propel life expectancy and economic growth in the postwar era. Montana native Maurice Hilleman, the so-called father of modern vaccines, developed flu shots, hepatitis shots, and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in the 1950s and 60s, which became virtually universally adopted among Americans.Smallpox, the most common form of which has a 30 percent fatality rate, has been eradicated. Mitch McConnell, Republican titan of the Senate, may be the last major public figure still afflicted by a childhood case of polio, less than a century after it paralyzed a sitting American president. Measles likely infected millions of people annually in the US in the 1800s, although precise estimates from the era are hard to come by. In the early 1990s, thousands of people died from the disease every year. It was still infecting more than half a million and killing hundreds per year on average in the 1950s and 60s, before the vaccine debuted. Diphtheria, a deadly respiratory infection, killed more than 1,800 people annually between 1936 and 1945 as the vaccine against it was still being rolled out. It has not killed anybody in the United States in decades.The vaccines that made this possible are among the most important achievements in human history. And yet many Americans appear to be losing faith in them, a worrying trend that could accelerate if President-elect Donald Trump succeeds in handing control of the top US health agency into the hands of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the countrys foremost vaccine denier.Kennedy has spent much of his public career pushing the thoroughly debunked theory of a link between autism and childhood vaccines. He has supported an anti-vaccine group in Samoa, where measles vaccination rates have since fallen off; a 2019 outbreak killed 83 people just a few months after Kennedy visited the island and met with anti-vaccine advocates. He has likewise cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines, a position that helped nudge the lifelong Democrat toward Trump. After Kennedy dropped his own presidential campaign this year, he became Trumps most influential health adviser and last week was nominated by the president-elect to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).The day after Trumps election, Kennedy insisted he would not take away anybodys vaccines. Instead, he said, he planned to compile vaccine safety information so that people could make their own decisions. But vaccine safety has been extensively studied and the negative effects Kennedy claims remain undetected. (Others in Trumps orbit have stated that Kennedy will nevertheless use whatever information he finds to try to pull vaccines from the market.)Experts fear that his appointment will validate his anti-vaccine attitudes and exacerbate the publics growing ambivalence toward these vital public health measures. As long-accepted, lifesaving public health measures increasingly become politically polarized, routine vaccination rates are rapidly declining in much of the US. In the 20192020 school year, three states had less than 90 percent of K12 students vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella. By the 20232024 school year, 14 states had fallen below that threshold. The number of states with more than 95 percent of schoolchildren vaccinated the preferred level of coverage to prevent outbreaks dropped from 20 to 11 during that same period.It is no surprise then that the number of US measles cases more than quadrupled from 2023 to 2024. Nobody has died of measles in the US since 2015, but if vaccination rates continue to decline, this highly contagious disease (one person can infect more than a dozen other people) will spread with increasing ease, which raises the risk that American kids could die.We know how to prevent that. Weve had remarkably safe, effective shots for decades. We just need to keep using them.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025, a 900-page opus of conservative policy recommendations published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. But he has nominated two of the documents co-authors to Cabinet-level positions, and many others served in his first administration, which suggests the document may be a window into what the next four years could bring. On Monday, Trump nominated Brendan Carr, who wrote Project 2025s chapter on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to head the agency. He has also appointed Tom Homan, a Heritage Foundation fellow named as a contributor to Project 2025, as his so-called border czar. Eighteen of the 40 co-authors and editors of the report served in the first Trump administration. Among them are Ken Cuccinelli, former acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security; Christopher Miller, former acting Defense secretary; and Russell T. Vought, former director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought is reportedly being considered for another top post in the coming administration. During the 2024 campaign, Democrats sought to tie Trump to Project 2025 a policy agenda they decried as dangerous and shockingly radical framing it as a blueprint for his second term that is much more detailed than the GOPs 28-page platform. The document focuses on proposals to expand presidential power, gut the federal bureaucracy, enact the priorities of the religious right, deregulate, and more. Related:The roadmap: Where Project 2025 might take AmericaTrump at one point claimed to have no idea who is behind it and denied any connection with it when asked about it at the September presidential debate: I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I havent read it. I dont want to read it purposely. Im not going to read it.However, since Trumps reelection, some of his allies have suggested that the document was always intended to be the playbook for his second term. Trumps nominations of Carr and Homan seem to support that idea. Neither will require additional Senate confirmation to take on their roles; through them, they will be in a position to advocate for Project 2025s ideas on communications and immigration, respectively. Heres what we know about Carr and Homan and the ideas relevant to their posts outlined in Project 2025. Brendan CarrCarr, a pick approved by Trumps billionaire backer Elon Musk, currently serves as the senior Republican on the FCC and was previously its general counsel. Now, he is set to take the helm, steering the commission toward a hardline stance against Big Tech and what he describes in Project 2025 as its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Among his key proposals in Project 2025 is ending legal immunities for internet platforms hosting user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That would require stricter content moderation on the part of these platforms or cutbacks to the degree to which users can contribute content, fundamentally changing the way people interact online. At the same time, he wrote in Project 2025 that he wants to ensure that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech. That echoes some of Trumps other Cabinet picks who are seeking to crack down on wokeness in their respective agencies. Carr also supports efforts to block TikTok in the US, identifying it, along with the Chinese smartphone producer Huawei, as a national security threat. He claims in Project 2025 that TikTok is part of a Chinese foreign influence campaign by determining the news and information that the app feeds to millions of Americans. However, there are reasons to believe that a TikTok ban would, as Vox previously reported, have serious consequences for online expression, which include shutting down what has proved a hub for activism.Carr may have some difficulty enacting his agenda initially, however. The commission will have a 3-2 Democratic majority until next June when Trump will be able to nominate a new member. Tom HomanHoman isnt named as an author of a particular chapter of Project 2025 but as an overall contributor and some of his stated hardline views on immigration and the border are reflected in the report.He started out as a Border Patrol agent in the 1980s and worked his way up through the immigration agencies, becoming the head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcements removal operations arm under former President Barack Obama. There, he presided over the most immigrants ever deported in a single year, exceeding 400,000. Under Trump, Homan served as acting director of ICE but was never confirmed to the position permanently by the Senate.Homans new role as border czar appears to involve far-reaching responsibilities. Those include overseeing the implementation of Trumps mass deportations policy the centerpiece of the former presidents immigration agenda. That means Homans responsibilities will likely intersect with many of the numerous immigration priorities outlined in Project 2025. Here is a non-exhaustive list of whats included:Expanding the use of a legal authority known as expedited removal to quickly deport immigrants who crossed the border without authorization.Deporting immigrants even in currently protected, sensitive zones like churches.Ending large-scale parole programs that the Biden administration has relied upon as a deportation shield for individuals from certain countries, including Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Ending programs like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has protected hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation.Creating a new legal authority akin to the Title 42 policy, which was implemented by Trump and maintained by Biden to rapidly expel immigrants arriving on the US southern border on the dubious public health grounds of stopping the spread of Covid-19. Homan has yet to indicate whether he or Trump fully endorses these policies. But unlike Trump, who claims to have never read Project 2025, Homan put his name to the document, and could draw from it in his new role. 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:

Nearly three years into Russias full-scale invasion into Ukraine, the Biden administration gave Ukraine the green light to strike deeper into Russia using US-supplied longer-range missiles.The Ukrainian military quickly put that permission to use: On Tuesday, it attacked a weapons depot about 70 miles from Ukraines border. The US and NATO allies have hesitated to provide sophisticated weapons like the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) that Ukraine used in that attack, fearing Russian retaliation against NATO sites or even nuclear escalation. Raising that specter on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new version of the countrys nuclear doctrine, which would theoretically make it easier for Russia to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. The new doctrine specifically allows for a nuclear strike in response to a strike with conventional weapons like the longer-range missiles Ukraine now has permission to use if those attacks involved the participation or support of a nuclear power, likely referring to the US and other NATO countries. Throughout the war, Russian leaders have threatened to use the countrys nuclear weapons in the conflict if they believed they were necessary. That has led Ukraines allies to be cautious about the amount of aid theyve offered, and has led to limits on what Ukrainian troops can do with those weapons.Ukraines new ability to use longer range missiles to strike Russian territory and Putins confirmation of new nuclear rules have again raised the question: Could Russias war in Ukraine escalate into a nuclear conflict?Throughout the war, experts have downplayed Russias appetite for nuclear conflict. But the rapid escalation of the conflict in recent weeks, and particularly Russias new nuclear doctrine, could mean that possibility is closer than before. Since the beginning of Russias invasion into Ukraine, Putin and other officials have made statements, both explicit and oblique, that Russia might be pressed to use nuclear weapons. Most experts agree that the risk of Russia using such weapons is low, but its not negligible. A previous version of the doctrine Russia updated on Tuesday said the country would tap into its nuclear arsenal only under four circumstances: receiving credible data of a ballistic missile attack; nuclear or other WMD attack against Russia or its allies; attacks on Russian nuclear infrastructure; or conventional weapons attacks that threaten the very existence of the Russian state. Under the new doctrine, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov indicated attacks like Ukraines on Tuesday could trigger a nuclear response.That change shouldnt be taken as a response to Ukraines strike, however, Samuel Charap, distinguished chair in Russia and Eurasia policy and senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, told Vox.The new doctrine has been in the works for a long time, Charap said. The timing may be tied to the attack of decision, but the substance has been brewing for a while.Putin and other officials have not, it seems, made major preparations to actually use nuclear weapons. However as the war continues, Putin and his officials threats have become clearer and have involved actually demonstrating nuclear capacity. As recently as July, Russia and Belarus held joint military exercises that demonstrated Russias tactical nuclear capabilities.Initially, the US and NATO responded to Russias threats with caution, denying Ukraine weapons or placing restrictions on their use. But over the past three years, as little has come of Putins threats of nuclear war and of war with NATO, Western countries have given Ukraine access to increasingly sophisticated weapons systems. Besides the risk of nuclear war, Ukraines allies have had to balance concerns that they might be more directly drawn into the conflict. Though Ukraine is not a member of the NATO military alliance, Putin has previously warned that permission to use longer-range missiles (like those used Tuesday) inside Russia would be considered a NATO attack on Russia.US officials speaking to the Associated Press said they had anticipated a response from Russia, but that Russian officials warnings were viewed as inflammatory rhetoric, and would not provoke any change in US action. That suggests the US does not believe theres much danger in Russia using its nuclear capabilities in the near term.Russia never explicitly, on the official level, warned that they would use nuclear weapons in response to X, Y, or Z, Charap said. The only explicit red line that theyve ever drawn was on the use of long range, US [or] Western weapons to strike into Russia that has now been crossed. So I can imagine people will expect their response, and it will not just be with words. After 1,000 days of the war, the conflict appears to be approaching an impasse. Theres no clear path to decisive victory for either side. Each side is deploying new tactics to try to gain an advantage: Ukraine with longer range missiles; Russia with recruits from North Korea. And now, Russia and the US seem to be simply responding to each others escalations: Russia put North Korean troops on the battlefield, the US responded by authorizing the use of longer range missiles, and Russia released its new nuclear posture. That sort of behavior is both reckless and dangerous, Charap said.You are in a spiral that is the definition of a tit-for-tat dynamic, where your actions are driven not by your goals, but by countering what the other guy is doing, Charap said. That only goes in one direction continuing to up the ante. The spiral dynamic just continues until somebody gets out of control or somebody decides to stop it. 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:

One of my colleagues has a theory: If you know the Rizzler, you might not have been surprised that Kamala Harris lost the presidential election. If the name Big Justice doesnt sound familiar, the results from the election may have been a total shock.Back in March, a Florida-based father-and-son duo named A.J. and Big Justice posted a TikTok expressing their enthusiasm for Costco Wholesale and its food court items. The pair as well as their extended universe of relatives and non-relatives, like the Rizzler have since become viral sensations, cementing their internet celebrity status with an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.The Costco Guys, the Rizzler, and this whole kind of straight-bro-coded mediaverse is a stand-in for how siloed media consumption on the left has gotten, says Voxs senior politics reporter Christian Paz. As a result, Paz suggests, some progressives may have missed a bit of the political evolution the country was going through.It asks the question: Does the rise of the Costco Guys who are in no way explicitly political help explain a cultural landscape shaped by straight bros that presaged a Donald Trump win? Or is their presence on the internet something more innocuous, a throwback to the early days of YouTube when regular people would go viral and get airtime on Ellen? The answers are a little complicated. A history of the Costco Guys cinematic universe While they officially became viral sensations back in March, the Costco Guys celebrity has been years in the making. Originally from New Jersey, the familys patriarch, Andrew Befumo (a.k.a. A.J.), was a professional wrestler who went by the American Powerchild Eric Justice before he retired and went into mortgage lending. About a decade ago, he started a family YouTube channel, featuring his wife Erika, his daughter Ashley, and his son Eric (a.k.a. Big Justice), called All Befumod Up. The channel featured the sort of mundane if heartwarming content you might see on a slice-of-life reality show, like cooking meals, attending an Avengers screening, and singing Christmas songs. Since 2022, Befumo has mostly been making videos on TikTok (@a.j.befumo) with Eric who he nicknamed Big Justice after his wrestling persona with occasional appearances from Ashley and Erika, The Mother of Big Justice. Early videos show the father and son attending baseball games and reviewing local restaurants using their food review scale known as the boom meter. Delicious foods get a boom! Underwhelming or flat-out gross foods get a doom! which is rare.They also recorded themselves running regular errands, like going to retail chains, with an unusual amount of enthusiasm. However, its that level of excitement in depicting the suburban, middle-class experience thats part of their draw. While many famous vloggers are filming tropical vacations and helicopter rides, the Costco Guys treat a trip to Party City like a special occasion. These videos raked up hundreds of thousands of views and earned them some sponsorship deals. However, it wasnt until this past spring that their affinity for Costco would give them a ticket to internet stardom. On March 1, they posted their own version of the viral Were X, of course we Y trend about their love for the wholesale chain. Were Costco guys, says Big Justice at the beginning of the video. Of course we go shopping while eating a chicken bake. By July, they released a Beastie Boys-esque theme song, featuring Erika and Ashley, called We Bring the Boom that now has 14.4 million views. Since then, theyve incorporated Costco and their extremely limited food court menu into much of their content, having guests rate the stores double chunk chocolate cookie and come with them on shopping trips. Theyve released several remixes of We Bring the Boom, including a Christmas edition most recently. Ashley and Erika also emerged from the background of A.J. and Big Justices videos, creating their own page in October, @ashleyandmamajustice, where they mostly rank and review desserts. Despite how normal these guys seem, viewers still feel like theyre watching something off-kilter and idiosyncratic. They have a wide-eyed, unflinching gaze almost like theyre being held hostage and forced to read off a teleprompter when staring into the camera. While you could argue that their zeal is earnest, their mannerisms are unnatural and stilted. The rap songs are inarguably cringe. In the months since their initial virality, the Costco boys label has extended beyond the Befumo family to include some of their most frequent collaborators. Most notable among them is the Rizzler (a.k.a Christian Joseph), a kid influencer whose father began posting videos of him on TikTok in 2020. His father dubbed him the Rizzler, based on the slang term rizz thats short for charisma. Hes since popularized the rizz face, a half-serious-half-smirking look similar to the alt-right meme/pose known as the Chad face or more broadly the Gen Z Lip Sync Face. A.J. said in an interview that a TikTok of the Rizzler joking around while wearing an ill-fitting Black Panther costume led him to contact the Rizzlers father about collaborating. Other frequent guest stars include cousin Angelo, who may or may not actually be related to the Befumo family, and a TikTok dancer named Jersey Joe who posts videos dancing to Jersey Club music. Do the Costco Guys really belong to the bro internet?Since their rise to prominence, the Costco Guys have earned a questionable reputation on social media as alleged Trump supporters if not avatars for an increasingly MAGA-fied internet. The evidence is mostly superficial. They live in Florida. They spend much of their time in the big-box stores closely identified with the suburban American experience. Their logos and merch prominently feature the American flag. Theres a lot of stuff about their content that is seemingly Republican-coded, says EJ Dickson, senior culture writer at The Cut. The main one is that theyre part of a demographic of white men in a state that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. The other aspect is the American flag imagery very early on in their career. Actually, when A.J. was working in the mortgage industry, he was making content in front of an American flag. Other examples are more eyebrow-raising. Their fanbase at least based on their accounts commenters leans heavily white and male; comments on one Costco Guys livestream featured rows upon rows of the N-word in all-caps. Logan Paul knows about them. Unlike Paul, though, the Befumo family has largely and intentionally avoided politics in their journey to fame. In an interview with internet reporter Taylor Lorenz, A.J. said that theyve been approached by presidential candidates to collaborate but that political content was not in their wheelhouse. Possible political affiliations aside, Dickson, who profiled A.J. and Big Justice for Rolling Stone in July, doesnt think this accounts for all of their popularity. I do think people genuinely enjoy seeing this guy and his kid just being goofy and making this incredibly silly content together, says Dickson. A lot of people think their content is charming in its way. She also argues that their videos may be more subversive than progressives online give them credit for: a father and son spending an immense amount of time together, showing each other affection and bonding over food. She compares them to bona fide right-wing personality Andrew Tate, who built his brand in the thrall of his domineering and withholding father. The fact that A.J. is monetizing time with his family has not gone without criticism. A behind-the-scenes video of A.J. sternly directing Big Justice in a video made the rounds in August and reinforced the assumption by some that hes a stage dad. Still, the image of fatherhood he promotes is adoring and hands-on. Even though [A.J.] performs masculinity with the way he looks and the workouts, hes kind of doing the opposite by virtue of just clowning around on camera and spending a lot of time with his kid, says Dickson. Regardless, the Costco Guys do ultimately exist in a lineage of influencers and celebrities that draw straight, white, right-leaning male fans. Several moments this year have shown, from the conservative appropriation of Sydney Sweeney to the overnight success of Hawk Tuah Girl, that its not totally up to public figures to decide who they appeal to.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:

Theres always been a saying, an expression of exaggerated exasperation, thats irked me: What do you get for the person who has everything? The fundamental flaw of that question is that it ignores a very important fact: The person who has everything is probably rich, and you should never feel all that burdened about what to get them. If you told me that youre agonizing over what to get a rich person, I would ask you to reevaluate your priorities. Rich people have enough money that they can buy whatever they want.But since the rich are people, and people celebrate birthdays, holidays, and milestones with presents, there will sometimes be a rare occasion when someone needs to get them a gift. And the exasperation goes from imaginary frustration to real annoyance. Thats when people, mostly rich ones, call The Gifterie, a bespoke gifting concierge that helps clients choose the perfect gift for the most affluent, famous, and picky people in the world. The Gifterie is the creation of Elise Nach and Min Polley. They came to me highly recommended by a few celebrity personal assistants. Whether the recipient is an avid golfer or a newborn nepo baby, Nach and Polley will find just the thing. I spoke with Nach about the difference between good and bad gifts, what theyve learned from gifting the hardest people to buy for, how we normies can translate that to the presents we give this holiday season, and, of course, the most absurd celebrity request theyve ever taken. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.Alex Abad-Santos: I asked one of my friends who works as a celebritys personal assistant to ask his colleagues and they all recommended The Gifterie. And now Im here to ask you, the experts, what to get people like celebrities who have everything.Elise Nach: As a company were used to working with a variety of requests, whether it is very specific, like, Blake Lively is having another baby. We need to send something she doesnt have, to [working with] Amazon, when theyre launching a new series and they want to send something fun to all their press and talent. When it comes to either the celebrity gifting or higher-end clientele that really have everything, we always say its more about making something feel special [showing] that you put thought into it. Because they have a thousand scarves or they have a thousand different baby toys. Whether its etching a babys name on a gift or stitching someones initials on something, things like that seem to make a bigger impact with the recipient than just another Herms scarf. Which again, lovely. Who doesnt want to get that? If anyone is reading this, I would not turn down a Herms scarf. Of course, I wouldnt either. But the key to successful gift-giving is really personalizing it. That doesnt necessarily mean it has to have their name on it, but just knowing the recipient well enough to say, Okay, this person really loves X.That could be golf, or travel, or something like, We know theyre going on a huge press tour, so we want to get them something to carry their stuff. Its something you can home in on think about the conversations youve had with this person and what theyre about. Its just so much more thoughtful. How much do you need to know about the recipient to feel like you have the confidence that you can give a good gift? Youre getting great gifts for people you might never even meet.Theres a couple of our clients that we work with on a continuous basis, and they just email us and theyll say, so and so typically, an actor or a director or somebody that works on one of their shows is having a birthday or having a baby, and we want to send something.Whether the budget is $150 or $5,000, our team will dig in and do a little deep dive on the internet on these people, and see if we can figure out something that they like or are interested in. Well do a little sleuthing and figure out, like, Okay, this person seems to really love backpacking. And we would recommend outdoorsy things. Were really trying to stay on the pulse of whats cool, what brands are trendy, quality brands in all different kinds of categories. It isnt necessarily that we have to know a certain amount of information about the people that were gifting, its just the more we know, the better, right? If you receive a thoughtful gift, its because somebody really thought of you and took the time to think, What would this person like? I think what youre getting at and maybe this is the key to all gift-giving is that it just comes down to thoughtfulness. Showing someone that youve thought about them. We have this quote on our website: Happiness doesnt result from what you get, but from what you give. Thats basically our motto. Whether theyre going through something rough or theyre celebrating an amazing milestone, giving people something that has thought behind it and brings them joy is always the best direction. When it comes from someone else, its that extra level of excitement that somebody else got it for you. You didnt buy it for yourself; someone took the time to think of you. Its just a lovely feeling. If you receive a thoughtful gift, its because somebody really thought of you and took the time to think, What would this person like? I know were talking about high-end clientele and very rich people, but do you need a big budget to get people thoughtful presents?Its not so much how much something costs, but how much you put the thought into it and made it feel special. Presentation is also a big component. How we gift wrap things adding dried flowers, the kind of ribbon you use, the paper, etc. we really think about taking it to another level of not just sticking it in a box. We get a lot of feedback from recipients that the gift was just so beautifully gift-wrapped that they didnt even want to open it. And then to open it and find something so pretty inside is also a really nice touch. So for people that are gifting who dont have a big celebrity budget, you can still wrap it in a really beautiful way and make it feel elevated and special. You can get stuff at Michaels. It doesnt have to be from fancy places online. And when you receive a gift like that, it feels like somebody put extra thought into it. Are there any gift ideas people should avoid? Ice cream.But thats a wonderful gift!Have you tried shipping it? Weve done it, but its a nightmare and very stressful. I would also avoid anything super perishable. That would definitely be number one. If you know youre not going to overnight it, if its something that isnt going to be locally given, then I would probably avoid food.Are there polarizing foods that are a no-go? Raisins? I hate raisins. No, we dont usually include raisins. I mean, how do I say this? Probably avoid cheese that is you know more potent. But really, avoid things that are perishable. With gifts that are very breakable, make sure theyre padded and packaged correctly. One of the worst things is sending someone a gift and something shows up broken.Just save your money. People would prefer a card or gift card, if youre not going to put thought into it. Is there such a thing as a bad gift?I just think being generic just shows that you didnt put any thought into it. You know what I mean? Just save your money. People would prefer a card or gift card, if youre not going to put thought into it. Do you have a go-to gift for someone thats just notoriously hard to buy for?Sometimes when its something celebratory, like someone just won an Emmy that can be a tough gift. For those kinds of gifts, well do a beautiful bottle of champagne and we will etch on the bottle, Congratulations on your Emmy win with their name or the date. Its something that they could drink, but they could also put it on a shelf and always see it as another trophy. Its a thoughtful way of enhancing a bottle of champagne or their favorite liquor. If you know that they love a certain whiskey, or a beautiful bottle of champagne, or a really expensive bottle of wine, and its for someone who has everything those seem to always go over well because youre getting them something they love, theyll definitely drink it at some point.Whats the most difficult request youve ever gotten?Okay, so not naming names. I totally want you to name names but I understand. We got a request from an assistant at a record label: So and so is coming in. Theyre really big. We really need a welcome or a thank you gift basket for them. Can you spend X amount and put all this stuff together? We said sure, and that we could do something beautiful a basket of wine, cheeses, and all these fresh goods. And the assistant was like, Can you get it here by 2 pm? And this was like 10:30 in the morning. From the valley to Santa Monica is not easy. Its about a 45-minute drive at 2 pm, and longer with traffic. We went to all of our favorite shops, curated this gorgeous present, but were running out of time to get it to the place. The assistant kept texting and emailing us, asking when we were going to get there. And he wound up meeting Min on the side of the 405, not like the actual freeway they exited and drove off the freeway but they met halfway, and she handed off the gift. The time constraint made it one of the craziest requests. We were just like chickens with our heads cut off trying to make it happen.We dont ever want to say no to anything we do once in a while but sometimes were like, Oh, this would be so fun.Getting something special every time seems incredibly stressful. I only have five friends and Im already fretting about Christmas. But youve turned that stress into a business. Its exciting because every single day were working on different things. We love answering weird requests and hard calls. We really love anything random and unique. We love figuring it all out. Were coming up with unique ideas, whether its for one person or for 100 people. Because if it was just the same thing, then we would just have an automated website, and people would pick from it, and that would be that. A website full of generic nonperishable cheese boards. Exactly.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:

It will soon be Giving Tuesday, and its time for me to do what I do on Vox every Giving Tuesday: encourage people to give more money to effective charities.Over years of doing this, Ive gotten a long and familiar list of objections. I decided this year to try my best to answer them.What are you asking me to do?I am asking you to give 10 percent of your pretax income to a charity that saves lives. I give my 10 percent to GiveWells top charities fund, which redistributes it to highly effective global health charities like the Malaria Consortium and Helen Keller International. GiveWell estimates that for every $5,000 gift, these charities will save one human life.I think of GiveWell as like the charity version of an index fund: Its a rigorous, impartial recommender that you can donate to without having to pick and choose individual causes. It has also been, disclosure, an advertiser on Vox Media podcasts, though Ive been using it since long before that was true.10 percent seems like a lot.Its significant. For the average American household, which has an income of roughly $75,000, its a $7,500 commitment. Thats a real bite, but its also more than enough to save a life.I dont know if I can afford 10 percent Thats fair! Can you do 5 percent?Maybe I would go as low as 1 percent!But then thats only $750 a year, and that cant save a life.Well, every five years you would. And if you want to do more good, we can always go back to 10 percent!The Vox guide to givingThe holiday season is giving season. This year, Vox is exploring every element of charitable giving from making the case for donating 10 percent of your income, to recommending specific charities for specific causes, to explaining what you can do to make a difference beyond donations. You can find all of our giving guide stories here.Okay, okay, 10 percent. Isnt that kind of religious?For sure: The practice of tithing in many world religions is a key inspiration here. The twist is Im suggesting tithing not to religious institutions but to highly effective charities (which could be religious or not its not their beliefs that matter, but their effectiveness).So why these particular charities?Because theres a huge, huge difference between what the most and least effective charities can accomplish with donations. You might think that charities are like brands of dish soap Ive never once thought that.Its an analogy, give me a second. The absolute best dish soap is probably, at most, a tiny bit better than the average brand, right? I mean its just soap. Even Wirecutter says you probably cant go wrong with most name-brand dish detergents.Fair enough, soap is soap.But really, charities are more like chefs knives. The difference between the best and worst knife is enormous and affects the entire process of cooking, or so it has been explained to me by superior cooks. Its the difference between an enjoyable time in the kitchen versus pure drudgery (and a heightened chance you inadvertently chop off your fingertip).So what does this have to do with charity?What it has to do with charity is that the vast majority of nonprofits have no evidence of positive impact at all, and even charities brave enough to agree to rigorous tests of their impact see widely variable effectiveness. In global development, something like 60 to 70 percent of interventions tested show no results at all, which effectively means the money donated could have just been thrown down a hole.And among those that do show results, the size of the impact varies drastically. The researcher Benjamin Todd has looked into these questions a lot, examining nine different databases of program impact, and found that in every context, from US social policy to global health to the UKs National Health Service to estimates of climate policies, the results are fat-tailed. Thats statistics talk for the conclusion that the best interventions are much, much better than the average interventions. How much better are these super-interventions?It depends, but here are a couple of examples: The most cost-effective treatments examined by Britains National Health Service were 120 times more effective than the median treatment. A World Bank study found the most effective interventions in global health were 38 times more effective than the median ones.Because it lets you do a lot more good. Suppose youre giving $7,500 a year. If you gave that to an average global health program, youd be providing 30 more total years of healthy life to a few people, per the World Bank data.30 years of life! Thats pretty good, right?Its great. But if you put that money toward one of the 2.5 percent most cost-effective interventions, youd save about 1,275 years of life.Quite possibly! These are necessarily rough numbers and you shouldnt take them too literally. You might merely save hundreds of years of life. But the magnitudes here strongly suggest that you should be careful about choosing where to donate, because the difference between the best and the merely okay is huge.Theres a reason the philosopher Toby Ord, who originated the 10 percent of income to effective charities pledge idea, has argued that cost-effectiveness is a moral imperative, on par with the moral imperative to give money at all.So I looked at the GiveWell list of top charities why arent there any working in the US?Good question. The short answer is the US is a rich country, which means everything tends to cost more than it does abroad including the cost of helping people in need. The US still has extreme poverty, in the global, living-on-$2-a-day standard, but its comparatively rare and hard to target effectively. The poorest Americans also have access to health care and education systems that, while obviously inferior compared to those enjoyed by rich Americans, are still superior to those of very poor countries.To be blunt: People in the US simply are not dying for want of a $1.50 anti-malaria pill. (For one thing, the US managed to essentially eradicate malaria transmission from within its borders.) That means it is much, much more cost-effective to help people abroad.How much more cost-effective?Heres one example. Years ago, GiveWell looked into a number of US charities, like the Nurse-Family Partnership program for infants, the KIPP chain of charter schools, and the HOPE job-training program. It found that all were highly effective but were also far more cost-intensive than the best foreign charities. KIPP and the Nurse-Family Partnership cost more than $9,000 per child served, while a program like the Malaria Consortiums prevention efforts costs around $4,500 per life saved.Theres been less work on evaluating US charities in recent years than would be ideal, and Id love to hear about charities that can save lives here very cost-effectively. But right now, the evidence suggests to me that its much more expensive to save lives in the US than abroad. But I still want to help people closer to me.Thats a commendable impulse! I get it, really, and if the most I can convince you to do here is give 10 percent of your income to fight poverty in the US, then you should do that and Ill take the win.But I would also ask you to consider the idea that people in other, much poorer countries have equal moral weight to those who live in your country. Their lives matter just as much. And if you can help, say, 100 of them for the cost of helping one American, and you choose to do the latter, youre making an implicit choice to value Americans much more than non-Americans. I think there might be valid reasons to make that choice but its not one I want to make, so thats not how I donate.Indeed they do. I think the best critique of GiveWells list well, less a critique than an argument not to use it exclusively is that you can do even more good, even more efficiently if you try to help animals, especially farm animals bred and raised in extreme suffering just so they can be slaughtered. There are billions of them, and very little is spent trying to help them. If you want to help them, Animal Charity Evaluators has some good suggestions of where to give. Im partial to the Humane League, which pressures corporations to improve their treatment of farmed animals.This all sounds like effective altruism.It does because it is. Todd and Ord were among the founders of effective altruism, and generally the community and people in it have developed a lot of the ideas you see above, from the focus on cost-effectiveness to the give 10 percent idea to taking animals seriously.Didnt effective altruists do a bunch of crimes a few years ago?A bunch of EAs definitely did a bunch of crimes a few years ago. Sam Bankman-Fried and several of his colleagues at FTX and Alameda Research identified as EAs and stated that they were only becoming billionaires to donate the proceeds to effective charities. Of course, they turned out to be stealing lots of money in the process and Bankman-Fried has since been convicted in federal court and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Disclosure: In 2022, Bankman-Frieds philanthropic family foundation, Building a Stronger Future, awarded Voxs Future Perfect a grant for a 2023 reporting project. That project is now on pause.)So he did crimes because of these ideas?I dont think we know for sure why he did what he did, but there are some theories. One theory is that Bankman-Fried took the idea that you should make as much money as possible and donate it as efficiently as possible, and ran way too far with it to the point where committing outright fraud to make money to donate made sense to him, on the apparent grounds that the potential good that could be done with it was worth the risk to himself and many others. Other theories hold that he was just lying the whole time, never cared about doing the right thing, and used EA as a cover for his own greed. Either way, it reflects very badly on EA.So why are you asking me to take these effective altruist ideas seriously?Because theyre good ideas and theyre in danger of being totally discredited because of some effective altruists who didnt even take the donate a lot of your income to normal charities that save lives part of the philosophy seriously.Look at SBF: He distributed a bunch of money to causes he valued, but they were explicitly not causes involving giving people lifesaving medication right now. They were more speculative longtermist causes things like AI safety and preventing global catastrophic risks. Whatever you think of that behavior, its precisely not what Im asking you to do right now.If they didnt take these ideas seriously, why should I?Because you have the opportunity to save lives, right now, and you should take it.This whole thing where you think Im, like, obligated to give this much is weird.I dont think youre obligated. I just think its a good thing to do and that you should consider it. If everyone did it, we could end global poverty and then some. And I dont even think its purely an altruistic good thing. I think itll be good for you as a person, too.Oh, really? I should selfishly give away 10 percent of my income?Thats honestly a big part of why I do it.Really? For yourself?Sure. Look, I think its important to do good for other people, in and of itself. Thats a major motivator, definitely.But you ever wonder if your life has meaning? If it makes any kind of difference to the world? Personally, I want to live a life that means something, that leaves things ever so slightly better than I found them. I want to be pursuing goals that arent just material. I dont want to mark the progression of my life solely through raises and promotions, or fall victim to the subtle pressures that push me to spend more and more of my money on gadgets and furniture that make me progressively less happy.Im talking about a problem that, for me, giving 10 percent of my income away helps solve. One, it helps establish a baseline meaning or impact from my work if nothing else, I know that the money I make through my job contributes to saving peoples lives. That has to count for something. Thats a source of real meaning and pride.Two, it provides a powerful counterforce to the treadmill that comes as you age and make more money, a treadmill that pushes you to spend lots of it to keep up with your peers or feel like youre living better. There are definitely times when I feel like Im not taking as nice a vacation as my friends are, or where I feel kinda cheap for having mostly Wayfair furniture while my friends have a nice, solid wood dining table. Sometimes I blame the donations for these feelings.But mostly I am thankful for them. The idea that, after you reach a certain level of baseline comfort, additional consumer spending is going to make you dramatically happier is a seductive lie. And one of the few weapons I have against it is the knowledge that I face a very real choice between, say, getting one of those amazing lie-flat business-class airplane seats for my next vacation and saving a human beings life. That lets me resist the former, and live a life that feels just a tiny bit more meaningful.Okay, fine, Im in. Where do I sign up?The group Giving What We Can runs a pledge, which I and thousands of others have signed, for people who commit to donating 10 percent of their income to highly effective charities. You can sign if you want. But the main thing to do is just give.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump and some of his allies have suggested, to varying degrees, that Trump should be allowed to meddle with the Federal Reserves decisions about US monetary policy. I think I have the right to say, I think you should go up or down a little bit, Trump said, referring to interest rates, which the Federal Reserve sets, at an October event at the Chicago Economic Club. I dont think I should be allowed to order it, but I think I have the right to put in comments as to whether or not the interest rates should go up or down.Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) went further on X, claiming, The Executive Branch should be under the direction of the president. Thats how the Constitution was designed. The Federal Reserve is one of many examples of how weve deviated from the Constitution in that regard. Yet another reason why we should #EndTheFed. Elon Musk, the billionaire who has become an advisor to Trump, replied to Lees tweet with a 100 emoji. Bringing the Federal Reserve under the presidents control would be a major change. The Fed is an independent institution meant to make decisions that shape the domestic economy without political interference. Theres no indication that Trump wants to exert the kind of control that Musk and Lee tweeted about, but even the type of influence he appears to want likely wont be possible at least in the short term.How much can Trump influence the Fed?Trump cant influence the Federal Reserve much for right now.When it comes to interest rates, which are basically how much it costs to borrow money, Trump can complain they are too high (or too low) like any other American, but the Feds leaders are the only government officials with the power to adjust those rates. The Fed has lowered interest rates this year as inflation has declined but it kept rates fairly high for the last few years, in part to fight pandemic-era inflation. Even with the lower rates, however, many Americans are still finding it too expensive to borrow money so they can make big purchases like a home.Forcing or pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates wont necessarily fix high borrowing costs for Americans; the interest rates set by the Fed are actually short-term costs that banks pay to each other to borrow money. The Feds decisions influence the cost of borrowing, but there are a lot of other factors that go into consumer credit.Related:Can Trump ban trans athletes from school sports?Furthermore, many of Trumps other policy proposals like broad tariffs or mass deportation could increase inflation, which higher interest rates are supposed to combat. If implemented, these proposals could actually lead to higher inflation.If you have big tax cuts, and he wants to spend more on the military, and is rounding up however many millions of undocumented workers he plans to [deport], thats all going to be very inflationary as will Trumps proposed tariffs on imports, Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Vox. And then if you tell the Fed, Well, you cant do anything to try and contain it, because that would make me unpopular, Thats going to be a really bad story. One other way Trump might try to meddle in the Feds affairs is by trying to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Trump appointed Powell, but was highly critical of Powells decision-making during his first term, and reportedly looked into whether he could fire the Fed chair.Powell has stated that he will serve through the rest of his term, which doesnt end until 2026, but has declined to say whether or not he would stay on for a third term. Legally, Trump cannot force Powell to resign or fire him. Members of the Feds Board of Governors, which Powell is part of as the Fed chair, can only be fired for wrongdoing or job performance reasons, not differences in policy. Trump could try to fire Powell claiming hes performing his job poorly, but that decision would probably embroil the president-elect in a drawn-out legal battle, like the one that ensnared Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he tried to fire a Fed commissioner. (And that Roosevelt lost.)Because the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, it would take Congressional action to make any changes to how it works. Congress has made some changes over the decades, but theres no signal right now that most lawmakers are willing to challenge the independence of the institution. Any attempts to interfere with the Feds independence could have ripple effects in the stock market, Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told Business Insider. In general, theres no question that the market does not like any attempt to interfere, by the executive or congressional branches, in the independence of the Fed, Siegel said. But come May of 2026, Trump will be able to have some congressionally authorized say in Fed policy. Thats when hell be required to appoint a Fed chair for a new four-year term, wholl then have to undergo Senate confirmation. That may be Powell, or it could be someone more compliant with Trumps idea of what the Fed should be.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:

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance did not sound like guys likely to support foreign aid spending.Vance would rail against Kamala Harris, who he alleged taxed money from the American taxpayer, sent it off to China and to foreign regimes all over the world. (Its not clear what exactly he meant by this.) Trump blasted US aid to Ukraine, joking that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is maybe the greatest salesman of any politician thats ever lived. Every time he comes to our country, he walks away with $60 billion.Sure enough, this skepticism applies to more traditional foreign aid spending as well, through vehicles like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). All four budget proposals during Trumps first term included major cuts to foreign aid; the last one proposed a 34 percent cut to global health programs, including an over 50 percent cut to the Global Fund, the main international body coordinating donor funds to fight malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS.Project 2025, the notorious Heritage Foundation project outlining policy for a second Trump term, commissioned Max Primorac, who served in USAID during Trumps first term, to outline a plan for aid. His focus was on fighting DEI and reproductive health initiatives, combating Chinese influence, returning support to fossil fuels in developing countries, and enacting deep cuts to the aid budget.All of that reads like a case that foreign aid advocates should be freaking out right now, the same way abortion rights and immigrant advocates are. But the truth is more nuanced.The president does not control the foreign aid budget directly, and during Trumps first term, a bipartisan coalition in Congress ensured that none of the cuts were adopted. While his budgets proposed cuts to institutions like the Global Fund, the US also made large pledges of increased support during his term, albeit largely at Congresss instigation. Mark Green, the former Congress member who Trump tapped to head USAID last time, is widely respected in the aid world and pursued reform policies that honestly dont look very different from those of Bidens administrator, Samantha Power, or Obamas Raj Shah and Gayle Smith.Experts and advocates I spoke with emphasized that no one really knows what Trump II will bring, or how similar/different it will be from his first term. Some of his Cabinet picks, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio or North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, seem like people any Republican couldve chosen. Others, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Matt Gaetz, seem wildly unqualified and bizarre. But while little is certain, aid experts emphasized that we should not assume big cuts or other major damage to the US foreign aid system.I have every expectation that we will see an attempt to cut funds for these areas, and those proposed cuts are profoundly dangerous, Colin Puzo Smith, director of global policy at the antipoverty group RESULTS, told me. But its so, so, so important for the global health advocacy community to remember, for the public to remember, and for other country leaders to remember, that those decisions dont sit with the White House. They fall to Congress.The case for optimism on foreign aid under TrumpThe best case that foreign aid will survive the Trump years without major damage is the record of Trump I.If you look at total foreign assistance spending for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 (the two years after Trump took over but before Covid-19), foreign aid funding was basically the same in dollar terms, only declining slightly due to inflation. When you account for military aid declining as the fight against ISIS in countries like Iraq and Jordan wound down, the picture looks even better.The basic reason that funding remained high despite budget requests from Trump proposing deep cuts is that members of Congress, in particular Republicans who were chairing relevant subcommittees in the Senate and House for Trumps first two years, were adamant that funding stay high. They were not shy about denouncing his proposed cuts, even very early in his term.The most important institutions on aid funding in Congress are the State and Foreign Operations subcommittees of the appropriations committees for each chamber. Appropriations is in charge of all funding that has to be regularly authorized; that excludes things like Social Security or Medicare but includes the entire foreign aid budget. The Republicans chairing the subcommittees during Trumps first term were furious at the prospect of foreign aid reductions. The proposed cuts to U.S. diplomacy and assistance are sweeping and potentially counterproductive to our national security goals, Hal Rogers, the Kentucky Republican in charge of the House subcommittee, said in a 2017 statement. The Senate chair was Lindsey Graham, a former Trump critic who had by this point become a major booster. All the same, Graham pronounced the foreign aid cuts dead on arrival, and argued Trumps cuts to the State Department could lead to a lot of Benghazis.The health research group KFF has a useful tool allowing you to compare global health funding each year in the Presidents budget, both in House- and Senate-proposed spending bills and in actuality. In almost every case, you see Congress pushing for more spending than Trump did, and winning. Trump wanted to provide $1.125 billion to the Global Fund, the anti-malaria/TB/HIV group. The final bill provided $225 million more than that. Trump wanted $424 million for USAID efforts against malaria. The House upped that to $505 million, the Senate to $655 million, and the final passed version was $755 million, plus another $202 million for the National Institutes of Health to research malaria.That reflects a deep bipartisan commitment to global health funding, one that persists to this day. Graham is currently the ranking member on the funding subcommittee, and likely will be chair again come January. Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, who has succeeded Rogers as chair of the House subcommittee, is also known as an enthusiastic supporter of global health funding. In late 2022, under President Joe Biden, a bipartisan deal was cut involving these players enacting major increases in a number of global health funding streams. Those same actors could do that again.There remain a lot of people in key positions in Congress who are very supportive of global health, Chris Collins, head of Friends of the Global Fight, which pushes for increased global health support from Congress, told me. Global health has always been bipartisan.The foreign aid team that Trump put in place last time also gets high marks from observers in the field. His USAID pick Mark Green sought to reorient the agency toward emphasizing evidence-based interventions and programs run by locally rooted organizations, as opposed to US-based contractors. His program in that vein, the New Partnership Initiative, was quite similar to the Local Solutions program under Obama and the pledge by Power to increase the share of aid running through local groups to 25 percent.Thanks to the able leadership of Administrator Mark Green, USAID has avoided much of the harm many feared could befall it under an administration that has so often positioned itself at odds with a development agenda, the Center for Global Developments Sarah Rose and Erin Collinson wrote when he stepped down in 2020. When Green steps down from the job today, he will leave behind an agency that has largely continued to champion development.The basic bull case for Trump II is that his second USAID administrator will be a broadly liked technocrat like Green, focused on improving efficiency rather than pursuing a partisan agenda focused on gender or reproductive health issues. That, plus a Congress willing to fund aid programs generously, could result in basically decent outcomes, if not spectacular ones.The case that this time will be differentThe first Trump term was not an unqualified success from a foreign aid standpoint. While his cuts did not make it through Congress, the fact that he proposed them put aid agencies under pressure and added uncertainty that theyd be able to continue programs.He also engaged in some classic Republican policies that global health experts disdain, like reviving the Mexico City Policy, a Reagan-era measure that bars aid to organizations that provide abortions. This is an example of Trump being a standard Republican president every Republican since Reagan has adopted that policy, and every Democrat in office has then rescinded it. Its more or less an American tradition at this point. But the policy is also associated with worse maternal health outcomes in recipient countries. Meanwhile, other Trump appointees pushed for abstinence-only sex education programs to combat HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, an approach that most research suggests is ineffective.More to the point, Trump II is by no means guaranteed to be like Trump I. His appointments so far have indicated hes willing to depart from normal US policy more drastically; compare, for instance, his first-term choice of respected former Sen. Dan Coats to be director of national intelligence to his choice this time of Tulsi Gabbard, who is incredibly close to the Russian government.When it comes to global health, two big changes stand out. One is that Trump II will be a post-Covid administration, and thus will reflect the deep skepticism of multilateral health institutions that has developed on the right as a result of the pandemic. A few months into the pandemic, Trump announced he was withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing its failure to contain the virus and arguing it was excessively close to the Chinese government.While the Biden administration reversed course on that decision, GOP anger toward the WHO in particular has lingered. The most recent Republican appropriations bill in the House zeroed out funding for that agency as well as the UN Population Fund, UNESCO, and the UN Environment Fund, among others. Diaz-Balart, the chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, crafted that bill and is known as a moderate who resisted deeper cuts in Trumps first term. If he wants to zero out WHO funding, its a fair bet itll be zeroed out.The multilateral space is one where youre going to see a shift, Elizabeth Hoffman, executive director for North America at the ONE Campaign and a veteran foreign aid staffer in Republican congressional offices, told me. Theres going to be a shift from trying to do things through multilateral mechanisms and looking at a more bilateral framework.Its not clear that this skepticism will extend to multilateral funding mechanisms like the Global Fund or Gavi. But theres another factor in Trump II of potential concern for Gavi, especially: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Since Kennedy dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Trump, the latter has repeatedly suggested that RFK will have a role as a kind of public health czar. He made it official by naming Kennedy as his pick to run the Department of Health and Human Services.Kennedy is perhaps the most influential anti-vaccine activist not only in the US, but the world. A few months after he visited the nation of Samoa in 2019 and campaigned with anti-vaccine advocates there, a massive measles outbreak, driven by declining vaccination rates, broke out, killing some 83 people, mostly children, in a country of 217,000. The US population equivalent would be over 136,000 deaths.Its not clear how much power Kennedy will have to repeat his Samoa performance in the US. He told NPR the morning after the election, Were not going to take vaccines away from anybody. But he used the same appearance to emphasize that he thinks the science on vaccine safety particularly has huge deficits, suggesting he maintains his belief that theyre unsafe.How much power Kennedy will have to reduce vaccinations in the US is unclear, and how much power or interest hell have in reducing them abroad is even less clear. But whereas the last Trump administration declined to propose funding cuts for the vaccine funding group Gavi, even as it sought to cut almost every other kind of foreign aid, its not hard to imagine Kennedys presence pushing them to include Gavi and other vaccination programs in their budget slashing agenda.Such cuts, if enacted, would be tragic. Economic research suggests that Gavis support for national vaccination programs can save a life for a few thousand dollars, or even less. Its one of the most cost-effective things the US government does, in any domain. If anti-vaxxers in Trumps orbit target it, and if Congress goes along with them, the ramifications would be devastating.Perhaps the most disturbing omen for Trumps foreign aid policy is the report from the Washington Post that he wants to revive impoundment, a practice Congress banned after Watergate in which the president simply refuses to spend money thats been allocated by Congress. Trump publicly flirted with using a related tool, called rescission, to unilaterally cut foreign aid in 2019. This time he seems more serious.If Trump fully usurps the power of the purse from Congress, then any hope for foreign aid premised on the bipartisan congressional coalition behind foreign aid spending becomes hollow. Trump could simply overrule the Lindsey Grahams and Mario Diaz-Balarts of the world. Then wed be in an incredibly dark reality indeed.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:

This story originally appeared in Kids Today, Voxs newsletter about kids, for everyone. Sign up here for future editions.Lynne Randall doesnt buy all the toys that show up at her house. They just kind of happen.Theres the play kitchen her 3-year-old son inherited from his cousins. Theres the random stuff her mother-in-law buys online, all of it plastic and made up of countless tiny pieces. Theres the kid-sized workbench Randall got that from her local Buy Nothing group, where neighbors can offload used items (and pick up more).The sheer volume of stuff her son has to play with is overwhelming, Randall told Vox. The day we talked, she and her family were having guests at their Pacific Northwest home, so she was attempting to declutter, finding all the parts and putting food in the toy kitchen and putting the tools in the workbench. But it was always a losing battle.Shelves overflowing with cars and blocks and action figures can be just as stressful for kids as they are for parents.Its a familiar refrain among parents: One reader told Vox recently that her family was absolutely drowning in toys. And while adults have been complaining about kids junk for generations (please see my fathers fruitless search for my brothers one-inch-long toy wrench in Los Angeles International Airport circa 1992), many millennial and Gen X parents have the sense that something is different now that kids have more toys than in past decades, and that they seem to arrive in ways Randall describes as unintentional. Historical data on the average number of toys per kid is surprisingly hard to come by, but there is evidence that Americans toy glut is increasing and its not just a problem for affluent households. US toy sales jumped from $22.3 billion in 2019 to $26 billion in 2020, and then to $30.1 billion in 2021, as parents struggled to entertain their kids at home during the pandemic. Sales dipped slightly in 2023, perhaps because of inflation, but remain solidly above 2019 levels. I dont think well ever go back, Juli Lennett, a vice president and industry adviser for toys at the market research firm Circana, told me.Shelves overflowing with cars and blocks and action figures can be just as stressful for kids as they are for parents. Sometimes kids dont play with anything, because theres just too many options, said Sarah Davis, a parenting coach and co-author of the book Modern Manners for Moms and Dads. Meanwhile, an overemphasis on acquiring new toys can foster materialism, which is linked with anxiety and depression. Stemming the tide of clutter is easier said than done, since toys often come from grandparents or other loved ones, or even from parties at school. But experts say there are certain characteristics that kids favorite toys share. And by focusing on those, grown-ups may be able not only to save money and space, but also to help kids have more fun.Still, I get the struggle. Recently, I was taking a shower when I noticed a pink plastic rat in the drain.Why kids have so many toysIn the early 2000s, a team led by archaeologist Jeanne E. Arnold counted up the possessions of 32 self-identified middle-class families. The average family in their sample had 139 toys visibly on display, with untold numbers out of sight in closets or under beds, the authors wrote in a 2012 book about the research. One girls room contained 165 Beanie Babies, 22 Barbie dolls, 36 human/animal figurines, and one miniature castle. Spilling out of childrens bedrooms and into living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, and parents bedrooms, the playthings of Americas kids are ubiquitous in middle-class homes, the authors wrote.That problem has only worsened, with several factors contributing to the overflow. Unlike most other categories of products, childrens playthings have actually gotten cheaper over the last 30 years, Business Insiders Katie Notopoulos reported. A toy that cost $20 in 1993 would retail for just $4.68 today, in part because of lower production costs as manufacturing moved overseas. Those rock-bottom prices make it easier for grown-ups to buy kids that extra doll or car or guinea pig in a shark suit. But Americans arent just buying more toys than they used to, theyre also buying them differently. Toys R Us filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and has all but disappeared from the shopping landscape, and other brick-and-mortar toy stores, from small to large, have shuttered in recent years. Meanwhile, shopping has also become more seamless, thanks to Amazon and other e-commerce platforms. In the 1990s, my parents had to drive to Toys R Us to get my brother a squishy, blood-shot rubber eyeball; I can purchase a similar eyeball and get it delivered by the end of the week. Online shopping also offers a convenient way for far-flung extended family members to send kids more toys. We ask for clothes and college fund money, and despite that, sometimes toys still come in, Randall told me.Even secondhand shopping has leveled up, from yard sales and flea markets to Facebook groups and sites like Mercari that let parents snag some lightly used Legos without leaving the couch.In the 1990s, my parents had to drive to Toys R Us to get my brother a squishy, blood-shot rubber eyeball; I can purchase a similar eyeball and get it delivered by the end of the week.The rise of YouTube over the last 20 years has also changed toy purchasing, with influencers advertising toys and releasing their own lines. Unboxing videos, in which kids or adults film themselves taking toys out of packages, have become a cultural staple, even inspiring the popular Netflix kids show Gabbys Dollhouse (which now has its own branded toys). There are simply more avenues for toy advertising and quasi-advertising today than in decades past, and thanks to features like TikTok Shop more and easier ways to buy them.Changing childhood cultural norms may also be having an effect. More schools are asking parents to distribute small toys instead of cupcakes at childrens birthday parties, in an effort to cut down on sugar, parents tell me. The result is what Davis, the parenting coach, calls the plastic graveyard all these plastic toys that are just showing up from birthday parties and classroom parties in lieu of candy.How many is too many toys?After an initial burst of excitement, a lot of those new toys arent seeing much playtime, experts say.Kids often really only play with a subset of toys, and the other ones are not really that relevant, sociologist Allison Pugh told Vox in an email. In a 2017 study, University of Toledo researchers found that toddlers played longer and more creatively when presented with just four toys than when they had 16 options to choose from (though thats still a far cry from the 100-plus toys many kids actually own). The benefit of having fewer choices is something a lot of early educators understand. If you go into a preschool classroom, theyll have like, three tables set up, and each table will have a specific group of toys, Davis said. Its not too much. Its not overwhelming.Kids favorite toys, meanwhile, tend to be those imbued with social meaning, Pugh said. Kids use toys to connect to other kids sometimes just by owning the same exact thing, sometimes by playing with it together, sometimes by accruing and sharing specialized knowledge about that toy.Playing with others can give meaning even to objects that arent intended as toys at all: My kids once developed an elaborate series of stories about a bunch of rocks that they found, Pugh said.The social aspect of toys isnt always so cute kids can be bullied or feel inferior if they dont have the same toys other kids have, and social comparisons can be painful for children whose parents cant afford new purchases. And while wealthier families may be able to afford pricier toys, lower-income parents sometimes feel so much pressure to buy popular items that theyll go without basic necessities to do so, Pugh has found. But thinking about toys as social objects is also a reminder that playing is what makes a toy a toy if nobody plays with it, its just part of the plastic graveyard. Kids might gravitate at first to the toys with the most bells and whistles like, for example, these cursed electronic stuffies that emit bloodcurdling screams when thrown.Playing is what makes a toy a toy if nobody plays with it, its just part of the plastic graveyard.But toys that do too much often lack stickiness, or the ability to hold kids attention for a long period of time, said Sudha Swaminathan, director of the Center for Early Childhood Education at Eastern Connecticut State University. The stickiest toys are usually simple and open-ended, she said, like blocks or basic animal figures.The toys that kids return to again and again are the ones that require attention, imagination, and creativity, Davis said. For her kids, thats magnetic blocks. For Randalls son, its a set of wooden train tracks left over from her own childhood. I guess I just didnt need to get any modern toys, she said.Realistically, kids are going to ask for toys they saw on YouTube, on the playground, or at a friends house. Theyre going to come home with vials of mysterious green goo that end up in the freezer (maybe this is just my kid). Parents do not control what their kids want, or even always what they get, and it can seem like that control is ebbing further every day.The adults in kids lives can, however, decide when to say yes and when we have to say no. And when all else fails and the clutter gets overwhelming, we can sneak out in the dead of night, while theyre sleeping, as Randall puts it, and get rid of that junk.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:

Ever since Game of Thrones ended in 2019 and what a horrible little ending it was theres been a seemingly never-ending quest to find the next Game of Thrones. What that means is two-fold: a series that captures Game of Throness extensive, fantasy world-building and the drama of political succession and a show dropping on HBOs premier Sunday night spot that everyone wants to talk about the morning after. Dune: Prophecy feels more like that than any other show right now. Loosely based on the 2012 novel Sisterhood of Dune, Prophecy has GoT trappings: political maneuvering among the universes rich families, backstabbing and surprise deaths, conniving villains, and sweaty sex scenes. The struggle to hold power in the Duniverse is just as difficult and deadly as it is in Westeros. And conveniently, it is airing Sunday nights on HBO. But whats won me over in Prophecy is that while its officially all those aforementioned things, its mainly gossipy, ambitious space divas diva-ing ambitiously in space. Granted, Prophecy is yet another chapter of Hollywoods infatuation with IP, but its also yielded a lavish little soap opera where Emily Watson is a super-powered leader of an all-female finishing school for young intergalactic mages. Prophecy is about just how dangerous women in STEM that is, sorcery, transmutation, eugenics, and mothering can be. Prophecy takes place at the very beginning 10,148 years before Paul Atreides is born. Played by Timothe Chalamet in Denis Villeneuves two Dune movies, Paul Atreides is the anchor for all casual fans. Both Dune films chronicle his journey fleeing home after an assault wipes out almost all of his family and those loyal to the Atreides clan, and then becoming a refugee on Arrakis (a.k.a. the desert planet known as Dune), where he assimilates into the Fremen, an indigenous people oppressed by the same Imperium that slaughtered his loved ones. Paul is, according to premonition by a sisterhood of precognitive, super-powered women known as the Bene Gesserit, a messiah who will rule the universe. Zooming into 10,000 years B.P. (before Paul), Prophecy takes aim, as the title suggests, at the formation of that very important Bene Gesserit revelation and the Bene Gesserit themselves. How did these space divas become so powerful? Who are they? What do they believe in? Whats their purpose? Are they always kinda mean? Their reason for existing, like so many other suspicious organizations, is slightly based in eugenics. Oh no. Mother Raquella (Cathy Tyson), their founder, has been keeping a vast archive of DNA of the most powerful families in the universe. Her belief is that humans are fallible, feeble creatures that will always careen toward their own destruction. By matching up families based on this archive, Raquella believes she and her sisters can breed leaders they can control and influence the endpoint being Paul Atreides. To ensure even more influence over people and their futures, Raquella has created a school for future space witches on the desolate planet called Wallach IX, where sorceresses-in-training learn powers like being able to clock when someone is lying or blood magic soothsaying. Raquella calls proteges Truthsayers, and these skills make them very valuable. Soon every ruling family in the universe wants a Truthsayer by their side. Look me in the eye and tell me you dont want to gossip with this diva! HBOWhat those aristocrats dont know is that though their Truthsayer seems to integrate into their houses and customs, their actual loyalty is to the Bene Gesserit sisterhood.Theres a certain political commentary here, too, about whos allowed to rule the great houses of Dune, what roles women are confined to, and how the Bene Gesserit turn womens social limitations and underestimations to their advantage. Prophecy begins with Raquellas death, finding a faction of her acolytes who think the eugenics stuff is kinda icky, while her most devout follower, the ruthless Valya Harkonnen (played by Jessica Barden in youth, but mainly by Emily), thinks it actually rules. But even though we know Valya and her sisters succeeded in bending the future to bring us Paul, a lot can happen in 10,000 years. Prophecys biggest achievement is how it manages to cut through the density of the Dune universe. Its not an easy task to take all the complexities of Frank Herberts extensive world and make it accessible. But Prophecy does so, primarily, by framing this immense society and all the relationships within, as gossip. That makes Valya and her sisters the universes gossip girls. If you wanted to draw a comparison between this HBO fantasy show about politics, power, and a throne and HBOs previously, hugely popular fantasy show about politics, power, and a throne, Prophecy is like if Game of Thrones was told through the eyes of Varys, Littlefinger, or Olenna Tyrell players with no explicit power but who know how the game is played. Prophecy is about how the whispers can influence the world, and about who powerful people listen to. And that the politics of Dune and politics in general can be much more riveting when you realize so much of it is about whos trash-talking who. Heavy spoilers for the first episode of Dune: Prophecy follow.Whether its half princes who have no right to the throne or the messiness of House Corrino the rulers of the Imperium with their shaky grasp on the production of spice (the most valuable resource in the Duniverse), each episode boils down to Valya and her girlies talking about everyone else, and how they intend to manipulate them. At one point in the premiere, Valya and her sister Tula (Olivia Williams) have a private bitch session. Like evil sorority sisters, they coldly go up and down their list of acolytes, pointing out their strengths and faults, usefulness and uselessness. Brows furrow, lips purse, and side-eyes are flicked deliciously. Valya and Tula need to figure out which sister to match with Ynez Corrino (Sarah-Sofie Boussnina), the princess they want to sway to the Bene Gesserit. In the process, theyre more than happy to list off all the hopefuls who wont make the cut. Watson imbues Valya with the warmth of gazpacho and the charm of a cursed porcelain doll. Unwavering from Raquellas mission, Valya has the pieces in play to keep the entire system running. Thanks to her loyal truthsayer Kasha (Jihae), she has a hold on House Corrino, and has just signed a deal to bring Ynez to her school. Shes also used her connections to broker a marriage between Ynez and a boy a literal 9-year-old from House Richese, a powerful family that promises Corrino the artillery they need to keep spice production intact. The Bene Gesserit are no doubt banking on that future heir to be favorably malleable. But Valyas plan seems to be going up in smoke with the arrival of Desmond Hart (Travis Fimmel), a Corrino loyalist and survivor of whats supposedly a Fremen attack on Arrakis. As Hart tells Emperor Javicco Corrino (Mark Strong), the reports coming from the region arent the entire truth. Since there arent many survivors like Hart, Corrino has to rely on secondhand stories that pin the casualties on Fremen. Hart tells the Emperor that no one including Corrinos loyal Truthsayer Kasha, Valya, and their sisters can be trusted. As Corrino decides whether to weigh Harts word versus the loyalty Kasha and the Bene Gesserit have pledged to him, someone the episode doesnt show us who gives Corrino surveillance footage of Hart on Arrakis that shows him surviving the attack but also, and more intriguingly, being swallowed by a sand worm. The episode ends with Hart assassinating 9-year-old Pruwet Richese (Charlie Hodson-Prior) by roasting him with mind powers. He seemingly burns Kasha to death as well. In Dune: Prophecy, theres a finishing school for gifted and talented future space witches! HBOHarts arrival and pyrokineses seems to be what Raquella refers to (earlier in the episode) as the Tiran-Arafel, a holy judgment that will demolish the sisterhood. But at this point its unclear whether Hart represents the big bad Bene Gesserit destroyer that Raquella had visions about, or may be connected to Bene Gesserits other enemies. As my colleague Patrick Reis explained when Dune: Part Two was released, the Bene Gesserit have counterparts known as Bene Tleilax, a patriarchal set of genetic splicers and cloners who are also itching to control the universe. Its not that far-fetched to believe that they might exist in this universe too. No doubt, for Valya and her sisterhood to thrive, Hart needs to be squashed. Hes clearly a threat. The closer he gets to Javicco, the worse it looks for our space witches. We just need a bit more time, some gossip, and maybe a few more episodes to figure out if hes the big bad Raquella dreamed about, or just another piece of the puzzle that leads us to it.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: Culture

Inside this storyThe storm damage in western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene swept through on September 27 was immense. More than 1,000 bridges, some 5,000 miles of state-owned roads, 160 water and sewage systems, and an estimated 126,000 homes were damaged or destroyed. At least 100 people were killed, and about 20 more were still missing as of mid-October. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper estimated it would cost a record-breaking $53 billion to repair damage and cover all recovery needs. Its little surprise that in the weeks after the storm, grassroots response efforts inundated the region. Driving south from Bakersville into Asheville, nearly every church, grocery store, gas station, firehouse, and strip mall parking lot had been converted to some sort of supply distribution point or relief hub. Schools, agricultural centers, and abandoned gyms served as American Red Cross shelters housing nearly 1,000 people who lost their homes. Hand-painted signs pointing the way to a hot meal or free supplies dotted the roads. Droves of volunteers descended on downed trees with chainsaws, hacking a path through to isolated mountain communities and houses. With so many roadways damaged or simply washed away, nurses, paramedics, and other volunteers with medical training mounted ATVs to conduct welfare checks. Others loaded up mules and walked supplies into the mountains. Elsewhere, volunteers packed into neighborhoods to muck out homes removing water-damaged items, gutting houses down to their studs, and disinfecting remaining surfaces to prevent mold and help the house dry out before it could be rebuilt. Nonprofit organizations such as Operation Airdrop and individuals with military experience flew around in privately owned helicopters conducting rescue operations and airdropping supplies to people cut off from toppled roadways. In the first two weeks after Hurricane Helene, there was a constant whir of helicopters flying overhead. Its been like a war zone, a Swannanoa resident told Vox.But amid this deluge of goodwill and generosity pouring into western North Carolina, something sinister was also brewing: misinformation and outright false accusations about federal relief efforts, particularly about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Volunteers organize clothing, food, and other donated supplies at a gas station in October in Swannanoa, North Carolina.One Facebook post claimed the Biden administration reallocated some $1 billion in funds from disaster relief to house illegal immigrants, leaving FEMA underfunded to help hurricane relief and response efforts. Another rumor was that FEMA was limiting financial assistance for disaster survivors to $750 and that recipients would eventually have to repay those funds or risk losing their homes. Both claims were false, according to FEMA. The initial payout was meant to allow survivors to cover any urgent needs such as prescription medicine they lost during the storm, said Elizabeth Zimmerman, a former director of disaster operations at FEMA and now a senior executive advisor at IEM, an emergency management company.How I reported thisI live on the eastern coast of North Carolina, so when I heard about the news of the devastation in the western part of the state, I knew that I wanted to cover the community response there.Criticism over FEMAs slow response had been flying around on social media, and volunteers were reporting that locals were hesitant to come forward to receive aid. So I drove the six hours west to meet with residents, local politicians, first responders, and volunteers to hear about their experiences during and after the storm.That money is not going to be taken back from anybody, Zimmerman said. It is not a loan. And thats just the beginning. Even just two weeks after the hurricane blew through, some homeowners told Vox they had already been promised additional assistance, in the realm of $40,000, to help rebuild their homes. This misinformation has occasionally hindered relief efforts.During the weekend of October 12, there was a rumor among residents and FEMA staff that armed militias were threatening FEMA staff, which led the agency to briefly pause some of its response activities. The Rutherford County Sheriffs Office later arrested and charged a man who made public comments about harming FEMA employees. Late in October, local police in Tennessee also reported they were investigating reports of armed groups who were harassing hurricane relief workers. Beyond the outright false statements swirling on social media, much of the confusion and criticism comes down to a misunderstanding of how disaster response works, according to Brock Long, a former head of FEMA who now serves as the executive chair at Hagerty Consulting, an emergency management consulting firm. Many erroneously believe that FEMA is ultimately responsible for all relief and recovery efforts. People think its just FEMA comes in and they take over, Zimmerman said. They do not take over. They cannot take over.Even in a disaster the scale of Hurricane Helene, FEMA plays only a small role in the much larger recovery and relief effort. Its a team sport, Long said, and there are four major players: local county and state governments, the federal government, the private sector, and most importantly, the bedrock of disaster response volunteers. Misinformation in the wake of a natural disaster is nothing new, but prolonged power and cell service outages have made it worse. The erosion of local media and reliance on unverified information on social media has also exacerbated the misinformation crisis; if unchecked, it will continue to complicate future disaster response efforts. Understanding how disaster response really works and empowering volunteers and communities to be more prepared for these catastrophes will help us be more resilient in the face of threats.How disaster response worksLocal county and state governments are ultimately responsible for managing disaster recovery and relief efforts. However, in many cases and particularly in remote places like rural western North Carolina there are limited financial and human resources for disaster response, and counties can quickly become overwhelmed. An affected county government can reach out to neighboring counties for additional resources, be it manpower or equipment. If that influx of additional support is not sufficient, county governments can then ask the state government for assistance. If the resources available at the state level are still not enough to meet the needs of disaster-affected communities, the governor can then request assistance from FEMA. The FEMA administrator then gets in touch with the National Security Council at the White House to request that the president declare an emergency or major disaster declaration. This process can all happen within days or even hours. In the case of Hurricane Helene, the Biden administration approved an emergency declaration for North Carolina on September 26, the same day Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida. Once an emergency declaration has been approved, it unlocks a huge influx of federal funds. FEMA has doled out more than $200 million to individuals and households for recovery, according to a FEMA spokesperson. The US Department of Transportation has also allocated $100 million to rebuild bridges and roads in the state. Cooper has also proposed to provide an additional $3.9 billion in state funds for recovery efforts. In addition to federal funds, an emergency authorization also allows FEMA to tap into an entire family of federal agencies, including the National Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Energy, Education, and Transportation, among others. All federal agencies involved in disaster response, alongside representatives from major volunteer organizations such as the American Red Cross, convene in the National Response Coordination Center at FEMAs headquarters in Washington, with additional coordination at regional headquarters and disaster-affected states. At each location, staff and volunteers work to identify community needs, recruit personnel, procure critical equipment and material items, and coordinate the overall response.The Maryland National Guard delivers supplies to Spruce Pine, North Carolina.What this all means is that FEMA plays more of a high-level management and coordinator role that supports the state. It is not, as it is often believed to be and blamed when it fails to be, the final authority on disaster response. The way that disaster [response] works is that theyre typically locally executed, state managed, and federally supported, Long said. But local, state, and federal governments are still just one of four major groups that help communities recover from disasters. Another key player is the private sector: the power, water, and communications companies, private health care facilities, and other businesses that own and operate local infrastructure that might need to be repaired and reopened following a disaster. About 1 million people in North Carolina lost power immediately after Hurricane Helene. At the time of writing, nearly 2,000 people in the state were still without power and more than 150,000 people were either without water or remain under boil-water mandates. In some of the hardest to reach areas, volunteer and relief workers told me power may not be restored until January. While FEMA often takes the heat when these services arent rapidly restored, the agency does not actually have any jurisdiction over this work, Long said. For all the importance of local, state, and federal government agencies and private sector companies in disaster response, volunteers, churches, and community-based groups are even more vital.The most important tool in the toolbox when it comes to response and recovery are the volunteer organizations active in disaster, Long said. The people who make up disaster responseIn the two weeks following Hurricane Helene, there was such an influx of food, water, and other supplies to western North Carolina that churches and volunteer groups on the ground were running out of storage space and were turning away donations. It demonstrated how, despite all the focus on the federal government, volunteers are the bedrock of disaster relief. They can quickly amass huge amounts of supplies and deploy resources to any area of the country long before state and federal governments have completed their bureaucratic processes to mobilize a response. Related:A lot of times, state and local and federal governments have to adhere to big, bulky laws, policies, and concepts, but the volunteer organizations active in disaster do not, Long said. And so a lot of times the most effective use of the volunteer organizations is pointing them in the right direction of the citizens needs that cannot be fulfilled by the federal government.Most major volunteer groups that help with disaster recovery and response are part of a formal coalition, the Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD). There is a national VOAD as well as associations for each US state and territory. While disaster relief and recovery efforts will always be a bit of organized chaos with well-meaning individuals and groups pouring in from around the country, these coalitions help to coordinate volunteer activities; ensure that funds, equipment, and people are evenly distributed across a disaster area; and reduce the duplication of efforts. Perhaps more importantly, many volunteers and organizations that are leading relief efforts are from affected areas, which is crucial for the kind of long-term recovery and rebuilding needed after a catastrophe of this magnitude. Immediately after a major disaster like Helene, there is a huge influx of donations and volunteers, but after a few months, the disaster fades from news headlines. Donations dwindle, while volunteers from the opposite side of the country stop coming or divert to another disaster. But local volunteers stay for the months or even years that it takes to rebuild their communities. In the parking lot of First Baptist Church in Swannanoa, on the eastern outskirts of Asheville, Dana Williams, 44, a neonatal ICU nurse from nearby Henderson County, has been volunteering at a makeshift medical clinic providing care to locals. She arrived four days after the hurricane hit, after being trapped in her home by downed trees. Im a nurse at heart. Im a fixer. I want to help always. And so the first couple of days after the storm, we were stuck at the house. I felt so useless, Williams said. For years, whenever there would be a major disaster somewhere, I would wish I could go and help those people. Never in a million years did I think it would happen in my own backyard.When Williams arrived at the makeshift clinic, other nurses had set out a folding table; with little more than a box full of blood pressure cuffs and ibuprofen, they started providing any kind of care they could. Initially, it was just very grassroots, Williams said. I mean, we started here and we were like, Were just going to see what people need and what we can do. Were hands; were bodies. We have medical training.At first, the nurses mostly provided first aid and trauma care, treating wounds and respiratory infections and rashes from the dirt and mud that pervaded the entire town after the storm. The volunteers worked to replace prescription medications that had been lost during the storm and to make sure that people who depended on oxygen had fresh tanks. The nurses also provided some basic medical education, making sure that everyone in the area, long accustomed to being able to drink from their local creek, knew that the water was now contaminated because of the flooding. Over time, the group of volunteers also started focusing on treating people with chronic diseases, while working toward ensuring that people had access to specialty health care services disrupted by the storm, such as chemotherapy. The nurses also connected with the American Red Cross and other larger organizations and started procuring and distributing medical supplies across the region. Donations poured in, and Williams has been able to procure even the most niche medical devices. Neonatal ICU nurse Dana Williams has been volunteering at a makeshift medical clinic at a church on the eastern outskirts of Asheville providing care to local residents.Williams is committed to volunteering until all needs are met. She is storing extra medical supplies in her home garage. Recently, she started working toward building a similar volunteer clinic in Bat Cave, a rural area hard hit by the hurricane that has been almost completely cut off from aid. And while Williams is committed, she recognizes that churches and businesses that have loaned out their buildings and parking lots for relief efforts will at some point want to return to business as usual. They have to get back to being the businesses that they are to survive now, Williams said. But I think if it becomes necessary, as time goes on, I think people are gonna be like, Okay, we need to do this for this community Mountain people are a different breed, and when the call goes out in two months, they will all show up again, just like this. So I dont have any concerns that anybodys going to be left behind. I think that everybody who has been involved to this point, we know that this is not a days or weeks endeavor.Even before the storm, there was a lack of medical care and a shortage of health care workers across western North Carolina. All 16 counties that make up the region had a shortage of primary care health workers, eight had no practicing psychiatrist, and seven had no OB-GYNs, according to the Mountain Area Health Education Center, a nonprofit regional medical provider. Lenore Ellis, program director at the Center for Rural Health Innovation, told me almost everyone in need of specialized services had to travel to Asheville or into Tennessee. Many schools relied on telehealth services to help kids see a provider. Williams hopes that hurricane relief efforts will eventually lead to long-term improvements in local health care. I didnt realize what the community needs really were because its just a whole different perspective when you spend your career inside the walls of the hospital, she said. Swannanoa and other small towns nestled in the Appalachian Mountains need more primary care and general practitioners but also affordable access to specialists such as oncologists. Free care would be wonderful because a lot of these people are going to need free care for a long time, and that wasnt really accessible here before, she said.Learning how to respond better to the next disasterAriel Morris, 26, had only lived in Beacon Village, a Swannanoa neighborhood, for about three months before the hurricane blew in. Morris recalled that in the early morning hours of September 27, as Helene descended on the area, there was at first just a lot of rain and wind, like any other bad storm coming through. But then, we got a little bit too much, and then the Montreat Dam and the Bee Tree Dam both let out at the exact same time at the height of the storm, Morris recalled. There are about 20 homes in the Beacon Village neighborhood. Half of them, including the house where Morris was staying with her mom, sat on a slight elevation. When the dams overflowed, the other half of the neighborhood flooded within minutes. Around 7 am that day, Morris and some of her neighbors heard people screaming for help. When they looked down toward the yelling, they saw their neighbors standing on their roofs or clutching their chimneys as their cars and sheds rushed by them. Morriss neighbor, John Arndt, a recreational kayaker from Oregon, grabbed some rope and jumped in one of the kayaks stored outside his house and paddled out to people and pulled them toward an island of higher ground where Morris and other neighbors had gathered. Morris told her mom to keep calling 911 until someone answered but she couldnt get through or the operator hung up on her. Finally, someone answered only to say, Were flooded with calls. Please stop calling.Another neighbor pulled off his insulin pump, jumped barefoot into one of Arndts other kayaks without even a lifejacket, and also started rescuing people, sometimes hacking through roofs to free people trapped in their attic. In all, Arndt and his neighbor rescued 15 people, 10 pets, and a bearded dragon, Morris said. One elderly neighbor couldnt hang on to the kayak long enough to be pulled out of the floodwaters so Arndt and his neighbor wrapped her in a tarp and blankets and waited for help to arrive, but it wasnt until around 6 pm that firefighters from Wilmington, on the eastern coast of North Carolina, arrived and took over the rescue operations.As a kayaker, Arndt had some training to rescue people from whitewater rivers, not necessarily from massive flooding. Ive been involved in rescues kayaking, but you dont have cars and tires floating past you and power lines and alarms going off and a bunch of different people yelling, Arndt said. Local residents who were renting a home that was flooded during Hurricane Helene survey the damage in their front yard in October 2024.Locals and communities are the last major players in disaster response, according to Long, but not all communities are well-equipped to respond when disaster strikes. National surveys have revealed that about 50 percent of Americans know how to do CPR, but only around 20 percent are up to date with the training. A FEMA survey reported that only 51 percent of Americans feel prepared for a disaster. Why do we allow people to graduate from some of the most prestigious universities in the state of North Carolina and still not know how to do CPR or invest $1 toward retirement or become financially resilient? Long asked. Weve got to get citizens to realize that in any situation, you are the true first responder, until the official first responder arrives, and theres always a time gap. Are you trained for the first five to six minutes of any emergency situation in your household or out in public? he added.There is also a nationwide shortage of emergency medical technicians, an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed. But poorly prepared civilians and a lack of first responders are only two challenges. All the key players involved in disaster response need to reform and improve. I think down the road, we really need to have a conversation around what are the core capabilities that should exist at the local, state, and federal levels, Long said. How do we better utilize the resources of nonprofits? How do we increase tangible skills within our citizenry? It starts with neighbor helping neighbor all the way to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.According to Long, one way to strengthen community-level disaster response is for Congress to start incentivizing local jurisdictions and states for prioritizing preparedness, for instance by passing and enforcing strong building codes, having disaster-cognizant land-use plans, and not building infrastructure on vulnerable land. The North Carolina government has not fully implemented updated building codes which require better flood and wind protection in homes and that has caused the state to lose out on some $70 million in disaster preparedness funds from FEMA.Some nonprofit disaster response organizations offer various types of training for civilians, but there is no formal state or federal programming or earmarked funding for these efforts.Until individuals, communities, local and state governments, federal agencies, and private companies come together to strengthen disaster preparedness, then response efforts will be lacking, and that will cost lives. Storms are not the only disasters we face. We have to be able to build dynamic capability at all levels to be able to handle different disasters, from cyberattacks to hurricanes, Long said. 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:

In the wake of Donald Trumps victory in the 2024 presidential election, some couples planning same-sex weddings have begun to panic, worried they could lose the right to marry. An engaged wedding planner wrote in Vogue how she and her friends plan to move up their weddings; a chaplain in Iowa is helping dozens of couples plan for accelerated nuptials; advocates say theyre seeing an uptick in concern about marriage rights.People are very worried, no question about that, Jennifer Pizer, chief legal officer for LGBTQ rights group Lambda Legal, told Vox. These worries stem from attacks that Trump and his allies have made on LGBTQ rights, though the president-elect did not directly target same-sex marriage during his campaign. Trump instead made anti-trans policy a focal point of his rhetoric, and changes to LGBTQ rights appear more likely to focus on rolling back protections for trans people rather than the elimination of same-sex marriage. Related:There are also two safeguards in place a Supreme Court ruling and federal law that make any attack that might come on same-sex marriage, whether from the executive branch or elsewhere, tougher to make. Two major factors, however, have LGBTQ advocates concerned. The first is the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriage is protected in part by the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision. Previously, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito openly expressed that theyd like to revisit the 2015 Obergefell decision which established a federal right to marriage equality.The other members of the Court havent attacked Obergefell in their writings, as Thomas and Alito have, and its not clear if theres a court majority to overturn the decision. However, there is always the possibility that Trump could expand the Courts conservative majority during his next term and if (a decently sized if, given their ages) he were able to replace some of the Courts liberal justices, he could elevate more judges in line with Thomas and Alito.The second is that Trumps allies from the religious right could lobby him to take a stance against same-sex marriage. Again, Trump himself has not explicitly targeted same-sex marriage, and has said the decision was settled. But other prominent Republicans, including those in his orbit like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), have said they felt Obergefell was wrongly decided. Some prominent conservative policy documents meant to influence the next Trump administration have also alluded to same-sex marriages in negative ways. For instance, the Heritage Foundations conservative policy blueprint Project 2025 claims in a chapter with ideas for the Department of Health and Human Services that social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability. (Though Project 2025 cited some studies to support this claim, many refute it.)That said, LGBTQ advocates note that marriage equality seems less likely to be a chief target of the president-elect in the near term. I think theres reason for people to be watching how things unfold, [but also] not assuming that eliminating the freedom to marry is a top agenda item for the incoming administration, says Pizer. What protections does same-sex marriage have?Same-sex marriage was established by Obergefell, and Congress passed additional (though limited) protections for it in 2022.In order for same-sex marriage to get rolled back during the Trump administration, the Supreme Court and Congress would have to act. Again, while some prominent Republicans have made their opposition to same-sex marriage clear, there does not appear to be overwhelming GOP demand that the practice be outlawed. However, if it were to be banned, heres what would have to happen. First, the Supreme Court would have to overturn Obergefell. It isnt yet evident that a sufficient number of justices want to reverse this decision, though notably most of the dissenting voices in that case are still on the Court, while most of the majority voices are gone. (As Voxs Ian Millhiser has reported, it appears Justice Neil Gorsuch could side with Alito and Thomas on overturning the ruling if given the chance, but its less certain where the other conservative justices fall.)If the Court did overturn Obergefell, the legality of same-sex marriage would fall to the states, with each state making its own policy. People in 32 states where there are still same-sex marriage bans on the books could lose the right to marry, and be forced to travel somewhere else to do so. To further undo protections for same-sex marriage, the courts or Congressional Republicans would also have to repeal 2022s Respect for Marriage Act. That law requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages, though it does not require all states to issue marriage licenses. It also repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which previously stated that all marriages are between a man and a woman, and mandates federal recognition of same-sex marriage. If Obergefell was overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act would guarantee that someone who marries in a state that allows same-sex marriage, like California, could move to a state that has a ban in place, like Arkansas, and still have their marriage be legally recognized. It would not require states like Arkansas to marry same-sex couples in the state, however. There are ways the Respect for Marriage Act could be struck down too, though theyre unlikely. The law could be repealed by Congress, for example, which will be narrowly controlled by Republicans. That seems less probable because of the Republican support it received when it passed in 2022, and because the legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate, where the GOP majority is slim. The law could also be challenged in court by states arguing that Congress overstepped its authority in telling them how to handle marriages, though its also not clear if that would be successful. The death of Obergefell and the Respect for Marriage Act represent the worst-case scenarios for marriage equality. Its possible that both could advance in the next four years. But at the moment, neither appears to be a primary aim for the incoming administration. 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:

With President-elect Donald Trumps latest slate of extreme or controversial nominees Rep. Matt Gaetz for attorney general, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services secretary has come the question about whether even a Republican-controlled Senate will actually confirm them all.But what if thats asking the wrong question? What if Trump has no intention of asking the Senates permission?Throughout the transition, Trump has made several references to his intent to use recess appointments to get his appointees in place more quickly. This refers to a longstanding presidential power to fill jobs that typically require Senate confirmation if Congress is in recess. The Constitution included that power in an era when reconvening a recessed Congress would take months of travel time; more recently, presidents have used it to get around Senate opposition for certain picks.Yet Trumps references to recess appointments were vague, and it was unclear exactly why he sounded so insistent on them. The new Congress would not need to recess for some time. The Senate surely would consider his top nominees quickly. The new Republican majority would likely be deferential to most of his choices, and the Democratic minority has no power to actually block any of them. So why would recess appointments be necessary so soon?We got a potential clue about what Trump may have in mind when the well-connected conservative legal activist Ed Whelan heard a rumor.Hope its wrong, Whelan wrote on X Wednesday, but Im hearing through the grapevine about this bonkers plan: Trump would adjourn both Houses of Congress under Article II, section 3, and then recess-appoint his Cabinet. This may sound technical, but it would amount to a massive power grab: Trump would be forcing the Senate into a recess. This would mean that, for many of the most important posts in the federal government, Trump could simply ignore the Senate, thumbing his nose at the body to impose everyone he wanted, no matter how corrupt, extreme, or controversial they are.Moreover, it would mean Trump would be choosing to crash headlong into one of the biggest guardrails constraining the presidents authority: the Senates confirmation powers. If Trump were to try this and get away with it, Senate confirmation powers would effectively no longer exist.Currently, this remains in the rumor stage, and if it is truly something being considered by Trump, it remains unclear whether hed go through with it. But it makes a lot of sense. It may reflect the influence of Elon Musk and the Silicon Valley right in Trumps camp its a risky, norm-shattering attempt to disrupt the way politics, governance, and presidential power work. (Musk has indeed been tweeting about recess appointments.) It would mean starting off Trumps term with a high-stakes showdown and certain litigation with no one certain about exactly how things would play out.Why this recess appointment plot would be different than past recess appointment controversiesRecess appointments have been the subject of political and legal controversy in the past.In 2012, President Barack Obama was frustrated at the Republican Senate minoritys constant filibusters of many of his key nominations. (At the time, 60 votes were needed to get nominees past a filibuster; rule changes have since lowered that threshold to a simple majority.) He wanted to use recess appointments to fill some posts, but Republicans were blocking the Senate from going into recess at all. Even though nearly everyone left town, they continued to hold pro forma sessions where nothing actually happened.So Obama decided to just do recess appointments anyway, filling three National Labor Relations Board seats and the directorship of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The administration argued that the pro forma sessions were fake and Congress was actually in recess; therefore, Obama could do recess appointments. But the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his argument, saying it was up to Congress to determine whether it was in recess.Trumps plan would be far more brazen.The Constitution states that during a congressional session, both chambers of Congress must consent if they want to adjourn Congress for more than three days. But it also says that in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, the president may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.In laypersons terms, that would seem to say that if the House and Senate disagree on when to adjourn, the president can force them to do so. This power has never been used by the president.But according to Whelans sources in the conservative legal movement, this is the plan Trumps team is putting together. First, Trump would get the House of Representatives under Speaker Mike Johnson to propose adjourning Congress. Then, if the Senate refused to do so, President Trump would step in, saying that because the two chambers disagreed, hed use his power to force the Senate to adjourn. He would then make recess appointments to his hearts content.Such appointments would then inevitably be challenged in court, and the Supreme Court would eventually determine whether they were legal.Whelan has gone public because hes appalled by this idea. Its a fundamental general feature of our system of separated powers that the president shall submit his nominations for major offices to the Senate for approval, he wrote in National Review. That feature plays a vital role in helping to ensure that the president makes quality picks.If Trump pulled this off, it would be an utter humiliation for incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Republican senators generally it basically would be taking a wrecking ball to the power of the Senate. The scheme would also require, as Whelan points out, the cooperation of Speaker Johnson and his House majority. But it is far from clear whether Republicans in either chamber or the courts have the inclination or the spine to stand up to an unprecedented power grab by Trump. And the rumors of it bode ill for other Trumpian abuses of power that will surely lie ahead.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: Politics

After last weeks presidential election, something unusual started happening in my neighborhood: On a walk to a wine bar on November 11, I saw stoops lined with pine garlands next to skeletons and spider webs, relics from Halloween a mere week and a half prior. Someone had set up two life-size nutcrackers on their front porch; someone elses brownstone windows offered a peep into their living room, where a fully lit Christmas tree was already aglow inside. But according to people all over the country, it wasnt just my neighborhood. The early start to the most festive season seemed to be a reaction to what else the results of the election, which plunged many Americans into an uncanny mood they havent experienced since the last time Donald Trump was elected in 2016. Or, as Massachusetts social worker Dylana Becker put it: Holiday lights because my daughter may have no fucking rights.Becker started putting up Christmas decor on November 6th. Rachael Kay Albers, a marketing professional in Chicago, told me she just bought a 10-foot tree, not even on sale, with the philosophy, Fuck it, its time for twinkles. Rachel Lewis, a social media manager in North Carolina, erected an inflatable penguin on her roof that same week. Our neighbor said, Isnt it early? And we said No, its not.Much like how interest in elaborate skincare routines exploded in the wake of Trumps 2016 election, Americans seem to be diverting their anxieties into holiday cheer, if only by sheer force. Its not exactly a mystery as to why: In uncertain times, we seek escape and comfort, and nothing occupies a cozier or more nostalgic place in the American imagination than Christmas. Couple that with a late Thanksgiving, and people are seeing little point in waiting for the turkey to be done to put up their trees. For some, Christmas came even before the polls closed. Mia Moran, a childrens book editor in Queens, said she went shopping for Christmas pillows at Target in early November. This year it just feels like we needed something, she tells me. [Christmas] is a good outlet, and also a neutral sense of pure joy. Its not charged in any way. Its ironic, considering the decades-long right-wing mania about the supposed war on Christmas by the media establishment. This year, for the first time in recent memory, perhaps its the left whos more fervently embracing the holiday. When the polls close in your state, you are officially allowed to begin playing Christmas music, tweeted First Amendment lawyer Adam Steinbaugh on the evening of the election. After it became clear Trump was winning, comedian Mike Drucker posted, Im listening to Christmas music starting tomorrow cuz fuck this shit.According to the Wall Street Journal, forcing holiday spirit is a healthy response to election stress, one that beats sitting there saying, Oh my god, this is an existential threat to the world and Im going to enter a doom and gloom loop, explained Kevin Smith, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Its also entirely possible that it isnt just the election thats caused this years bout of Christmas creep, a term thats been discussed and debated since the 1980s. The phenomenon itself has existed far longer, however: Early Christmas sales (and complaints about them) can be traced back to the Victorian era. Its typical for customers to be annoyed by businesses using far-off holidays as marketing tools. Whats less common is for Americans to seemingly all agree, individually, that the time for twinkle lights is now. This year, per Axios, retail experts say that holiday deals are starting early partly because of the fact that there are five fewer days between Black Friday and Christmas this year, and partly because of election uncertainty. Lowes, for instance, launched its holiday decor line in July, a month earlier than the year before, while Amazon moved its Prime Day up to early October. Americas favorite coping mechanism has always been buying stuff, and if Christmas spending is any indication, weve been getting steadily more anxious for years. The National Retail Federation expects the typical consumer will spend $902 on Christmas gifts and decor, up $25 from last year, reports Business Insider. Prophecy Market Insights projects that the Christmas decoration industry will nearly double in the next decade, from $8.45 billion in 2024 to $13 billion in 2034. Charles Scheland, a professional modern dancer in Manhattan, says that in addition to putting up his tree, string lights, and nutcracker statue, hes also already started pulling his favorite Christmas music to teach in his dance classes. He says that part of that is due to the shock and disappointment of what began as a galvanizing Democratic campaign. I really think that the joy of the Harris campaign and the optimism of that movement got people excited, and to have that so deafening crushed, people just want to get some of that joy, he says. Theres also another reason for the skip from Halloween to Christmas, he posits. Thanksgiving is a tricky holiday because it is often celebrated with extended family, and sometimes we dont agree with our extended family. So rather than getting into the trickier holiday, were just jumping ahead to the next.In the years since 2020, holidays, and to an even greater extent, seasons, have become celebrations not just IRL in the form of decor and activities, but online. People on TikTok and Instagram began to document their winter arcs, their Meg Ryan falls, and their hot girl summers as a way of marking the passage of time when it seemed like the only way to feel alive was watching someone elses life through a screen. As Ive argued before, dividing ones life into seasons and leaning heavily into seasonal aesthetics is a way of romanticizing your life while also dissociating from it, a potentially useful tool when it feels like nothing makes sense. Im not immune, either. After my unexpectedly festive neighborhood walk, two wines deep, I decided that I absolutely needed to make a reservation at one of those bars in Manhattan where they deck it out with festive decor for the month of December. In most respects, these are miserable establishments the kind of bars that are overpriced and crowded to the point of sweltering, places marketed with the promise of quaintness and communal cheer but mostly exist as traps for tourists to take photos in. But in that moment, being surrounded by a million twinkling wreaths and giant red bows and exhausted holiday shoppers from New Jersey sounded like not the worst place to be. In fact, I could think of much worse things: a decaying democracy, or a man investigated for sex crimes being installed as attorney general, for instance. So screw it, its Christmas now. May we all find merriment where we can.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: Culture

In 2004, life as a Democrat was pretty bleak.The party lost a presidential election to George W. Bush for a second time. Adding insult to injury, Democratic nominee John Kerry lost the popular vote. The party was seemingly losing ground, after having won the popular vote in 2000 and losing the Electoral College thanks only to an exceedingly close (and contested) loss in Florida. It was a different world back then, but Democrats sensed that voters resoundingly had rejected what they had to offer even while running against a Republican candidate broadly considered vulnerable.In 2024, life as a Democrat is pretty bleak in many of the same ways it was two decades ago. Ballots are still being counted after the presidential election, but the Democratic presidential nominee is on track to lose the popular vote for the first time in 20 years.Related:The lefts comforting myth about why Harris lostThat popular vote loss has forced a broader reckoning: Winning the popular vote acted as a kind of salve: Yes, the Electoral College may have delivered Bush and Trump the presidency, but on some level, their administrations were illegitimate, unsanctioned by the popular will, said Nicole Hemmer, a political historian at Vanderbilt University focused on media, conservatism, and the presidency.Without a but the popular vote fallback, Democrats are confronting a harsh reality. For the first time since 2004, this election felt like an embrace of conservatism, albeit a much different kind of conservatism than the one associated with the 2004 winner, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabatos Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Now, as in 2004, Democrats are engaging in what can be generously viewed as introspection (or, less generously, a circular firing squad) to chart a new course back to power and assess what went so very wrong this time around. The blame for that is up for debate: It may have been the economy, Democrats embrace of wokeness, President Joe Bidens decision to run for a second term, the fact that many Americans actually liked what Trump was selling, or any number of other factors.Though it may take months for what specifically went wrong to become clearer, the 2004 election and its aftermath might provide some insight into how Democrats can move forward.After all, four years after the Bush-Kerry debacle, Democrats won the 2008 election in a landslide, with Barack Obama beating John McCain by nearly 10 million votes and entering the White House with massive congressional majorities at his back.What Democrats today can learn from the partys loss in 2004 There are obvious differences between 2004 and 2024. The aughts election was dominated by 9/11 and the Global War on Terror that followed. This year, those topics barely registered, while Trump and Bidens respective records, the economy, and the culture wars took center stage. Further, Kerrys campaign started with winning a very competitive primary, whereas Vice President Kamala Harris took over after Biden stepped aside and gave her his endorsement.But the vibes among Democrats are similar, and what they do next may determine whether they see a revival in the 2026 midterms and the elections that follow.Overall, Democrats took three lessons from 2004. Whether one believes those lessons apply to 2024 depends, in large part, on what one believes went wrong for Harris in her loss to Trump. But, given Democrats successful recovery from 2004, its a history lesson worth taking.1) They pursued a 50-state strategyFollowing the 2004 loss, a popular meme rocketed around the (still somewhat nascent) internet: a map that depicted the Democratic United States of Canada as existing along the coasts and a Republican Jesusland encompassing the vast majority of land in the US.If that seems reductive and problematic on multiple fronts, youre not wrong, but the map, aforementioned problems aside, served in part as shorthand for pointing out Democrats turnout problem. Yes, Kerry had turned out 9 million more votes than Al Gore had four years before, but he still fell almost 3 million short of Bush.That gap revealed a vulnerability for Democrats: their inability to mobilize a broad coalition in swing states and beyond that would translate into an Electoral College victory. Kerry couldnt summon the kind of voter enthusiasm necessary to match Bushs strong performance in rural areas and outer suburbs.To goose turnout, Democrats looked to Howard Dean, who ran a populist primary campaign but lost to Kerry.Elected as chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2005, Dean became a proponent of a 50-state strategy. The idea behind this strategy was that Democrats need to try to compete in every state, maximizing turnout in Democratic areas while cutting into Republican margins where possible.This year, former DNC chair Donna Brazile, like Dean, believes part of the solution could be the return of the 50-state strategy. Theyre not alone: We cannot run in just the few states that we need, said Claire Potter, a professor emerita of history at the New School. The Democrats have, in some ways, really backed off that strategy, and I think theyre wrong to have done so.The Harris campaign for very understandable reasons did not utilize Deans method. With only a few months to campaign, Harris focused on swing states and select demographic groups. She largely did not visit historically safe Democratic states. While its not clear that she could have stanched the bleeding in those places, there were significant rightward shifts from New York City to Southern California.And its not clear how well the 50-states theory has aged. After all, Hillary Clinton ran up the popular vote total after winning big in solidly blue states, but she got to serve as president for exactly zero days.That strategy was later credited with helping Democrats make gains in the 2006 midterms and with helping to put Obama in the White House in 2008.And after 2024, where Democrats lost ground in just about every county in the US, a plan to boost the partys popularity nationally is not one it can afford to ignore.2) Democrats reevaluated their messagingIn 2004, Democrats didnt have a response to the rise of the right-wing blog Drudge Report and Fox Newss consolidation around Republicans. Kerry was often cast as an elitist with an expensive haircut, and right-wing commentators successfully turned one of his strengths as a candidate his military service in Vietnam into a liability through viral attack ads. There is this kind of disingenuous attack on Kerry as the Harvard boy, as somebody whos faking having really fought in Vietnam, Potter said. Bush is able to play the card of being an outsider, even though he is an incumbent, even though he went to Yale, even though his father was president.In response, Democrats sought to reevaluate their overall messaging strategy. The influential book Dont Think of an Elephant! by the cognitive linguist George Lakoff served as a guidebook for reframing debates in their own terms and for explaining their policy positions by evoking values of empathy, fairness, and community without adopting the language of conservatives. They also embraced Dean dubbed by the Washington Post in 2005 as an outsider insurgent who wore beat-up shoes and flew coach, spending most of his time outside of DC. In 2024, Democrats were again outflanked by a new Republican media machine this time, including the likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von to deliver their message. Harris, for her part, declined to appear on Rogans podcast, reportedly for fear of how it would be perceived within the party.3) Democrats sought to become a party of ideasKerry campaign adviser Kenneth Baer said that, in 2024, Democrats repeated their mistake in 2004 of defining themselves as being the opposite of Republicans. Smart people seem to have come around to the idea that you cant just say Trumps terrible, Baer said, arguing that Democrats had the same issue in 2004, when Kerry spent much of his time on the campaign trail criticizing Bush instead of defining affirmative reasons to vote for Democrats. That called for Democrats to rethink all our policies and our approaches, Baer said.Baer went on to found the magazine Democracy: A Journal of Ideas as a platform for those ideas. Thats where Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), then a Harvard Law School professor, published a 2007 manifesto about how financial products like mortgages and credit cards should be regulated by the government. That idea would later give rise to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Today, some Democrats say the party still needs to better connect with the working class, but Baer noted that there is disagreement about what that means and whether that should involve an economic or cultural approach. The limits of political strategyDemocrats would very much like a silver-bullet strategy that guarantees them a post-2004-esque recovery. But the truth is, political strategy and planning can only go so far. And that may be one of the biggest lessons from two decades ago.The partys return to power in 2008 was principally driven by two factors: Obama was a generationally politically gifted politician. George W. Bush was a generationally terrible president whose second term featured a bungled and deadly response to Hurricane Katrina; an even more disastrous and deadly handling of the Iraq War (the false pretenses of which came fully to light during Bushs second term); and the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing economic meltdown.The conditions that would collapse Bushs support in his second term were already in place when he won reelection, Hemmer, the political historian, said. So how Democrats do in 2026, 2028, and beyond will likely have a lot to do with Trumps performance during his second term.Today, preliminary exit polls suggest Trump is unpopular, his proposed tariffs could be disastrous for the economy, Democrats may mobilize against his policies as they did in his first term, and he may only have a very narrow House majority to work with, potentially hampering his agenda. If such a collapse happens, however, Democrats also have to be prepared to seize on it.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:

Donald Trump announced Thursday that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be his nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), setting the stage for a potentially radical remaking of the nations health care. Kennedys nomination was not a surprise. Last month, Kennedy said Trump had promised him control of the department and its many subagencies, which include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), and others. Trump himself pledged during the campaign to let Kennedy go wild on health.Its a perplexing pick. Kennedy has spent decades spreading anti-vaccination pseudoscience, and the organization he leads, Childrens Health Defense, has been one of the foremost anti-vaccine advocacy groups in the US and abroad. His work in support of a Samoan anti-vaccine group helped fuel a wave of vaccine hesitancy in the island nation, leading to a 2019 measles epidemic that killed 83 people, most of them children.Hes expressed a range of other conspiracy-laden ideas about health: He says fluoride is industrial waste linked to a range of diseases, and suggested it should be removed from all US water systems. He has speculated that gender dysphoria may result from herbicide exposure and implied mass shootings are linked to antidepressants. Kennedy does hold other views that align with many scientists: He traces Americas high levels of chronic disease to the widespread availability of highly processed, non-nutritious food, which he and nutrition policy experts blame in part on broken agriculture policy. Hes railed against corruption and conflicts of interest in the FDAs drug approval process that favor big pharmaceutical companies over the interests of individuals something economists, scientists, and consumer advocates agree on. No matter where a person stands on the political spectrum, they can probably find something to agree with Kennedy on. He is the personification of the growing distrust of science and the public health establishment that many Americans have felt in the post-pandemic era.HHS secretaries are usually seasoned bureaucrats with a lot of experience moving policy through government agencies a state insurance commissioner in Barack Obamas case or a tenured pharma executive in Donald Trumps first term. They typically understand how science is done and what it means for a health intervention to be grounded in evidence. Kennedy doesnt have that rsum far from it. Now hell be in charge of much of US health care, which raises the question: How much damage can he actually do in this role?The answer will depend on a few things. First, he has to be confirmed by the Senate (unless the White House attempts to circumvent that chambers constitutional advise and consent powers) and Republicans have only a narrow majority. Even if Kennedy is confirmed, Trump has other important health care appointments to make particularly for CMS, NIH, FDA, and CDC and those people will hold sway over the administrations health care agenda too. They could be in the Kennedy vein or, as we have seen with Trumps foreign policy picks, a mix of the conventional and the iconoclastic. For now, however, Kennedys appointment is a watershed moment that could portend enormous changes to the American health system. Republicans in Congress will control the HHS budget, and Kennedy, if confirmed, could have broad discretion to pursue his Make America Healthy Again agenda with Trumps blessing. If the Trump administration attempts to remove civil servants across the government, including the health agencies, decades of public health knowledge could be lost at the CDC, FDA, and elsewhere. It is uncertain if the Republican-dominated judiciary would step in to stop any of it.Heres what we know about the Trump health departments plans and what hurdles may await them.What RFK Jr. can and cant do on vaccines, briefly explainedOver the last 30 years, vaccines have saved the lives of more than 1.1 million children in the US alone. Over the same period, theyve also saved Americans $540 billion in direct health care costs and trillions in social costs. Routine vaccines protect American children from 16 diseases.Trump himself suggested blocking funding for local schools with vaccine requirements during the campaign, though the federal government has limited authority to do so. Despite Kennedys long history of anti-vaccine rhetoric, he said in early November he wasnt planning to take anyones vaccines away. Related:Trumps campaign against public health is back onPeople ought to have choice, and that choice ought to be informed by the best information, Kennedy said in an NBC News interview. So Im going to make sure scientific safety studies and efficacy are out there, and people can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them. However, a co-chair of Trumps transition team recently said Kennedy hoped to access federal health data with the goal of proving vaccines are unsafe and pulling them from the US market.Thats not as easy to do as it sounds. Undoing the approval of an already approved vaccine would require submitting evidence of harm that meets the FDAs standards to prove harm, which simply doesnt exist. Although a Trump-installed loyalist could theoretically rewrite the FDAs standards, that would likely lead to opposition from the pharmaceutical companies that produce these vaccines. There would be a wave of expensive and prolonged lawsuits for the federal government. Drugmakers also wield influence in Congress, which writes the law that sets pharmaceutical industry fees that cover nearly half of the FDAs budget. That law will need to be reauthorized before the end of Trumps term, setting up a potentially vicious fight if the two sides are at odds over vaccines. There is a more realistic move Kennedy could take to address his concern about vaccine side effects: He could resuscitate the National Vaccine Program Office, which monitored vaccine safety with particular rigor but was shuttered under the first Trump presidency.Although it would be difficult to pull vaccines from the American market, and Kennedy says he wont, there are other ways he could exert influence to reduce vaccine uptake. Kennedy could try to influence the CDC. That agency has two important roles in promoting vaccines in the US: It convenes an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to provide expert recommendations on who should get which vaccines and at what age, and it administers the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines for children in low-income families. The advisory committee is not mandated by federal law it is convened only if the CDC wants it to be. A vaccine skeptic appointed to run the CDC under Kennedy could either staff the committee with anti-vaccination activists or dissolve it entirely. That would mean the agency would no longer provide widely accepted guidelines for vaccination that state health departments and hundreds of thousands of clinicians nationwide now rely on. The Vaccines for Children program is funded by a pot of money that Congress sets aside for the CDC every year. Kennedy could press Congress and the White House to simply cut that funding, ending the program entirely. That would leave low-income families having to pay out of pocket to vaccinate their children.Kennedy will also be ultimately responsible for two giant public insurance programs: Medicare, which covers seniors, and Medicaid, which is overseen by the states and covers low-income people.In both programs, the amount of money disbursed by the federal government is in part determined by how good of a job the states and private insurers do in vaccinating children and older adults enrolled in these programs. Kennedy could pressure the CMS administrator to eliminate that vaccination requirement, one reason Trumps choice at CMS will be one to watch. Its not clear what the timeline would be to accomplish any of these tasks; theres no precedent for a president and HHS secretary who are so openly hostile to US public health infrastructure assuming control of it. Even if it takes a while, theres widespread concern that giving such a platform to someone who denies vaccine science could further degrade public trust not only in the vaccines, but in the many other health recommendations and interventions that together comprise American public health and health care. Already, more isolated outbreaks of measles and other diseases that had previously been stamped out by vaccines are occurring at the same time vaccination rates are slipping.Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease doctor who directs the Vaccine Education Center at the Childrens Hospital of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said Kennedy has had such a big platform for so long that its unlikely hell be able to scare people about vaccines more than he already has. Its in delivering the vaccines through programs like Vaccines for Children where he could perhaps do the damage: If he were able to disrupt that, that would be a problem.Can RFK Jr. really remove fluoride from US water?The US began fluoridating drinking water in 1945. An estimated 209 million Americans now drink tap water that contains added fluoride. The intervention is considered a historic public health win: It dramatically reduces tooth decay in children and also reduces tooth loss in adults. Kennedy, however, has said he would immediately advise the removal of fluoride from local water supplies. Why? Because he is exaggerating the actual risk. Most of the fluoride and US tap water is added by water utility companies, but some tap water contains naturally occurring fluoride it absorbs from the local water table. The resulting high-fluoride tap water, which about 2 million Americans drink, contains about twice the amount of fluoride the US government recommends. According to a recent report from the US National Toxicology Program, drinking high-fluoride water might be linked to slightly lower IQ scores by 2 to 5 points in some children though IQ scores are an uncertain measure of intelligence. However, there is no indication that tap water containing normal fluoride levels poses this risk and its benefits to childrens and adults dental health are immense.The decision to fluoridate water is one that happens at the state and local level, which is why Kennedy could only advise fluorides removal. However, his leadership at HHS could give an opening to anti-fluoride action at the state level, where Republican leaders are increasingly hostile to what had been settled public health practices.Kennedys Make America Healthy Again campaign on food and chronic diseasesKennedy has called for a campaign against chronic disease that hes branded as Make America Healthy Again. It is an ambiguous and wide-ranging platform, but the consistent theme is undoing what Kennedy sees as Big Pharma and Big Agricultures undue influence on what Americans eat and how they manage their health over time.Some of the ideas share the same pseudoscience as Kennedys views on vaccines. Kennedy recently posted on social media that the FDA had waged a war on public health by aggressive suppression of Americans access to raw milk, among other things. States arent required to pasteurize milk, but the FDA requires milk sold across state lines to be pasteurized. Despite raw milks risk of causing life-threatening diarrheal diseases (and now, bird flu), states can already carve out exceptions that allow their residents to drink it. Some of Kennedys ideas about food are more rooted in reality. For example, his take on nutritions role in chronic disease: He has correctly noted that the US has developed a terrible record on preventing diabetes, heart disease, and unhealthy weight, and places the blame where nutritional experts do on permissive government policies and dietary guidelines that promote eating lots of ultra-processed foods and low levels of physical activity in schools. As part of his fight against ultra-processed foods, Kennedy recently said he wants to do away with entire departments at the FDA, including the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. According to recent reporting in Science, he could indeed pressure whoever is appointed to lead the agency to eliminate that center, which makes Trumps choice for FDA commissioner a critical one in setting his administrations public health agenda. However, if Kennedy wants to restrict the use of already-approved food additives, he needs more resources not fewer: The process involves rigorous reviews of data, issuing public warnings, and actively monitoring the food supply. If Kennedy succeeded in closing the food safety office, that would reduce the number of people who could be dedicated to the job, making it harder rather than easier to rein in the use of these products.Other actions could be taken by the Trump administration to reduce the amount of ultra-processed food in the American food supply, but many of them would be taken outside of HHS. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets the guidelines that govern school lunch programs, which means much of what children eat is determined by that agency; Trump has not yet nominated a USDA commissioner. The USDA is also primarily responsible for overseeing factory farming, another industry Kennedy has heavily criticized throughout his public career and pledged to target if he were to take a role in the federal government. He would likely need to work with the USDA to follow through. Kennedy is correct that food safety regulation in the US is currently a mess, says David Acheson, an infectious diseases doctor who has led food safety efforts at both the USDA and the FDA. Meat, poultry, and egg plants are inspected daily under the auspices of the USDA, while every other kind of food production facility including the farms whose produce is responsible for most of the food-borne illness in the US and the nations countless other industrial food manufacturers are inspected by FDA inspectors at most once a year. It would make far more sense to unify these functions under one agency and harmonize the frequency of food production facility inspections so none are falling through the cracks. That is the kind of organizational shake-up that could actually make a difference. Acheson would also like to see Kennedy take on the FDAs process for regulating supplements, which are currently subject to lax oversight despite obvious health risks.What happens to NIH in a second Trump term?At a town hall earlier this year, before dropping out of the race for president, Kennedy said that if elected, hed tell the NIH to pause drug development and infectious diseases research for eight years and instead focus on chronic diseases. He also pledged during his own campaign for president that he would block gain of function research in which scientists purposefully make viruses more dangerous in hopes of learning how to better combat them that has come under more scrutiny since the pandemic. Apart from the fact that the NIH already spends about $20 billion annually on chronic disease, this would be disastrous: The basic research the agency funds and conducts in its own institutes lays the groundwork for therapies pharmaceutical companies develop to treat most medical conditions. Kennedy has called for firing 600 of the agencys nearly 19,000 employees and replacing them with new ones, who presumably would be more keen to carry out his priorities. Conservatives have also floated restructuring the NIH, and Trump proposed cutting its $48 billion budget during his first term.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:

In the aftermath of Donald Trumps presidential victory, journalists and analysts have rushed to diagnose the causes of Vice President Kamala Harriss defeat and the Democratic Partys broader losses. One of the emerging theories is that voters felt Democrats had drifted far from mainstream concerns by focusing too much on culture issues particularly transgender rights.The GOP weaponized transgender rights on the campaign trail, pouring over $200 million into ads this cycle that painted Harris as out of step. Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you, blared one ad that launched in September. At rallies, Trump stoked fears with lies about gender-affirming surgery in schools, while promising to ban transgender women from sports.The Trump campaign maintains that their anti-trans ads resonated not only with Black and Latino men but also with moderate suburban white women concerned about school sports. Galvanize Action, a progressive organization focused on mobilizing moderate white women, did find that 53 percent of respondents on their most recent September survey believed people advocating for the rights of transgender people have gone too far. After the election, some Democrats echoed the concern. I dont want to discriminate against anybody, but I dont think biological boys should be playing in girls sports, Rep. Tom Suozzi, a New York moderate, said in an interview with the New York Times. Democrats arent saying that, and they should be. Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts made similar remarks: I have two little girls. I dont want them getting run over on the field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, Im supposed to be afraid to say that.Franklin Foer, a journalist for the Atlantic and author of a book on Joe Bidens presidency, reported last week that some members of Bidens inner circle were dissatisfied with Harriss defense against right-wing accusations that she supported the most extreme version of transgender rights, including gender-affirming surgery for prisoners. Bidens allies claimed the president never would have let such attacks stand and would have clearly rejected the idea of trans women competing in womens sports.While it will take time to fully understand why voters cast their ballots as they did, one thing is already clear: Neither Harris nor Biden made any effort to talk about what the Biden administration actually proposed to do on school sports. What the Biden administration proposed on transgender athletesIn 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm educational objectives like fair competition and the prevention of injury. This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administrations proposal for the last 18 months. Hes never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues. The White House declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of Education said their rulemaking process is still ongoing, as they consider the 150,000 public comments they received. We do not have information to share today on a timeline, they added. In polling, voters consistently ranked transgender rights as a very low priority compared to other issues. But there is some evidence that Republicans years of attacks have taken their toll on public opinion. Gallup found in 2023 that 69 percent of Americans believe transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth, an increase from the 62 percent who said the same in 2021. Tellingly, Bidens proposed policy on transgender athletes allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administrations reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. Its a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.The White House could have said something in the election, they could have said Democrats want rules too, said Lanae Erickson, the senior vice president for social policy at Third Way, a centrist think tank. The number one big messaging advice from 2022 we had is that Democrats want sports to be fair and athletes to be safe.The Biden administrations proposed school sports rule in 2023 marked a shift from its first two yearsBiden has long stood out for his support of transgender rights. In 2012, as vice president, he called it the civil rights issue of our time, something he reiterated again while campaigning for his own presidential run in 2020. He named passing the Equality Act, an LGBTQ anti-discrimination bill, a top legislative priority, and on his first day in office issued a sweeping executive order that called on all federal agencies to review their rules to ensure that any sex discrimination protection includes sexual orientation and gender identity, too. As the Biden administration prioritized LGBTQ rights, social conservatives were in the midst of shifting their focus to new cultural battles following their decisive losses on marriage for same-sex couples both at the Supreme Court in 2015 and in the court of public opinion. Right-wing activists did not hide that they were searching for a new galvanizing cause to rally donors and grassroots voters. We threw everything at the wall, Terry Schilling, the president of American Principles Project, a social conservative advocacy group, told the New York Times. While their early efforts to focus on bathroom bans backfired, Schillings group discovered in 2019 that focusing on school sports bans appeared much more effective, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had found just 1.8 percent of high school students even identified as transgender.In 2020, Idaho became the first state to ban transgender girls from school sports and within four years, half of all states had passed similar laws, as well as laws banning gender-affirming health care. It happened super fast. It came out of nowhere, said Erickson of Third Way. People werent prepared to deal with it because it wasnt on the radar.Athletes proved potent for them because theres always winners and losers in sports, added Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union. And thats not a particularly new tool for the right. In terms of policy, the Biden administration initially staked out a position that said theres no legitimate basis to discriminate based on sex differences. In 2021, Bidens Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit filed by parents of an 11-year-old transgender girl against the state of West Virginia, affirming this view.[West Virginia] cannot point to any valid evidence that allowing transgender girls to participate on girls sports teams endangers girls athletic opportunities, the department said in its filing. Instead, the State legislated based on misconceptions and overbroad assumptions about transgender girls.While praised by major LGBTQ groups like the Human Rights Campaign, this position obscured quieter disagreement among transgender leaders. Some questioned whether sports participation should be a top priority for the movement, while others doubted whether litigation was the best approach for advancing inclusion, given the state of public opinion. The Justice Departments position also masked divides within the Democratic Party. Though its a complex topic and more research is needed, some existing scientific evidence suggests that transgender girls and women who do not suppress testosterone can have advantages in sports, particularly if they have gone through male puberty.The West Virginia lawsuit wasnt the only federal suit in the works. Happening at the same time was another case involving two transgender girls that was quickly drawing national attention. In response to Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood winning multiple state track titles in Connecticut, competitors parents and the Christian right-wing legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Connecticuts policy of including transgender athletes. Though initially dismissed in 2021, a federal judge just this month said the Title IX case could proceed.As more of these politically charged lawsuits and bills mounted, the Biden administration announced it would be delaying its proposed changes to Title IX, despite its Day 1 executive order. Sources involved said the delay was largely understood as a political move driven by the upcoming midterm elections. When the Education Department finally released its proposed school sports rule in 2023, its language represented more of a compromise. The rule marked the Biden administrations first time saying that sex differences can matter in school sports and schools can discriminate in some cases, while also saying schools do not have to thus permitting blue states like Connecticut to continue with existing policy. While its merits were debated, the federal proposal was on the table.The draft regulation recognizes that there are real sex differences and that these matter in competition, Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who focuses on sports and gender, told Vox. For the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which takes the position that all sex differences are just myth and stereotype, that was a big, maybe even treasonous move.Even as conservatives barraged Democrats with attacks that they were extremists on school sports, the White House and then later the Harris campaign never sought to talk about the direction they thought Title IX policy ought to go. Sources with close knowledge of the White Houses thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Vox the administration worried that talking about the rule would have unintended consequences for transgender individuals already facing threats, and they didnt want to give political fodder for Republicans to twist their words. So they said nothing. Some progressive communications strategists warned against generally staying silent on transgender rights. We Make the Future Action and ASO Communication tested different strategies and found messaging that didnt directly reference transgender people tended to weaken support for progressive positions among certain voter groups who were otherwise confronted with anti-trans ads. Or, put differently, saying nothing could hurt more than saying something proactive. When Democrats are silent about race or immigrants or trans people, all that conflicted voters hear are the siren songs of hate peddling from Republicans about said other, Anat Shenker-Osorio, who led the messaging research, told Vox. Ignoring doesnt make the attack go away. It makes it all that voters hear about the topic.Erickson agreed with this critique. In addition to not wanting to get yelled at by progressive leaders on X, she said, Democrats believed they should avoid talking about transgender rights to change the subject. I think that is so idiotic, especially when the issue is high-salience, she stressed, emphasizing that leaders could have focused on shared values of freedom, dignity, and privacy.Mara Keisling, a longtime transgender advocate and founding director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Vox she wasnt bothered that Harris hadnt focused on trans people on the campaign trail and that its understandable Harris would prioritize issues that mattered to all voters. Its more important to me who won the election than whether or not trans people are mentioned, Keisling said. On the question of where the Biden administration was headed on school sports participation, Kiesling said she just didnt think people would care about the process of an Education Department rule. They used to say in politics that if youre talking about process, youre losing, she said. Branstetter emphasized that its not as if national Democrats didnt have good models to emulate when it comes to messaging, noting that red-state Democrats like those in Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma have demonstrated clearly over the last half-decade how to stand up to anti-trans legislative attacks. Democrats are overestimating the electoral potency and letting themselves get lost in the issue instead of framing the oppositions attacks within the broader fight for equality, she said. Moving forward, a series of federal lawsuits including the aforementioned Connecticut case and one the Supreme Court is set to hear in December could affect how rules, laws, and guidelines on issues of transgender rights develop. The NCAA is also currently reviewing its own policies for transgender athletes at the college level. Given the Supreme Courts ruling earlier this year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, federal agencies may have far less leeway to make policy decisions of all kinds without Congress getting involved. My colleague Ian Millhiser called the ruling a radical reordering of the US separation of powers and likely to be one of [the Courts] most consequential modern-day decisions.Coleman, of Duke Law, thinks the Loper Bright decision and broader changes in administrative law will mean the school sports issue ultimately gets decided legislatively, not in the courts. Until then, though, the matter will likely continue to play out in politics. Democrats may be well-intentioned in seeking to avoid heated and sensitive issues, but their strategy of silence can fuel the perception that the party cannot craft politically viable solutions, and more importantly, contribute to the myth that theres a major ongoing crisis in school sports.There arent trans athletes everywhere beating women, Keisling said. There are a lot of 6-year-olds and 10-year-olds who just want to play soccer with their friends. 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:

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump revealed he will nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), an accused sex offender known for his firm loyalty to Trump, to lead the Department of Justice. (Gaetz has denied wrongdoing.) On Thursday evening, Trump announced that three other lawyers he has close personal ties to will also be nominated to top DOJ jobs.This means that four of the highest jobs in the Justice Department, the office that brings federal prosecutions, will be held by people whose records suggest they will advance Trumps personal interest. Three of these four lawyers have serious legal credentials and institutional knowledge, and thus are likely to be effective in advancing those interests.Trump chose Todd Blanche, the criminal defense lawyer in his New York hush money trial (the one where he faced charges related to money paid to keep a sexual encounter quiet), to be deputy attorney general. Thats the No. 2 job in the Justice Department. The DAG, as this position is known within the department, wields tremendous power over federal criminal prosecutions. If successfully appointed, Blanche will supervise the 93 regional US attorneys who bring the bulk of all federal prosecutions in the United States. So Blanche will have a great deal of authority over who is prosecuted.Meanwhile, Trump wants John Sauer, the lawyer who represented him in the Supreme Court case holding that Trump is allowed to use the powers of the president to commit crimes, to serve as solicitor general. The role oversees the Justice Departments legal strategy in the Supreme Court, including arguing many of the most important cases. They also decide which cases the DOJ will appeal if the federal government loses a case in a trial court.Another one of Trumps personal criminal defense lawyers, Emil Bove, will serve as principal associate deputy attorney general, and will hold the DAG spot on an acting basis until Blanche or some other Trump nominee is confirmed or otherwise formally appointed to the job. Unlike the DAG and the solicitor general, Boves new role does not require Senate confirmation. So he will be able to move into this job on the first day of Trumps second presidency.This isnt the first time a president has tried to put one of his personal lawyers in a position of high responsibility within government. President Lyndon Johnson, for example, named Abe Fortas, his friend and personal lawyer, to the Supreme Court in 1965. If you know anything about Fortass very brief tenure on the Court, you may know that appointment didnt end well.Based strictly on their rsums, all three men are conventionally qualified for these jobs. Both Blanche and Bove previously worked as federal prosecutors for nine years before entering private practice. Sauer is a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who previously served Missouris solicitor general. Its easy to see all three joining the Justice Department without much controversy if they were picked by, say, President Nikki Haley.But Trump talks often about using the DOJ to target his political adversaries and people he views as foes. An NPR report on October 22 found that Trump made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies. That includes a threat to, in Trumps words, appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family. Trump also accused former Rep. Liz Cheney, a prominent Republican critic of the incoming president, of TREASON and threatened TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS. (Which, if they were to actually happen, would presumably take place in the Defense Departments legal structure, but could involve some DOJ personnel.)Trumps decision to name Gaetz, a staunch loyalist, to lead the Justice Department is a cause for considerable alarm if you fear the United States sliding into authoritarianism. Historically, the White House has obeyed strong norms against interfering with Justice Department prosecutorial decisions, but these norms have no legal force. So someone like Gaetz could tear down this barrier altogether.Trumps decision to appoint his personal lawyers to top DOJ jobs is equally concerning. Federal lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of the United States, not of any particular politician, while they work for the government. But Trump has selected three people who arent simply accustomed to representing his personal interests, but who have also likely collected considerable legal fees from him.Blanche, Sauer, and Boves conventional rsums also mean that, if they use their DOJ posts to pursue Trumps personal campaign of vengeance, they are likely to be fairly effective in doing so. As a DOJ outsider known for performative political stunts, Gaetz may struggle to navigate the departments internal bureaucracy or to resist its internal culture, which seeks to insulate prosecutorial decisions from the White House.Blanche, Sauer, and Gaetz still need to be confirmed assuming that Trump doesnt use recess appointments or some other method to get around the Senate confirmation process. But if Trump gets his way, his ultraloyalist attorney general will now be backed by people who know the Justice Department and the culture of elite federal lawyers quite well.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:

Earlier this year, conservatives on social media claimed an unlikely new icon. It wasnt a podcaster with questionable views or a libertarian businessman selling a course or any particular ideology. It was actress Sydney Sweeney, Euphoria star and the recent lead of the rom-com Anyone but You. Following her Saturday Night Live hosting gig in March, two conservative outlets published columns heralding Sweeney as a return to conventional beauty standards of the 90s and early 2000s or as, Bridget Phetasy for the Spectator put it, the giggling blonde with an amazing rack. Both pieces postulate that, by wearing low-cut dresses and playing up her sexuality, Sweeney was inviting men to gawk at her, therefore raising a middle finger to woke culture and the Me Too movement. Sweeney hasnt publicly aligned herself with the right in any way. (Her familys politics, though, were the subject of controversy in 2022, which may have something to do with the rights eager embrace of her.) Rather, her ascension as a throwback-y, hyper-feminine sex symbol has given conservatives the rare mainstream Gen Z figure on whom to project their values. For those paying close attention, the past year was rife with springboards for the conservative message.In the hindsight following Trumps reelection, it seems the zeitgeist of 2024 was a foreshadowing of his return to office and something forecasters might have considered a little more seriously. Bro country singers became the artists de jour, going head-to-head with female pop singers on the charts and, in many cases, outperforming them. The buzziest new reality shows were about Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders and Mormon TikTokers. Conservative films from smaller distributors, like the biopic Reagan and Daily Wire documentary Am I Racist?, made millions at the box office. Nominally apolitical podcasters and streamers, from Joe Rogan to the Nelk Boys, hosted presidential candidates and took on an increasingly political valence. Its a sharp turn from the liberal-coded pop culture of the Obama years and the sort of trends that took off in response to Trumps first presidency comic-book movies with a progressive edge like Wonder Woman and Black Panther, social commentary films like Get Out and Promising Young Woman, not to mention the explosion of drag culture. Joel Penney, an associate professor at Montclair State University, says the overall conservative feel of pop culture at the moment is, in many ways, a response to the Me Too movement and the notion by its detractors that masculinity is in crisis. At the same time that were seeing Sweeney receive praise for representing traditional femininity, the All-American straight white bro is getting renewed cultural attention. Theres been a lot of this trying to restore these strong male role models in pop culture, whether its Tom Cruise in the Top Gun remake or these bro podcasters and country singers, Penney says. We can see this happening most visibly in mainstream music. Its not just that country music a Southern genre with a past and present of conservative politics has emerged in the mainstream over the past two years with much controversy. Its that this class of musicians Morgan Wallen, Zach Bryan, Jelly Roll, Luke Combs, Shaboozey, and the newly rustic Post Malone are glaringly male. Shaboozeys unprecedented achievements in an overwhelmingly white genre add a refreshing element to this conversation. Beyonc also released a successful country album this year featuring Shaboozey and an array of Black female country artists. Cowboy Carters lead single, Texas Hold Em, topped the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks, a shorter amount of time than Morgan Wallen, Post Malone, and Shaboozeys No.1 songs this year. Nor was she recognized by the country establishment, getting completely shut out of the Country Music Association awards. Overall, it seems like country fans and the average young person, whos listening to more country music these days, are still more eager to hear dudes croon about beer.Outside of the charts, these country singers have also become mainstream personalities and subjects of celebrity gossip. In the span of roughly a year, Bryan went from a little-known alternative country crooner posting YouTube videos to a celebrity whose personal relationships are being analyzed by TikTok users and explained in the pages of People. Jelly Roll and his wife, influencer and popular podcast host Bunnie XO, have also become a recognizable celebrity couple, while Wallens dating life and public antics have become Page Six fodder. Singer Zach Bryan and influencer Bri LaPaglia a.k.a. Brianna Chickenfry at the 66th Annual Grammy Awards held at Crypto.com Arena on February 4, 2024, in Los Angeles. Gilbert Flores/Billboard via Getty ImagesElsewhere in pop culture, figures seemingly designated for a more male, conservative audience have gone mainstream. First, there was the viral video of a woman from Tennessee being asked about oral sex outside of a bar a very bro-y Girls Gone Wild-inspired genre thats emerged on TikTok and offering a memorable onomatopoeia. Theres also the viral Florida-based father-and-son duo A.J. and Big Justice, who do food reviews at Costco. With the exception of Big Justices sister and mother whos literally referred to as the Mother of Big Justice in videos this expanded universe of Costco Guys is made of white men and boys from Florida and New Jersey rating foods in a cartoonishly macho manner. Theyre not explicitly expressing MAGA as a value, but theyre trafficking in spaces that have been less visible in recent years: rural and suburban enclaves, featuring white, heterosexual, male, and even bro-y talent that was out of vogue in recent history. One can assume that the current MAGA-coded fabric of mainstream culture correlates with a generation of young people who identify as more conservative than their parents, although Penney says the relationship between pop culture and politics is a two-way street. While the media can reflect growing opinions and interests of the moment, it can also be used to shape it. Pop culture doesnt just emerge out of nowhere, says Penney, who wrote the book Pop Culture, Politics, and the News. Were seeing attempts to shape the culture that are increasingly coming from the conservative media ecosystem.Conservatives carved out a space for themselves at the movies In March, Ben Shapiros media company the Daily Wire released its first theatrical movie, the satirical documentary Am I Racist?, which earned $4.5 million its opening weekend. Currently, its the highest-grossing documentary of the year along with a handful of other conservative nonfiction films including the Catholic documentary Jesus Thirsts: The Story of the Eucharist, the Dinesh DSouza-directed Vindicating Trump, and the creationist movie The Ark and the Darkness all making the top 10 list.2024 saw other movies from conservative studios and right-wing producers make notable financial gains. Despite overwhelmingly negative reviews, the Ronald Reagan biopic, Reagan, starring Dennis Quaid, broke into the top 5 at the box office when it premiered in August, doing particularly well with older, white, and Southern audiences. Over the summer, the Christian media company Angel Studios also released the pro-adoption movie Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trout, marketed by Daily Wire+. While it made significantly less money than its 2023 predecessor Sound of Freedom, which had a vocal fan base of QAnon supporters, its nearly $12 million worldwide earnings are still a massive accomplishment for a small Christian film with no movie stars. While the performance of these movies has not bred the same immediate concern of something like Sound of Freedom, it does provide a potential incentive for major studios to start courting a movie-going crowd thats felt alienated by mainstream Hollywood.Actors Glen Powell and Daisy Edgar-Jones in the 2024 film Twisters. Universal Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, and Amblin EntertainmentWarner Bros has yet to produce its own Sound of Freedom, but weve seen hints that Hollywood is interested in movies that at least appeal to white, Southern, and conservative audiences. American nostalgia bait came to the fore in the summer blockbuster Twisters. The Oklahoma-set film with a star-studded, country-infused soundtrack did particularly well in Southern cities and theater chains in middle America, outperforming initial estimations. While its probably most accurate to describe the film as decidedly apolitical with some patriotic markers, it does see the white, blond savior (played by Glen Powell) emasculate the movies other male main character, Latino storm chaser Javi (Anthony Ramos). Powell happened to produce another piece of Americana, Blue Angels, a look at the US Navys flight demo squadron, and the fourth highest-grossing documentary of 2024. He also co-starred with Sweeney in Anyone but You, a film released at the end of 2023 that crossed the $200 million mark in early 2024.Penney says corporations will try new strategies and pander to different audiences, as theyve done with Marvel and Disneys diversity pushes in recent years, based on what they think will benefit them financially. Theyre not really thinking about political impact. That was very much the reality of capitalism at work, Penney says. [Disney] was trying new strategies, not because they were really, truly convinced that they were going to save the world through expanding diversity, but they were getting a sense that thats what the audience wanted. It was a response to Me Too and Black Lives Matter and things that actually resonated with our culture to a degree. This pendulum swing from the sort of diversity-focused art that dominated pop culture during the Obama years to what were seeing now is hardly unprecedented. Specifically in music, countrys popularity as a genre has historically corresponded with a push in right-wing politics, from the jingoist anthems following 9/11 to Okie From Muskogee during the Nixon years. Pop culture has also seen movies with conservative and/or religious themes, from American Sniper and The Passion of the Christ, break the box office. If this current moment tells us anything, its that were stuck in an ouroboros of shifting political values and corporate interests. Suffice to say, its not a question of whether weve been here before but whether were paying attention to what these signals all mean. With an honest look at our media landscape, were the results of the election truly that surprising? Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have made clear including through stated policy positions and chosen campaign surrogates that his administration intends to bar trans athletes from playing on school sports teams that match their gender identity. The president bans it, Trump said at a Fox News event in Georgia last month. You just dont let it happen. Not a big deal.Trump and other Republicans have primarily threatened the participation of trans girls in K-12 sports programs, though college athletes wouldnt be immune from any action Trump decides to take. Trumps threats raise the question: Could he challenge trans athletes right to compete in school sports?How would Trump enact such a ban?The short answer is yes. Trump could strip away civil rights and nondiscrimination protections enumerated under the Biden administration, which specifically apply to trans students.The executive branch has a lot of control over what counts as discrimination in education, thanks to Title IX, a civil rights law originally meant to advance womens equality. The Biden administration took the position that the laws protections against discrimination on the basis of sex mean that discrimination against trans students on the basis of their trans identity qualifies as sex discrimination. That interpretation of the law faced legal challenges and has been rejected by about half of the states. The Trump administration can and likely will simply take the stance that Title IX offers no protections to trans students. The Trump administrations interpretation of Title IX could go even further by arguing that it is discriminatory against girls to have trans athletes participating in girls sports, according to Jon Valant, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. There could be new legal battles over Title IX if Democratic governors and attorneys general moved to stop the new interpretation essentially the reverse of the current Title IX landscape.Ultimately, the administration could go through Congress and try to rewrite Title IX, explicitly stating those positions rather than merely interpreting the current law that way, Valant said. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) already proposed a law in July undoing the Biden-era regulations. Trump has also said he will ask Congress to pass a bill stating that only two genders exist. Related:Why US schools are at the center of trans rightsRepublicans will hold narrow majorities in both the House and the Senate. Its possible that such a bill could pass, though it would likely face some difficulty in the Senate, where Republicans lack a filibuster-proof majority. Outside of federal action, some states like Florida already have bans against transgender students participating in school sports. Under that law, only people assigned female at birth can play on girls sports teams. These kinds of laws could be stepping stones in dismantling trans peoples right to nondiscrimination in schools and the workplace, as well as their ability to access health care, Gillian Branstetter, communications strategist at the ACLUs Womens Rights Project and LGBTQ & HIV Project, told Vox. I cant think of a single state or politician that has adopted this issue that has decided that theyre just going to narrowly focus on the rights of transgender athletes, Branstetter said. They have, using the exact same legal arguments, using the exact same legislative language, and usually using the exact same lawyers, also used these [tactics] to ban gender-affirming health care, to restrict what bathrooms trans people can use, and a long litany of other restrictions.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:

In the two years since Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into X, the platform has become crowded with deceptive ads and unchecked misinformation. Now, with President-elect Donald Trump heading to the White House and Musk joining his administration, countless people announced their departure from X. Rival social media site Bluesky told Vox that 2.25 million new users have joined in the last week alone. And theyre having a blast.Bluesky looks a lot like the old Twitter you knew and loved. Its a reverse chronological feed of posts, including images, videos, and links that you can like and repost. Like old Twitter, your feed is not ruled by an algorithm. Meanwhile, Blueskys open source, decentralized framework gives you a lot more control over how your feed works than X or even Threads, the X alternative Meta has been pushing onto Instagram users. In addition to the technical differences, theres also a different vibe on Bluesky. Its overflowing with weird memes and digital art thanks to early users who hurried to recapture that fun and serendipitous feeling of the original Twitter. But with an influx of a million users in the last month, Bluesky is growing fast and bracing for some sort of evolution. The people arriving from X seem like theyre having fun so far, too. You can also expect to see a lot less Elon Musk on Bluesky, if only because he doesnt own the place.If the good vibes continue, theres a chance that Bluesky could usher in a brighter future for social media, one that gives users more power over their experience. Theoretically, the companys model could give people a way to hang out on the social web outside of algorithmic feeds stuffed with targeted ads and ruled by trillion-dollar tech companies. For now, at the very least, Bluesky is a welcome breath of fresh air.Why people are fleeing XThis isnt the first time people have flocked to Bluesky. When Twitter accepted Elon Musks $44 billion bid to buy Twitter in April 2022, a lot of people freaked out about the possibility of the billionaire changing the platform into a place where trolls and grifters could run free all in the name of free speech. Those initial anxieties turned out to be correct. After Musk changed the name to X, what used to be Twitter filled up with white supremacists and became overrun with harassment, AI slop, and election misinformation. This overhaul turned into a huge opportunity for open source, text-based social networks, like Mastodon and Bluesky. Early on, it looked like the decidedly decentralized Mastodon would be the Twitter alternative of choice, but after it saw an initial burst of interest, some people felt like Mastodon was just too confusing. As a federated network, Mastodon let people set up their own servers, which functioned as independent but interconnected communities within the larger network. Its related to the larger concept of the fediverse, where a single protocol could allow information to be exchanged between all social media platforms. The fediverse, like Mastodon, is very confusing.Bluesky took this idea of a federated network and made it easy to use. It started back in 2019, when Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey announced that Twitter would fund a small team that would build an open and decentralized standard for social media. The ambition which would eventually result in Bluesky was to work toward an open social media ecosystem, where users could control how content appeared in their feeds and take their data and followers with them when they moved platforms. Bluesky registered as its own public benefit company in February 2022, just a couple of months before Musk offered to buy Twitter.The first Bluesky app launched in beta about a year later, and it looked a heck of a lot like Twitter, down to the blue logo, which would become a butterfly rather than Twitters bird. Rather than require you to figure out which server to join, as Mastodon does, Bluesky initially centralized the user experience on one server so users could see one feed, just like on Twitter. Within a few months, some prominent Twitter users, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chrissy Teigen, had set up Bluesky accounts.Bluesky has only gotten easier to use since its early days. While the company announced it was federating earlier this year, allowing users to store their data on their own servers, the Bluesky user experience remains very straightforward and Twitter-like, down to the look and feel of the app and website. Honestly, if youre not paying attention while youre scrolling your feed, you might think youre on Twitter circa 2021.That said, the future of Bluesky is supposed to be transformative. While social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have been plagued by content moderation problems, Bluesky wants to put users and communities in control of those policies. The same goes for what shows up in peoples feeds. Bluesky says that instead of one algorithm to rule all users, it will let developers create all kinds of different algorithms and empower users to choose their own experience on the platform. Im really excited that folks can choose the social media thats right for them. Ill say for me, I like small social media where I talk to barely a dozen people, Rory Mir, associate director of community organizing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said of Blueskys open source architecture. And then if folks want a really big audience and to really blow up thats also available. This is not how Bluesky works for everyone quite yet. You can just set up an account, follow a bunch of people, and then see their posts. But looking ahead, Bluesky has an optimistic vision for a near future in which social media doesnt make people so miserable.Timing has proven crucial to Blueskys current position as the X alternative du jour that is, its had a significant amount of time to gather momentum leading to what seems to be this tipping point moment. When the platform launched over 18 months ago, it was as an invite-only space, prompting extremely online types and various public figures to flock to try to get in. (The fact many of those early adopters were journalists didnt hurt in terms of building hype.) That long period of limited entry served to build FOMO, of course, but it also served to allow a niche group of users time to help shape what the dominant modes of communication, moderation, and platform etiquette would be. The health and positivity of Blueskys community is very important to us, and weve invested heavily in Trust and Safety, Bluesky spokesperson Emily Liu told Vox in an email. Last year, Bluesky required invite codes to sign up not to build hype or exclusivity, but rather so we had time to grow the network responsibly and build our Trust and Safety team.When Musk first bought Twitter, the first things he did were rolling back moderation on transphobia on the platform and because of that we were the first group to leave Twitter in numbers, journalist Katelyn Burns told Vox. Because of that, a large group of funny, talented trans posters were the earliest adopters of Bluesky and were able to forge the platform into what it is today: funny, frequently horny, and with very strong moderation tools. If you like Blueskys vibe right now, thank a trans person.When the platform finally opened to the public in February, this culture was already well-established: Lots of shitposting passed down from the days of Weird Twitter (including various Alf memes that recently led to some confusion); a seemingly inevitable leftist tilt; a subcommunity of NSFW posters; and, perhaps most important, an emphasis on proactively curating your own experience using Blueskys robust moderation tools. The centrality of these tools are arguably the defining trait that allows Bluesky to stand out, especially compared to Twitter, which struggled for its entire existence to properly deal with bad actors on the site (until Musk more or less jettisoned that struggle altogether). Bluesky not only allows you to block and mute various people, words, and tags, it also allows you to hide individual posts on feeds, and allows users to subscribe to curated block lists directly from the platform that blocks users en masse. To me the biggest difference between Bluesky and every other social media platform Ive ever been on is the close relationship between the user base and the (quite small!) team of developers, journalist and longtime Bluesky shitposter Miles Klee told Vox. When people first joined, it was very bare bones, and the devs pursued new features according to what they heard users wanted. Because a lot of people were looking to escape the toxicity of X, that meant they ended up prioritizing safety and accessibility, Klee said. On Bluesky, many users feel that theyre building something new together, and that gives them a feeling of ownership, control, community.I adore Bluesky, author and Bluesky user Debbie Ridpath Ohi told Vox. While so many other new platforms chased user numbers, Bluesky focused on user safety first, and that made a huge difference. I am having fun using social media again.Bluesky does have one significant drawback. Because the platform is federated, accounts cant be locked away from public view the way they can on X. Still, for many people, thats likely a feature rather than a bug; after all, Xs easily accessible public interface and ease of searching and surfacing content made it indispensable to many users, especially the many journalists who used it and still continue to use it. These are all features that Bluesky replicates without, so far, the endless trolls that came with Xs recent era.For people who have spent many years on Twitter which launched in 2006, enough time to grow into an impossible teenager it may be sobering to contemplate actually leaving the platform. This is, after all, the supposed hellsite that many of its most active users were all but glued to for everything from live events to hilarious viral incidents that found us all united through the power of a virtually instantaneous, public, and collective social media.Yet for the vast majority of users, the thought of leaving X now probably feels much more plausible and realistic a possibility than it did a year ago, when Vox first declared that X was in its death throes. Thats not unusual; social media platforms very rarely die instantly. For the most part, platforms dont suddenly shut down and strand all of their users. That only happens in extreme cases when a platforms systems collapse, or its seized by the government, or the owner kills the site situations that just dont really happen to modern social media with complex infrastructure. The inverse scenario, in which all of a platforms users simply give up and leave en masse overnight, doesnt happen at all. Instead, as weve seen across various internet platforms, including mass migrations away from LiveJournal, Tumblr, Facebook, and now X, the exodus takes years and involves multiple inciting incidents that push people out of their comfort zone and off the platform in incremental movements. All of these steps shift users slowly and inevitably toward the decision to fully leave a platform sometimes before they even realize theyve made it.Social media is, by definition, social, Bluesky early adopter Maura Quint told Vox. People want to be at places where they get something from other users, and where the tools the site provides help them have the experience theyre looking for. If people are miserable in a space, they leave.Elon Musk made sure to design his version of Twitter to be an unpleasant, dull place, Quint continued. Why choose an awful room run by the worst guy youve ever met when theres an alternative where cool people are hanging out, telling jokes, creating their own goofy lore, and engaging on issues they care about?As a platform slips into decline, those inciting incidents often become more and more frequent and close together. X has had multiple such inciting incidents this year, including a major ban in Brazil that sent 500,000 users to Bluesky in a single weekend in August, a crucial step in jolting Xs massive international fandom community out of its complacency. Then came the twin announcements in October: first, that X would be allowing third-party AI companies to scrape all user data, and then that blocking a user would no longer prevent them from being able to see your content a change that arguably nullifies the point of blocking to begin with. Most recently came the US election and Musks unabashed weaponization of the platform in service of Trump and the far right. This latest inciting incident seems to have been the final straw for many users to not only leave X for Bluesky, but begin deleting all of their content from X. (Some extensions and apps allow you to import all of your content over from X to Bluesky first before you delete.) Still, while these actions suggest that momentum has well and truly shifted toward Bluesky, the newer site will likely have growing pains as old users adjust to newcomers and the platform itself grapples with the strain of millions of new users.Our infrastructure is holding up! Blueskys Liu told Vox. Weve prepared our infrastructure to be able to handle this demand, though there are definitely a lot of new users signing up right now. She added that the site is building a subscription model to aid sustainability, though the site will always be free to use.Despite the rapid growth, users are optimistic about the future. Every influx of users brings with it more voices, some with good intent and some with bad intent, but Bluesky is responsive to the people who use it in ways that encourage people to stick around, Quint said. When you compare that to sites where white nationalists organize mass attacks, spending money lets anyone drown out real discussion, and mass disinformation spreads at the whim of a billionaire, Bluesky is clearly the place to be.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:

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on November 5, 2024.Donald J. Trump is headed to the White House again. Hell have the help of a Republican Senate, almost certainly a Republican House, and a conservative Supreme Court that includes three justices he appointed the first time around. The former president made plenty of pledges on the campaign trail now its time to see whats actually possible.Vox explains the agenda for Trumps second term. We take a look at what Trumps victory means for reproductive freedom and antipoverty programs, how his calls for tariffs will transform the economy, the realities of a plan for mass deportations, and more. We track Trumps promises and policies on everything from artificial intelligence to Middle East policy and how Americans are reacting in the wake of his historic win.We hope this coverage will cut through the chaos of the post-election months. Please keep checking back as we add stories and build out a guide to what to expect for the next four years.Why Ukraine thinks it can still win over Donald TrumpHow Trumps second term will be differentCould Trump actually get rid of the Department of Education?Health care and the social safety netFollowing Trumps victory, some women consider swearing off menTrump proposed big Medicaid and food stamp cuts. Can he pass them?What happens if another pandemic strikes while Trump is president?Trump won. So what does that mean for abortion?Trumps health care plan exposes the truth about his populismTrump just opened the door to Social Security cuts. Take him seriously.Taxes, tariffs, and the economyTrumps tariffs could tank the economy. Will the Supreme Court stop them?Elon Musk assures voters that Trumps victory would deliver temporary hardshipAI, social media, and Big TechTrumps techno-libertarian dream team goes to WashingtonAI is powerful, dangerous, and controversial. What will Donald Trump do with it?Immigration and the southern borderA Trump second term could bring another family separation crisisWould Trumps mass deportation plan actually work?Trumps immigration policies are his old ones but worseRussia, China, and the Middle EastWhy Ukraine thinks it can still win over Donald TrumpHow the second Trump presidency could reshape the worldThe global risks of a Trump presidency will be much higher this timeWhat Trump really thinks about the war in Gaza

While campaigning, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to dismantle the US Department of Education (DOE), on the basis that the federal education apparatus is indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material. One thing Ill be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington, DC, and sending all education and education work it needs back to the states, Trump said in a 2023 video outlining his education policy goals. We want them to run the education of our children because theyll do a much better job of it. You cant do worse.Closing the department wouldnt be easy for Trump, but it isnt impossible and even if the DOE remains open, there are certainly ways Trump could radically change education in the United States. Heres whats possible.Can Trump actually close the DOE?Technically, yes. However, It would take an act of Congress to take it out, Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, told Vox. It would take an act of Congress to radically restructure it. And so the question is whether or not thered be appetite on the Hill for abolishing the department. Related:What do librarians do? Do they need degrees?Thats not such an easy prospect, even though the Republicans look set to take narrow control of the Senate and the House. Thats because abolishing the department would require 60 votes unless the Republicans abolish the filibuster, Jal Mehta, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Vox. Without the filibuster rule, legislation would need a simple majority to pass, but senators have been hesitant to get rid of it in recent years. With the filibuster in place, Republicans would need some Democratic senators to join their efforts to kill the department. The likelihood of Democratic senators supporting such a move is almost nonexistent.That means the push to unwind the department is probably largely symbolic. And that is the best-case scenario, Jon Valant, director of the Brookings Institutions Brown Center on Education Policy, told Vox. According to Valant, dismantling it would simultaneously damage the US education system while also failing to accomplish Trumps stated goals. Closing the department would wreak havoc across the country, Valant said. It would cause terrible pain. It would cause terrible pain in parts of the country represented by congressional Republicans too.Much of that pain would likely fall on the countrys most vulnerable students: poor students, students in rural areas, and students with disabilities. Thats because the departments civil rights powers help it to support state education systems in providing specialized resources to those students.Furthermore, much of what Trump and MAGA activists claim the agency is responsible for like teaching critical race theory and LGBTQ ideology isnt actually the purview of the DOE; things like curriculum and teacher choice are already the domain of state departments of education. And only about 10 percent of federal public education funding flows to state boards of education, according to Valant. The rest comes primarily from tax sources, so states and local school districts are already controlling much of the funding structure of their specific public education systems.I find it a little bewildering that the US Department of Education has become such a lightning rod here, in part because I dont know how many people have any idea what the department actually does, Valant said.Even without literally shutting the doors to the federal agency, there could be ways a Trump administration could hollow the DOE and do significant damage, Valant and Kettl said. The administration could require the agency to cut the roles of agency employees, particularly those who ideologically disagree with the administration. It could also appoint officials with limited (or no) education expertise, hampering the day-to-day work of the department.Trump officials could also attempt changes to the departments higher education practices. The department is one of several state and nongovernmental institutions involved in college accreditation, for example and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) has threatened to weaponize the accreditation process against universities he believes to be too woke. Finally, Trump could use the departments leadership role to affect policy indirectly: Theres power that comes from just communicating to states what you would like to see being taught in schools, Valant said. And there are a lot of state leaders around the country who seem ready to follow that lead.Trumps plans for the department will become clearer once the administration nominates a Secretary of Education. Once that person is confirmed, Kettl said, Theyre just gonna be off to the races on the issue again.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:

This week, a number of social media users were, once again, disappointed by the selection of a certain man to a coveted position. Actor John Krasinski yes, Jim from The Office was given the title of Peoples Sexiest Man Alive. Its a choice thats less egregious than genuinely perplexing. Its not that Krasinski isnt an objectively handsome man. In his most recent television role on the Prime Video show Jack Ryan, which ended in 2023 he played a buff, butt-kicking CIA agent. Its more that his career has rarely ever required him to display any sort of sex appeal. His most crush-worthy role to date was arguably more than a decade ago on The Office as the funny and approachable Jim Halpert. Since then, the most female attention he gets on social media is when hes posing with his wife, actress Emily Blunt, on a red carpet. Plus, its not exactly his year for visible hotness: His work in 2024 was almost entirely behind the scenes, directing the childrens film IF and producing A Quiet Place: Day One. All this to say, in a pop culture landscape practically infested with internet boyfriends, Krasinski was a baffling choice. Amid look-alike competitions being held for Hollywoods hottest young men across the United States and Europe your Timmy Chalamets, your Paul Mescals the lack of excitement around this issue has never felt so loud. What does it even mean to be Peoples sexiest man alive in 2024, if it means anything at all? And why are we still so invested? For readers who witnessed Patrick Dempsey receive this honor just last year, it must be pointed out that the Sexiest Man Alive issue didnt always feel this arbitrary and untimely. From its (now-cursed) inaugural issue in 1985 with box-office star Mel Gibson up until Channing Tatums spread in 2012, the titular man felt representative of the tastes of the average (straight white) woman. Plus, it was often a star who was dominating at the box office. In the past, the cover served as the ultimate advertising vehicle for it guys who were either newly cementing themselves as full-fledged movie stars, like Brad Pitt in 1995 and George Clooney in 1997, or major celebs reassuring the public that they were still hot commodities, like Harrison Ford in 1998. While these selections have been overwhelmingly white, at least they once felt relevant. People is a stalwart in an industry weathering difficult times, and this special issue is arguably one of the things keeping the magazine on newsstands. According to Digiday, the sexiest man issue has a rate base, or guaranteed circulation, of 3.7 million, compared to a regular issue of the magazine, with a rate base of 3.5 million. Strategically published during the fourth quarter when consumers are doing Thanksgiving and Black Friday shopping, its proven to be a huge cash cow for Peoples parent company, Dotdash Meredith. Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel revealing actor Chris Hemsworths Peoples Sexiest Man Alive cover on Jimmy Kimmel Live in 2014. Adam Rose/Walt Disney Television via Getty ImagesIn the 2010s, though, the issue started to receive some blowback or, more accurately, the advent of social media allowed these complaints to be expressed in a hypervisible way. It wasnt just that only two men of color, Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves, had received the award until 2016, when Dwayne The Rock Johnson graced the cover. The choosing of celebrities like Adam Levine, a rockstar with a reputation for being a so-called douchebag raised eyebrows in 2013 and also performed relatively poorly on newsstands. His co-star on The Voice, Blake Shelton, has maybe done the most damage to the issues reputation. The unveiling of his cover in 2017 sent the internet into hysterics for days. John Legend (another judge on The Voice) in 2019 felt almost equally random. Even Benny Blancos appearance in the current issue as an honorable mention was strongly objected to online. Year over year, the Sexiest Man Alive has become less of a trusted assertion and more of a platform for debate.The details of the selection process for this issue have largely been kept under wraps. In a 2012 interview with USA Today, former editor Julie Jordan said People temperature-checks in a few ways, including asking female celebrities, consulting focus groups, and observing social media. There are constant rumors, including in Krasinskis case, that the title can be bought or won by a convincing publicist. Its easy to forget, though, that the selected men also have to be willing to participate in this extremely public form of objectification. The less impeachable Ryan Gosling reportedly turned down the offer twice. Even with an increasingly questionable reputation, social media has remained invested in this frivolous honor, particularly this year. Maybe its because People did a good job of incessantly teasing the reveal on social media with the help of dominant X accounts like FilmUpdates and PopCrave. Maybe its because the public needed a distraction from a much more crucial and devastating election. In the midst of political tumult, Krasinski is ultimately a safe, fairly inoffensive option, a celebrity that millennials obsessed with The Office have a level of affinity for. Despite questions about his political affiliation, he hasnt been mired in any real controversy. Whatever relevance the title holds, the sport of debating and crowning famous men as sexy and hot has never really gotten old. Like awards shows, its one of the last examples of celebrity monoculture for consumers to collectively engage with. In an overly skeptical social media landscape, it also seems as though half of the fun of the issue is negotiating whether the awarded person is a genuine attempt to reflect consumers taste or some elaborate PR play being fed to us. However meaningless the issue has become these days, its been successful in producing two things: revenue and a good, hollow debate. 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:

Some 110 years ago, a picturesque new road known as Roosevelt Boulevard began ferrying vehicles across the nascent but burgeoning neighborhoods of North and Northeast Philadelphia. At first, traffic was light, but it rapidly thickened as car ownership rose and the surrounding area developed. By the 1950s, when the boulevard expanded to meet the new Schuylkill Expressway, it was lined with row houses and shops. Today, what was initially a bucolic parkway has become a traffic-snarled, 12-lane thoroughfare snaking its way through neighborhoods that house 1 in 3 Philadelphians.It is, by all accounts, a mess. Dubbed the corridor of death, Roosevelt Boulevard has been named the most dangerous street in the city (and among the most dangerous in the nation). In 2022, 59 pedestrians were killed there. Residents want to get across the street to the pharmacy to get their medication or get across the street to the supermarket, Latanya Byrd, whose niece and three nephews were killed in a crash on the boulevard in 2013, said in a video produced by Smart Growth America. It may take two, maybe three lights, for them to get all the way across. Its not just pedestrians who loathe Roosevelt Boulevard. People who walk, drive, or take public transit are all pretty badly screwed, Philadelphias public radio station declared in 2017. Aware of the roads shortcomings, city officials have long sought design changes that would reduce crashes. But they are powerless to act on their own, because the boulevard is controlled by the state of Pennsylvania.That situation is common across the United States, where many of the most deadly, polluting, and generally awful urban streets are overseen by state departments of transportation (DOTs). Often they were constructed decades ago, when the surrounding areas were sparsely populated. Although only 14 percent of urban road miles nationwide are under state control, two-thirds of all crash deaths in the 101 largest metro areas occur there, according to a recent Transportation for America report. In some places, this disparity is widening: From 2016 to 2022, road fatalities in Austin, Texas, fell 20 percent on locally managed roads while soaring 98 percent on those the state oversees. Related:The country is littered with roads that are a legacy of the past, that dont work very well, and that drive people crazy, said US Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who calls them legacy highways.Instead of fixing such roadways, state officials tend to keep them as they are, citing limited resources or a need to maintain traffic speeds. In doing so, they constrain the capacity of even the most comprehensive local reforms to respond to urgent problems like car crash deaths, which are far more widespread in the US than among peer countries, or unreliable bus service. Unless state DOTs recognize that a successful urban road must do more than facilitate fast car trips, that problem will persist. Why we have state highwaysIn the early 1900s, states from coast to coast created transportation agencies to build smooth, wide roads that enabled long-distance car trips. New high-capacity roadways traversed forests and farmland, often terminating at what was then the urban edge. When Americans went on a car-buying binge after World War II, states like Michigan widened their highways with the goal of keeping traffic moving quickly, a prime directive for engineers. High-speed roadways fed rapid suburbanization, with new developments mushrooming on the city periphery. Columbus, Ohio, for instance, roughly doubled in population from 1950 and 2000, while its land area quintupled. Sprawling cities in the South and Southwest emerged seemingly overnight, while new suburbs encircled older metropolises in the North.In these newly urbanized areas, state highways that had previously meandered through the countryside were now lined with retail and housing. Their designers had initially paid little attention to transit, sidewalks, or tree cover features that are often afterthoughts for rural roads, but crucial in more densely populated areas.As with Philadelphias Roosevelt Boulevard, the width and traffic speed of state roads in urban neighborhoods now frequently clash with local desires for street safety, quality transit service, and pedestrian comfort. But revising them is rarely a priority for state DOTs engaged in a Sisyphean battle against traffic congestion.If a state agencys primary focus is on moving vehicles, theyre looking at reducing delays and building clear zones that remove objects such as trees next to a road, where errant drivers might strike them, said Kristina Swallow, who previously led the Nevada DOT as well as urban planning for Tucson, Arizona. At the local level, youre looking at a bunch of other activities. You have people walking or on a bike, so you may be okay with some congestion, because you know thats what happens when people are coming into an economically vibrant community.City-state tensions over state highways can take many forms. Roadway safety is often a flashpoint, since fixes frequently involve slowing traffic that state officials want to keep flowing. In San Antonio, for instance, the city negotiated for years with the Texas DOT to add sidewalks and bike lanes to Broadway, a state arterial with seven lanes. Last year the state scuttled that plan at the 11th hour, leaving Broadways current design in place. Local efforts to improve transit service can also face state resistance. In September, Madison, Wisconsin, launched its first bus rapid transit (BRT) line, a fast form of bus service that relies on dedicated bus lanes. But much of its route runs along East Washington, an arterial managed by Wisconsin, and the state transportation department prevented Madison from making the entire BRT lane bus-only during rush hour. That could sabotage the new service out of the gate. These dedicated bus lanes would serve the bus best in the heaviest traffic, so its counterintuitive to typical BRT design, said Chris McCahill, who leads the State Smart Transportation Initiative at the University of Wisconsin and serves on Madisons transportation commission. Wisconsins DOT did not respond to a request for comment.The whole point of fast transit programs like BRT is to get more people to ride transit instead of driving, thereby increasing the total human capacity of a road since buses are much more space-efficient than cars. But that logic can escape state transportation executives oriented toward longer, intercity trips instead of shorter, intracity ones, as well as highway engineers trained to focus on maximizing the speed of all vehicles, regardless of how many people are inside them. Even sympathetic state transportation officials may not fix dysfunctional urban roadways due to limited resources and competing needs that include expensive upgrades to bridges and interstates. Critical but relatively small-dollar projects, such as street intersection adjustments that better serve pedestrians or bus riders, can get lost in the shuffle. Lacking the authority to make changes themselves, city officials are stuck. How do you create connected networks when you dont own the intersection, and to fix it you have to compete at the state level with 500 other projects? said Stefanie Seskin, the director of policy and practice at the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).As an example, Seskin cited the state-controlled St. Marys Street bridge in Brookline, a dense suburb adjacent to Boston. Its the only way to get to and from Boston that isnt on a major, super busy arterial, she said. Its not structurally deficient, but from the position of those walking, biking, and using transit, its just not functioning well. It requires a reconstruction something that Massachusetts has not done.The beginnings of a paradigm shift in transportation policyWith deaths among US pedestrians and cyclists hitting a 40-year high in 2022, a growing number of state DOTs are starting to acknowledge that maximizing vehicle speed is not the only goal that matters on urban roadways. The Pennsylvania DOT, for example, is now working with Philadelphia to at last bring lane redesigns, bus lane improvements, and speed cameras to Roosevelt Boulevard. On the other side of the country, the head of the Washington state DOT has requested $150 million from the state legislature to address the shortcomings of legacy highways. I think there are people in every single state DOT who want to be more proactive and to plan for safer streets for people who are moving, no matter what mode of transportation they use, Seskin told me. I dont think that that was necessarily the case 20 years ago. Still, fixing the deficiencies of state roadways requires a paradigm shift within state DOTs, with senior officials accepting that maximizing car speeds jeopardizes crucial local priorities like accommodating pedestrians, enabling rapid transit service, or supporting outdoor dining. Such nuance can escape state highway engineers trained with a myopic focus on vehicle speed. Many of the people doing roadway design work for states are still stuck in the old model, said Billy Hattaway, an engineer who previously held senior transportation roles in the Florida DOT as well as the city of Orlando.McCahill, of the State Smart Transportation Initiative, empathized with those toiling within state DOTs. Think about their position as engineers, he said. Theyve got their federal highway design guidelines, theyve got their state guidelines. Theyve been conditioned to be conservative and not try new things.Historically, those roadway design guidelines have prioritized free-flowing traffic. Making them more malleable could empower engineers to get more creative. Instead of applying one-size-fits-all rules for elements like lane widths and traffic lights, context-sensitive design encourages engineers working in urban settings to add pedestrian crossings, narrow lanes, and other features that can support local transportation needs. McCahill applauded Floridas DOT for recently rewriting its design guide to incorporate such context-sensitive layouts. Federal money could help finance such redesigns if state officials know how to use it. Theres a lack of knowledge about the flexibility of federal dollars, with misunderstandings and different interpretations, said NACTOs Seskin. Recognizing the issue, over the summer, the Federal Highway Administration published guidance and held a webinar highlighting dozens of federal funding programs available to upgrade legacy highways.Then there is an alternative approach: Rather than revise problematic roads themselves, states can hand them over to local officials, letting them manage improvements and maintenance. Washington state, for instance, in 2011 transferred a 2.5-mile strip of state road 522 to the Seattle suburb of Bothell. But such moves are not always financially feasible. The risk is that when you transfer a highway to local government, you take away the capacity to properly fund it over the long term because the city becomes responsible for upkeep, said Brittney Kohler, the legislative director of transportation and infrastructure for the National League of Cities. Unless the revamped road spurs development that creates new tax revenue, as it did in Bothell, cash-strapped cities may be unable to afford the costs of retrofits and ongoing maintenance.States and cities can work together to fix legacy highways and federal support can helpIn Portland, Oregon, pretty much everyone seems to agree that 82nd Avenue, a major thoroughfare that the state manages, is a disaster. Originally a little-used roadway marking the eastern edge of the city, 82nd Avenue has developed into a bustling arterial. Its been a dangerous eyesore for decades, with potholed pavement, insufficient pedestrian crossings, inadequate lighting, and minimal tree cover, said Art Pearce, a deputy director for the Portland Bureau of Transportation. According to city statistics, from 2012 to 2021, crashes on the thoroughfare caused 14 deaths and 122 serious injuries. At least two-thirds of crash victims were pedestrians, bicyclists, or occupants of cars turning left at intersections without traffic signals. During winter storms, Pearce said state workers would often clear nearby Interstate 205 but leave 82nd Avenue unplowed, leaving the city to do it without compensation. Our priority in snow and ice is to keep public transit moving, and 82nd Avenue has the highest transit ridership in the whole state, he said.Nearby residents and business owners have been begging local officials to revamp 82nd Avenue for decades, said Pearce and Blumenauer (whose congressional district includes Portland). The state was willing to transfer the roadway to the city, but the local officials wanted more than a handshake.We were like, if you give us $500 million, the city will take over 82nd Avenue and fix it, Pearce said. The state officials answered, We dont have $500 million, so hey, good meeting.A breakthrough came in 2021, when the American Rescue Plan Act offered states and cities a one-time influx of federal funding. Matching that money with contributions of their own, the state and city negotiated a transfer of seven miles of 82nd Avenue from the Oregon DOT to Portland. Some $185 million will go toward new features including sidewalk extensions, trees, a BRT line, and curb cuts for those using a wheelchair or stroller. Blumenauer, who said that reconstructing 82nd Avenue has been a personal goal for 35 years, led US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on a tour of the roadway last year.The success story is a bit of a one-off, Blumenauer admits, reliant on stimulus dollars tied to the Covid-19 pandemic. But a dedicated federal funding source could enable similar roadway reboots nationwide.At the moment, President-elect Donald Trump and incoming congressional Republicans show little appetite for transportation reforms, but a golden opportunity will come during the development of the next multiyear surface transportation bill, which is expected to be passed after the 2026 midterms. Although Blumenauer did not run for reelection this month, he said he hopes the future bill will include a competitive grant program that invites state and local officials to submit joint proposals to upgrade state highways in urban areas, with federal dollars acting as a sweetener.Otherwise, these state roads will continue to obstruct urban residents most cherished goals of safety, clean air, and public space. Flourishing cities cannot coexist with fast, decrepit roads. Too many state officials have not yet learned that lesson.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:

In the warm blue waters of the Solomon Islands, an island chain in the South Pacific, lies one of the worlds largest sea creatures. Roughly the size of two basketball courts, its neither a whale nor a giant squid.It is a single piece of coral. On Wednesday, a team of researchers and filmmakers exploring the Solomon Islands revealed that they found what they claim is the worlds largest individual coral colony. The coral, a communal organism comprising millions of animals called polyps, is 34 meters wide and 32 meters long and so large it can be seen from space. A typical coral reef is made of many different coral colonies, most of which are genetically distinct, whereas this is just one individual.In new photos shared by the research team, the coral, a species known as Pavona clavus, looks like a lumpy brown mound covered in knobs. Closer views reveal bits of yellow, green, and purple. Given its size and the slow speed at which corals grow, this individual is likely several centuries old.The mega coral is so large it dwarfs the diver alongside it. Manu San Flix/National Geographic Pristine SeasClose-up views reveal all kinds of sea life growing on and around the coral. Manu San Flix/National Geographic Pristine SeasIts a dream to see something unique like this, Manu San Flix, an underwater photographer and marine biologist who first saw the coral last month in the Solomon Islands, told Vox. When Napoleon was alive, this thing was here. San Flix discovered the coral while filming near an island called Malaulalo for an ongoing National Geographic expedition. The expedition, a collaboration with the Solomon Islands government, is part of National Geographics Pristine Seas project, which aims to help countries establish more marine parks, in part by documenting sea life. Malaulalo is mostly uninhabited and its waters are largely unexplored, according to Dennis Marita, a member of the Poonapaina Tribe of Ulawa. The tribe oversees Malaulalos marine territory. This is something huge for our community, Marita, whos also the director of culture at the Solomon Islandss ministry of culture and tourism, said in a press conference Tuesday. No other coral in the public record is larger than this one, though its possible that there are bigger colonies in remote stretches of the ocean that have yet to be discovered. The previous record-holder for the worlds largest coral was a colony in American Samoa that was roughly 22 meters wide. Many of the worlds coral reefs are remote and not well explored, Stacy Jupiter, executive director of marine conservation at the Wildlife Conservation Society, who was not involved in this expedition, told Vox. Humans have only surveyed about 5 percent of the planets marine realm, she mentioned. So it is not surprising at all that we continue to make new discoveries, even of large creatures, Jupiter said.Manu San Felix dives over a massive coral Manu San Flix, National Geographic Pristine SeasBeacon of hopeThe discovery comes at a time when coral reefs around the world are vanishing.Climate change is warming the oceans, and warm water kills corals. Coral gets its color and much of its food from symbiotic algae that live inside polyps. When seawater gets too warm, that algae disappears, and the coral turns white or bleaches. Bleached corals are essentially starving to death. Coral reefs globally are facing the most extensive bleaching crisis on record. Three-quarters of the worlds coral reefs have experienced enough ocean heat to cause bleaching since early 2023, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Many corals have died. Related:Meanwhile, new research suggests that more than 40 percent of hard corals those that build reefs, like the recently discovered colony in the Solomon Islands are at risk of extinction. This is a problem, to put it lightly. Reefs dampen waves that hit the shoreline during hurricanes, they are home to a significant portion of commercial fish that people eat, and they are the engine of tourism economies in many coastal regions. Hundreds of millions of people depend on coral reefs.Perhaps unsurprisingly, the National Geographic team discovered a lot of dead coral in the shallows of the Solomon Islands, likely due to excessive heat in the ocean, said Molly Timmers, a marine ecologist and the expeditions lead scientist. That was discouraging, she said. In the face of that loss, this discovery was a beacon of hope, Timmers told Vox. Its like, holy crap! This is amazing!Large coral colonies provide homes for marine critters like crabs, snails, and small fish. More importantly, they seed the ocean with baby corals when they spawn, or reproduce, helping damaged sections of reef recover. Plus, this particular coral may be resilient to stress, including excessive marine heat. The research team estimates that its between 300 and 500 years old, meaning its lived through multiple global bleaching events and survived. Unlike some of the coral closer to shore, this individual which was more than 10 meters deep appeared healthy, perhaps because it was in deeper, cooler water or because it has some built-in genetic tolerance to heat. So the spawn it produces could be resilient too. Anything old is really good at surviving, said Maria Beger, a marine ecologist at the University of Leeds, who was not involved in the discovery. Divers measure the newly discovered coral, revealing it to be the largest on record. Manu San Flix/National Geographic Pristine SeasDiscovering a hulking colony of coral is not, by itself, all that impressive, said Beger. To support marine life and withstand threats like climate change, its more important that reefs have a diverse array of coral species in all shapes and sizes, rather than one big one.At the same time, if a report like this gets people excited about coral reefs, she said, maybe thats a good thing.The discovery could also help the Solomon Islands conserve their waters more effectively, Marita, of the ministry of culture and tourism, told Vox. While his tribe has been informally conserving Malaulalo for a decade on its own, he said, the island would benefit from an official marine protected area recognized by the Solomon Islands government. Marita has been campaigning to make that happen. This will certainly boost the conservation initiative that we have been working on, he told Vox, referring to the discovery. This mega coral will help bring much-needed visibility and recognition from the government and other stakeholders. This is really a gain for us. 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:

Donald Trump announced that he intends to nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to serve as his attorney general. Gaetz is a longtime Trump loyalist, who will likely be tasked with remaking the Department of Justice. The department has traditionally adhered to strong norms against interference by the president; Trump and his allies have been explicit in arguing that should change. Trump has also repeatedly called for legal action against his political enemies, including promising to appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family, in 2023.Enforcing those sorts of threats would fall to Gaetz, if he is confirmed by the Senate.Before being nominated to be attorney general, Gaetz was probably best known for two things. One is his longstanding feud with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who was eventually ousted in no small part because of Gaetz. The other is the string of sexual misconduct allegations. Gaetz denies these allegations, and the Department of Justice dropped its investigation into them in 2023.If Gaetz does end up running that same department, hell be in a uniquely powerful role. He would be tasked with overseeing all federal prosecutions, providing legal advice to the president and the Cabinet, and would have the final say on any legal stance that the United States takes in court. Of greater significance perhaps is the fact that Gaetz would have enormous authority over who is prosecuted, who is allowed to get away with committing federal crimes, and who might be targeted for politically motivated prosecutions in an authoritarian administration.Trump has repeatedly promised retribution against his Democratic rivals. And his fellow Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled last July that he can order the Justice Department to bring politically motivated prosecutions without consequence.In the first Trump administration, Trump reportedly wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute his former political opponent Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey, but was dissuaded from doing so by White House Counsel Don McGahn. Gaetzs strong support for Trump, by contrast, makes it seem hes much less likely to resist such an order.Just who is Matt Gaetz? Gaetz has a law degree, and he did previously practice law in northwest Florida. Hes been a representative since 2017, and became known both for stunts on the House floor like wearing a gas mask to protest masking policies during the coronavirus pandemic as well as his staunch support for Trump.In 2021, it was revealed that Gaetz was the subject of an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct.The allegations arose out of his relationship with Joel Greenberg, a former county-level tax collector who was sentenced to 11 years in prison by a federal judge in 2022. Greenberg pled guilty to a wide range of crimes, including underage sex trafficking, wire fraud, identity theft, and conspiring to defraud the federal government. Judge Gregory Presnell, who sentenced Greenberg, said that hes never seen a defendant who has committed so many different types of crimes in such a relatively short period.According to CNN, Greenberg also cooperated extensively with the Justice Departments sex-trafficking probe into GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz. Among other things, Greenberg reportedly told investigators that he witnessed Gaetz having sex with a 17-year-old girl. (Gaetz in 2021 issued a blanket denial of the allegations via a statement from his office, writing: No part of the allegations against me are true.)As a general rule, sex offenses such as soliciting prostitution are handled by state-level prosecutors, as the Constitution only gives the federal government limited authority over sex crimes. The US Justice Department can get involved, however, in narrow circumstances. The Justice Departments investigation into Gaetz looked into whether he had sex with this teenager and paid for her to travel with him. It is a federal crime to transport someone across state lines, with the intent that they engage in prostitution or illicit sexual conduct. The most serious violations of this statute carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.In any event, the Justice Department eventually decided not to charge Gaetz. Its reasons for declining to do so have not been made public, but the lack of charges does not necessarily clear him of the allegations. Meanwhile, a House ethics investigation into Gaetz remains ongoing.According to ABC News, one woman told the House committee investigating Gaetz that the member of Congress paid her for sex. Others have said they were paid to attend parties that Gaetz also attended, where attendees used drugs and had sex. Again, Gaetz has denied any misconduct.As of yet, its unclear whether a majority of senators will vote to confirm Gaetz as attorney general. But theres some evidence that many Republicans will be turned off by the sex crimes allegations against Gaetz, and by his generally poor reputation on Capitol Hill. In 2023, for example, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said that theres a reason why no one in the [Republican] conference defended Gaetz after seeing some of the evidence against him.As New York Times columnist Ezra Klein writes, Trumps decision to nominate Gaetz should be read as an effort to gauge whether Republican senators will permit him to take absurd and dangerous actions. These arent just appointments, Klein writes of Gaetz and Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, Theyre loyalty tests. The absurdity is the point.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:

Welcome to the golden age of STI prevention.Sure, condoms are still an effective strategy for lowering the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) but now, theyre just one of a smorgasbord of strategies for decreasing your chances of catching an infection spread by sex. That includes vaccines to lower your risk of certain STIs, and medications you can take to prevent infection some with the ease of a morning-after pill, and many that can be mailed to your home after an online telehealth visit. It also includes new STI tests that people can take in their homes, with results available either instantly or within days to enable quick and discreet testing and treatment. In a world where getting sexual health care sometimes feels fraught with judgment, these new methods offer a level of discretion and convenience that feels nothing short of revolutionary.In-person care is still best for getting the most comprehensive and personalized evaluation and education, and weve got guidance on how to find that kind of care here. But even sexual health care clinicians recognize its annoying or worse to go to the doctor sometimes. Inconvenience whether its cost, or travel, or parking, or taking off work, or other competing demands is probably a big factor in why people arent necessarily engaged in sexual health care that they might otherwise benefit from, says Douglas Krakower, an infectious disease doctor and HIV prevention researcher at Harvard Medical School. Stigma that shameful sense that people who know you have an STI look down on you, whether real or imagined also sometimes prevents people from getting high-quality sexual health care in person. The bottom line: People often prefer sexual health care that involves as few other humans as possible. Now, there are more ways to get that than ever.Not everyone gets to benefit equally from these advances. Some come with hefty out-of-pocket price tags or are still out of reach for pregnant or likely-to-be-pregnant people. Still, the changes represent a leap forward in an area of health care that needs as much help as it can get.Heres whats out there.You can greatly reduce your risk of HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and more STIs include a range of bacteria and viruses that cause unpleasant genital symptoms, threaten your ability to have pleasurable sex, and may endanger your ability to have healthy children. Barrier protections like internal and external condoms are still the best (and usually cheapest) way to protect yourself from STIs. However, if you anticipate having sex without condoms, there are now lots of other ways to prevent STIs. Vaccines have come a long way and several can prevent STIs, including HPV (a cause of genital warts and cervical cancer), mpox, and hepatitis A and B. Recent studies also suggest being vaccinated against meningitis can offer some gonorrhea protection, especially among gay men and the people they have sex with.There are also pills and injectable medications that can greatly reduce the risk a sexual partner will infect you with HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia.HIV prevention is available in a few forms: as a daily oral or every-two-months injectable medication you take before sex (called PrEP, for pre-exposure prophylaxis), or as a month-long regimen of oral medicines you take immediately after sex. The latter option, called PEP, for post-exposure prophylaxis, has to be started within 72 hours of exposure to be effective. Both options work by entering the bodys cells and preventing HIV from replicating inside them.A smorgasbord of new STI prevention optionsPrEP, a daily oral or every-two-months injectable HIV-prevention medication you take before sexPEP, a month-long course of oral HIV-prevention medication you take after sexDoxyPEP, a morning-after pill to prevent syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infectionsHome-based testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, and other STIs (click here for free resources; some direct-to-consumer options are listed here)Vaccines for HPV, mpox, hepatitis A and B Theres even more progress to come in this area: An every-six-months injectable drug for preventing HIV infection called lenacapavir has shown huge promise in preventing HIV infections in both women and trans and nonbinary people and could be available for US use as soon as late 2025. Krakower says an oral option isnt far behind.Syphilis has been rising explosively in the US for the past few years, affecting gay men and the people they have sex with as well as heterosexual men and women, especially those whose sexual partners include sex workers and people who inject drugs. The trend has huge stakes: Women can spread syphilis to their pregnancies, leading to serious illness or death in their newborns. Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines for using doxyPEP, a morning-after pill to prevent syphilis infection. This breakthrough strategy involves taking the antibiotic doxycycline the morning after sex and because this medication also fights other germs, doxyPEP also reduces gonorrhea and chlamydia transmission.The problem is that doxycyclines effects on pregnancy are unclear, but theres suspicion theyre not good. Many clinicians are therefore hesitant to prescribe it to younger patients in their care.Still, because congenital syphilis has become such a dire national emergency, scientists are seeking ways doxyPEP can protect pregnant people and their fetuses. One focus is getting more men who have sex with men and women to use doxyPEP; another approach may involve prescribing the drug to women at high risk of syphilis infection. In a Japanese study of female sex workers, this strategy led to plummeting syphilis and chlamydia rates.You can get at-home testing for a range of STIs It used to be that if youd had unprotected sex with a new partner or had unusual genital symptoms like painful urination, funky discharge, or skin changes like a bump, ulcer, or rash youd have to jump through a lot of hoops to figure out whether you had an STI. You would start by visiting a clinic or emergency room; getting your parts swabbed by a clinician (or peeing in a cup or getting blood drawn); waiting for a lab to process those results; waiting for the doctors office to communicate those results to you; going back to the clinic for medicine or picking it up at a pharmacy; and then potentially going back again to be retested once treatment was done. Now, a variety of new testing options allows clinics to get test results within hours for a range of STIs. Once these get adopted broadly by clinics and emergency rooms, itll be a lot easier for people to get testing and treatment all in the space of one health care visit. Hopefully, that will lower the number of people who get diagnosed with an STI but never get treated for it.Another huge step forward: New tests now enable people to do most or all of the STI testing and treatment process at home, online, or through the mail without a doctor or another clinician having to get involved. Agency is what home testing gets people, says Yuka Manabe, an infectious disease doctor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine who leads the home-based HIV and STI testing program, I Want the Kit. The FDA has only approved a handful of these tests, and theyre not perfect. For example, the only FDA-approved test that screens for chlamydia and gonorrhea with home-based sample collection is the Simple 2 test its only approved to test samples from penises and vaginas. That means the test cant be used to diagnose throat and rectal infections, which are more common in men exposed through oral or anal sex with other men. So while the Simple 2 is a great choice for people who engage only in heterosexual sex, it leaves out gay men and people they have sex with. Another important innovation is the First to Know Syphilis Test, which can detect within minutes syphilis-fighting antibodies in blood samples collected at home with a simple skin prick. The FDA approved the test in August. However, it has a catch: The test doesnt distinguish between new syphilis infections and old, already-treated infections. That means people whove had syphilis before cant use the test to rule out a new infection.Its worth noting that home-use HIV tests have been FDA-approved for more than a decade, although they also require follow-up testing for positive results.Just because these tests are FDA-approved doesnt guarantee they are covered by insurance; you can check with your insurer to find out what it will cost you. If its not covered, its worth checking to see if you live in a part of the country where free HIV, gonorrhea and chlamydia, or trichomonas test kits are available (the American Sexual Health Association lists free HIV and STI home test kit resources). Most of this testing would be free or low-cost if you got it in person, says Elizabeth Finley, the senior director of communications and programs at the National Coalition of STD Directors. Theres some equity implications in the reality that higher-income people can afford to pay out of pocket for the convenience of home-based testing, while lower-income people often cannot, she says.Choosing a test is just the beginningAn array of companies have created home-based STI tests that havent yet been approved by the FDA, including ones for hepatitis B and C, which are often overlooked. Non-approval doesnt mean a test is garbage it just makes it harder to be certain that its effective at doing what you want it to do.There are no real guardrails for the companies in terms of the quality they have to offer to customers, Finley says. The tests have to work, but Im not sure customers are fully informed about, if they see a test available on social media, Is this a good one? Is this a bad one?The appeal of these tests is strong for people who hate having someone else get their genital sample. Many of them have you pee in a cup, pinprick your own finger and blot blood on a card, or swab a range of body parts at home (including your vagina or penis, your butt, or your throat), then mail that sample to a lab that runs the usual tests on it, which can be retrieved in an online portal. Home testing kits also often make an end-run around the process of getting to a brick-and-mortar clinic to figure out next steps or pick up medication. Many use a telehealth platform to connect people who test positive for an STI with clinicians, who can provide counseling, suggest ways to get partners tested, and mail some medications directly to patients. Curing many STIs requires one or more antibiotic injections, and experts sometimes recommend additional evaluation after a diagnosis. Both of these scenarios require an in-person visit with a clinician. If you test positive for one of these STIs, your test companys telehealth provider should direct you to a clinic where you can see an in-person clinician.Giving people the option of self-directed sexual health care isnt just good for peoples sense of autonomy its also a sensible response to impending health worker shortages. Out of concern for an inadequate global supply of clinicians, the World Health Organization has recently recommended a range of self-care interventions for people all over the world, among them many of the latest innovations in STI self-sampling and testing. Its about time, Manabe says: Were not trusting the public enough.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:

Its a truism that everythings bigger in America just look at the cars and houses. But perhaps nowhere is the virtue of bigger is better more bizarrely apparent than how toilet paper is sold. Wander into the bathroom products aisle at the supermarket and youve entered a topsy-turvy world where numbers shape-shift. A pack of 18 mega toilet paper rolls, for example, magically transforms into 90 regular ones. The labeling emphasizes this greater number in large font, lest you foolishly think 18 simply equals 18. Another pack might insist that 12 even-thicker rolls of toilet paper are the equivalent of 96 normal rolls.The advertising is clear: Youre getting a lot of toilet paper. That should be good news, since if theres one rule of thumb everyone should live by, its never run out of TP. We saw anxiety around this eventuality reach new heights in the early days of the pandemic, when crowds of people fought to snap up as much toilet paper as they could, leading to a shortage and extreme price gouging. Americans enormous vehicles and palatial abodes may in fact exist in service of conveying and storing gigantic bulk packs of this bathroom essential.Theres some irony, then, that for all the trumpeting of gargantuan sizes, toilet paper rolls are generally getting smaller. Its a key example of the trend of manufacturers charging the same price (or even slightly more) for less product thats been dubbed shrinkflation. It makes it more difficult than ever to figure out if youre getting ripped off. None of the three major toilet paper manufacturers Vox reached out to responded to a request for comment.I really cant think of any other category thats as confusing as toilet paper, says Neil Saunders, managing director of retail at the consulting firm GlobalData. With dubious numerical claims about how much a mega roll is really worth, brands can promote the perception of value without actually having to show their work. Figuring out the price per toilet paper sheet is a hassle, but it would show how much more expensive the product has become.The consumer wouldnt like that, so they all keep it a bit opaque, Saunders says.Get ready for some back-of-the-toilet-paper mathThe most glaring issue plaguing the toilet paper industry is a lack of standardization. Double, triple, and mega rolls are imprecise descriptors that vary by brand; they are not measurement units. In fine print, toilet paper packaging will often admit that these sizes are relative to the regular roll sometimes they mean their own brands regular size, but other times, its against a competitors one-ply regular.Related:Wait, why is Dr Pepper so popular now?Unsurprisingly, the so-called standard size has no consistency, either. Charmins regular roll has 55 two-ply sheets, for example, but its often hard to even find the regular size of a brands toilet paper in stores. The mega roll is often advertised as having four times as many sheets as the mythical regular its being compared to, which means that Cottonelles idea of a regular roll contains 61 sheets, Quilted Northerns an awkward 73.75 sheets, and Angel Softs 80 sheets. But even these are perplexing figures since many real-life standard toilet paper rolls contain more than 100 sheets.The sheets-per-roll ratio is also subject to change depending on whether youre looking at single-ply, two-ply, or three-ply. (Not to make your brain hurt more, but sheet dimensions vary too.) The mega roll is just one size out of many that brands offer, all with slightly different naming conventions. Cottonelle sells mega, family mega, or super mega, while Charmin now offers the mega-XXL and even the forever roll, which is so big you need a standalone holder. There appears to be no limit to the jumbofication of toilet paper jargon. All this renders comparison shopping far more challenging than it is for the average household product. Making matters worse, theres no single consistent method of unit pricing for toilet paper. Some retailers, like Walmart, Amazon, and Target, show the price per 100 sheets, but then you still have to factor in the variation in sheets per roll for each brand. Walgreens shows price per sheet, while Home Depot displays a pretty unhelpful price per roll. Irregular unit price labeling is a problem for many consumer products, according to Chuck Bell, programs director of advocacy at Consumer Reports. Unit pricing is only mandated directly in nine states, Bell says, while 10 others have voluntarily taken it up. Its hard to compare products online for value for money.Its no wonder people have taken matters into their own hands. In late 2018, a California man named Victor Ly launched a Toilet Paper Value Calculator that crunches the number of rolls, sheets per roll, and any discounts that apply. Ly told Wirecutter in 2022 that a good deal was probably around 0.253 cents per sheet. While theres no longer a toilet paper shortage or people panic-buying pallets of them though the impulse to do so lingers its a much more expensive commodity today than before the pandemic, especially now that were a few years out from a period of high inflation. A report from consumer watchdog Public Interest Research Group noted that, before the pandemic, a pack of 36 Charmin Ultra Soft rolls cost $30.95 on Amazon. At time of writing, the same pack costs $59 on the site. (In December 2020, it was selling for as high as $114.99.)Most name-brand toilet paper today far exceeds Lys price threshold. A 30-pack of Charmin Ultra Strong mega rolls breaks down to 0.5 cents per sheet, though a 36-pack of Scott 1000 toilet paper is about 0.083 cents per sheet. Kirklands 30-pack of toilet paper, selling for $23.49 at time of writing, works out to 0.206 cents per sheet.The cost of making toilet paper may have gone up in recent years, according to the Los Angeles Times, due to a slowdown in lumber production (theres less available wood pulp, which is what most toilet paper is made of). Combine that with the fact that, as journalist Will Oremus reported in a piece about the pandemic toilet paper shortage, more people are working remotely today, reducing the time spent in office bathrooms. It means that the average consumer is using more toilet paper at home, cringing at how much their budget for bathroom products has gone up. Shrinkflation strikes againToilet paper manufacturers have come up with a way to keep prices roughly the same, though at least at a quick glance. The same pack of toilet paper you buy every month might only be more expensive upon close scrutiny of the fine print, when you realize each roll is made up of fewer sheets. A recent analysis by loan marketplace LendingTree showed that toilet paper was among the top offenders among products whose size or volume had shrunk since 2019 or 2020. A pack of 12 mega rolls from Angel Soft went from 429 sheets per roll to 320 essentially shrinking by a quarter but at least the price went down by 15 percent too. Charmin Ultra Strong mega rolls, on the other hand, shrank by 15 percent while the price increased by 11 percent.This isnt a new strategy that only toilet paper makers are employing. People have been complaining about product shrinkage for years; a Consumer Reports article from 2015 compared toilet paper rolls from top brands, showing that some had reduced by over 20 percent. The reason, manufacturers claimed at the time, was that better paper quality meant that people could use less of it.An older Charmin regular roll had 82 sheets versus just 55 today.Edgar Dworsky, a former consumer protection lawyer, has been tracking this shady practice which he calls downsizing for decades on his websites, MousePrint.org and ConsumerWorld.org.I remember back in the 1960s when my Mounds candy bar used to be two ounces and became one point something or other, he tells Vox. He notes that old Charmin toilet paper had as many as 650 sheets in a single-ply roll; its mega-XXL today has just 440 sheets. An older Charmin regular roll had 82 sheets versus just 55 today. The playbook is to shrink the current roll size, then invent a new tier (with a more ridiculous name) that can be priced higher.Consumer brands are in the business of making you think youre getting more, Dworsky says. Its all a name game, its all a numbers game, and if youre just oblivious to it, youre going to get snookered.How to avoid flushing money down the toiletToilet paper is marketed both as a value product, where youre getting four rolls for the price of one, and a weirdly indulgent luxury at the same time. Its something meant to be quickly disposed of, literally flushed away, yet commercials for toilet paper are almost always focusing on its delightful, cushiony softness or a special quilted or diamond weave texture that adds a premium feel to the product. Theres scented toilet paper, and even toilet paper with colorful patterns. One of Quilted Northerns April Fools Day ads pokes fun at the excessive promotional style of its own industry, proclaiming a return to hand-crafted, artisanal toilet paper.Ultimately, this is because we spend so much time with it, and in such an intimate way, so such bells and whistles do matter to some of us. Theres obviously some people [who], for medical reasons, like to have really soft toilet paper, Saunders says. Some people just like extra strong toilet paper. For others, its a pure bang-for-buck play, where they might just gravitate toward the pack with the most rolls (which isnt necessarily the best value). The range of options, from one-ply sparseness to lilac-scented plushness, isnt the problem. Its that its so hard to disentangle the value youre actually getting. As Dworsky notes, consumers could bring a scale to weigh packs of toilet paper every time they go to the store, but then what can you do about it? You still have to buy one of the #ShrinkFlated options, and its not an area where were spoiled for choice. While there are plenty of different versions that a single brand offers, just three manufacturers Procter & Gamble, Kimberly-Clark, and Georgia-Pacific make up some 80 percent of the bathroom tissue market.One could switch to commercial-grade toilet paper, which is much cheaper but is of (ahem) crappier quality. Where consumer toilet paper is soft, perhaps infused with lotion, often embossed with a delightful little pattern, the stuff we see in public restrooms is stiff and so thin that it breaks apart if you so much as look at it. Still, a 12-pack of commercial toilet paper at Home Depot is about $34 at time of writing, and one roll is about 700 feet long. Assuming that a square of consumer-grade toilet paper is about 4 inches long, a 440-sheet Charmin mega-XXL roll would still be under 147 feet. Related:Why companies are keeping their prices inflatedLawmakers and President Joe Biden have wagged their fingers at corporations for shrinkflation and have even introduced a bill attempting to ban the practice, though neither Dworsky nor Bell thinks its likely to become law. But more transparency around product sizes, more consistent unit price labels, or even requiring a consumer notice when theres a change in size would go a long way to help shoppers. Last year, in the lead-up to price negotiations with suppliers, French grocery chain Carrefour started attaching labels next to packaged foods and drinks that had gotten smaller. Whats certain is that the deceptive, confusing accounting of toilet paper rolls shouldnt be the norm and, in fact, it appears to be mostly a North American tradition. While other countries do also sell mega rolls, theres no fiddly math on the packaging insisting that a dozen rolls are somehow more than that. Toilet paper is no small matter, especially for Americans. Per capita, the US is the No. 1 consumer of it in the world, each American using about 141 rolls per year as of 2018. A Consumer Reports buying guide once compared the annual usage to the length of 23 football fields.One way to avoid the frustrating morass of counting rolls and sheets is to opt out of the game altogether. I switched to a bidet 10 years ago, Dworsky says.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump is pushing for the next Senate majority leader to allow recess appointments, which would allow him to install some officials without Senate confirmation.Typically, the Senate must approve presidential nominations for high-level posts, including cabinet positions, ambassadorships, and inspector general jobs, in a process outlined in the US Constitution. This procedure is meant to be a check on presidential power a way of ensuring officials directly elected by citizens can guard against the appointment of unqualified or corrupt personnel.The Constitution, however, also allows for recess appointments, a provision that aims to prevent prolonged government vacancies by allowing the president to install officials without Senate approval while Congress is not in session. Using such recess appointments, Trump would be able to appoint whoever hed like without giving the Senate the opportunity to question or object to the pick. Critics of the practice note that it increases the risk of unqualified, corrupt, or ideological appointees filling government posts. It also significantly expands presidential power. Though recess appointments have been used in the past by presidents of both parties, in recent years, the Senate has avoided going to extended recesses, blocking presidents from making any appointments in senators absence.Reinstating recess appointments would essentially negate one of the Senates main roles in governance, which is to vet presidential nominations for high-level positions, Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, told Vox. It would, if the Republicans in the Senate were willing to go along with it, represent sort of an abdication; they would be simply giving up the power thats afforded them.Trump injected his demand into the fierce race to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell as the leader of the Senate, which will be under GOP control next session thanks to the results of last weeks election. Trump largely stayed out of that contest while on the campaign trail, but he waded into it on Sunday, writing on X, Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!)The three candidates for the position Sens. John Thune (South Dakota), John Cornyn (Texas), and Rick Scott (Florida) quickly expressed support for Trumps demand. Scott, the underdog in the race who is also the closest Trump ally of the three, was the most explicit in his endorsement of the plan, writing 100% agree. I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible, on X.Whats a recess appointment and how does it work?In ordinary circumstances, nominees to many government posts including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, and federal judges must undergo a confirmation hearing, during which they are questioned by the Senate about their record, qualifications, and how they will perform their government duties. Confirmation in this process requires a simple majority voting to confirm. Recess appointments work differently, and they dont require a vote. The president simply appoints an official of their choice. The idea behind them was that there might arise times when the president needed to appoint someone to keep the government functioning, while Congress was out of session (in recess).At the time the Constitution was written, Congress met mainly nine out of 24 months, and there were long stretches where Congress wasnt in session, Squire told Vox. As such, the Constitution states the president has the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Congressional recesses arent as long as they once were. Now, recesses happen in between each congressional session and around holidays. Recess appointments still work the same way, however. And as the text notes, any appointment made during a recess isnt permanent: Presidential appointments made during a recess last to the end of that second session, meaning for a period of no more than two years. A president can renominate their pick after that, or reappoint them during another recess. How have they been used in the past?With the exception of Trump and President Joe Biden, recent presidents have made use of recess appointments; according to the Congressional Research Service, former President Barack Obama made 32 recess appointments, Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments, and George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments.Though recess appointments were meant to be used in emergencies or in times when Congress met less often, over the past few decades, theyve become seen as a way for presidents to get around congressional opposition. The process faced major scrutiny during the Obama administration, and was curtailed after a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that Obama had overstepped his power in utilizing recess nominations. (Thats why neither Trump nor Biden made any recess appointments.)In an effort to block recess appointments, the chamber often employs what are known as pro forma sessions. These short meetings, in which no real business is conducted, mean the Senate is never in recess for more than 10 days preventing the president from making any appointments without the bodys consent. A pro forma session can be as simple as one senator gavelling in, and then calling the session over.If recess appointments are reinstated, there is little Democrats could do to stop the process, Squire said. But they could slow down legislative processes, which wouldnt necessarily prevent [recess appointments] from happening, but there would be a penalty a cost attached to it. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump has begun naming members of his White House team, offering an early signal as to what direction hell take on issues, including foreign policy and immigration. Thus far, Trump has announced a handful of policy staffers, nominating House GOP Conference chair Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the United Nations, and former Rep. Lee Zeldin as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Hes also named former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tom Homan as his choice for border czar and is set to announce longstanding policy adviser Stephen Miller as a deputy chief of staff. Stefanik has been a staunch supporter of Israel, and Zeldin has emphasized his desire to roll back environmental regulations. Homan and Miller, meanwhile, are known for their hard-line stances on immigration, including overseeing family separations during Trumps first administration.Many other nominations including for powerful Cabinet positions like Secretaries of State and Defense are still to come. Related:Trump described a range of priorities while on the campaign trail, including promises of mass deportations, expansive tariffs, and cuts to protections for LGBTQ people. It will be up to his secretaries and staff to execute these plans, with his picks thus far underscoring just how serious he is about pursuing many of these goals, particularly on immigration. During his first administration, many of Trumps Cabinet members oversaw significant changes to the executive branch including Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who were critical to curtailing worker protections and attempting massive cuts to education spending, respectively. Trump has indicated that he wants to go further and move faster this time around and that he wants to ensure hes surrounded by like-minded staff. Below is a rundown of the people Trump has named and the roles these appointees could play. MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN - JULY 16: House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) speaks on stage on the second day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum on July 16, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Delegates, politicians, and the Republican faithful are in Milwaukee for the annual convention, concluding with former President Donald Trump accepting his partys presidential nomination. The RNC takes place from July 15-18. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesHouse Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY) has been tapped for UN AmbassadorWho she is: Once a moderate, Stefanik currently part of Republican House leadership has become a vocal Trump loyalist in recent years as her New York district shifted right. Stefanik first burst onto the national stage as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, grilling witnesses as part of Trumps first impeachment proceeding in the lower chamber in 2019. More recently, she went viral for her questioning of college presidents during a hearing on antisemitism and their handling of student protests over Gaza. As a top House Republican, Stefanik has amplified Trumps 2020 election denials and hewed so close to the president-elect that she was once on the shortlist for the vice presidency. Stefanik is also known for her efforts to recruit and support more Republican women for House seats. Shes taken a pretty standard conservative stance on foreign policy: Stefanik has been a prominent supporter of aid to Israel while balking at continuing support for Ukraine. She backed early tranches of Ukraine aid but joined other Republicans in arguing that more recent aid could be better applied domestically. Stefanik has previously questioned aid to the United Nations, including to its Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has been vital to providing humanitarian aid to Gaza. Elise is an incredibly strong, tough and smart America First fighter, Trump said in a statement about the role. What we know about the role: The Ambassador to the UN serves as a vital envoy for US interests; given the countrys financial support for the body and its role on the UN Security Council, the ambassador has major influence regarding how the organization utilizes its resources and who serves in its leadership. In the last year, UN officials have been increasingly critical of Israels attacks on Gaza as thousands have died, health care systems have been assaulted, and famine has struck. As Ambassador, Stefanik could criticize these positions and call for defunding UN relief programs. This role requires Senate confirmation. What message this sends: The pick suggests that the Trump administration could once again ramp up its disagreements with the United Nations, after attempting to curb funding for certain UN initiatives in Trumps first term. At that time, the administration also pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council, citing its criticisms of Israel. Stefaniks naming could also underscore the president-elects skepticism of additional aid to Ukraine. WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 22: Thomas Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, testifies before the House Homeland Security Committees Border and Marine Security subcommittee on Capitol Hill on May 22, 2018 in Washington, DC. Republican House members are calling for reform to asylum processes. (Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images) Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty ImagesFormer ICE Acting Director Tom Homan has been named border czar Who he is: Homan was acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first Trump administration and oversaw the implementation of the family separation policy during his tenure from 2017 to 2018. Hes also long backed Trumps desire to deport unauthorized immigrants, previously noting that if invited to join the administration, he intended to run the biggest deportation operation this countrys ever seen.Homan worked for ICE during former President Barack Obamas administration as well, and has also served as a police officer and Border Patrol agent. Hes been in lockstep with Trump on implementing punitive immigration policies and called for ICE to deport a wide range of unauthorized immigrants, including those who dont have criminal histories. Homan will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. There is nobody better at policing and controlling our Borders. What we know about the role: The border czar is not an official role that requires Senate confirmation; the Secretary of Homeland Security is the actual cabinet official overseeing the border. However, Homan appears poised to have a major say over policy and will weigh in on proposals at both the northern and southern borders, according to Trump. What message this sends: Homans efforts in the first Trump administration and his commitment to sweeping deportations this term indicate that the president-elect is fully focused on his promise to remove a large number of unauthorized immigrants from the US. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 08: Lee Zeldin, Former New York Senator and gubernatorial candidate visits Mornings With Maria with host Maria Bartiromo at Fox Business Network Studios on February 08, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images) Roy Rochlin/Getty ImagesFormer Rep. Lee Zeldin tapped for administrator of the Environmental Protection AgencyWho he is: Zeldin is a former Republican House lawmaker who also ran a failed campaign for the New York governors seat in 2022. Zeldin did not previously sit on committees focused on environmental policy in the House, and focused on crime and inflation during his gubernatorial run. That year, he came within a notably close margin of Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul as a Republican running in a traditionally blue state.Zeldin has said that some of his first priorities will be to roll back regulations that are forcing businesses to be able to struggle, and to work on US energy dominance. What we know about the role: The EPA is responsible for crafting policies that protect clean water and air, and also plays a major role in approving regulations to combat climate change. The position of administrator is a Senate-confirmed role. What message this sends: Trump promised to take a very different approach to the environment than the Biden administration, including by exiting international climate agreements and focusing on expanding fossil fuel production. Zeldins nomination suggests those promises will be a priority, as will rescinding Biden-era environmental protections that curbed carbon emissions for businesses. Stephen Miller, former White House senior advisor for policy, speaks during a campaign event with former US President Donald Trump, not pictured, at Atrium Health Amphitheater in Macon, Georgia, US, on Sunday, Nov. 3, 2024. A flurry of polls released Sunday show Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump remain poised for a photo finish in this weeks presidential election, with voters narrowly split both nationally and across the pivotal swing states that will decide the election. Photographer: Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg via Getty Images Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesTrump policy aide Stephen Miller expected to be named deputy chief of staff and policy adviserWho he is: Miller is a staunch Trump loyalist and policy adviser who pushed many of the harshest immigration policies during the president-elects first term. He has advocated for a travel ban and family separations in the past, and hes a chief architect and booster for the idea of the mass deportations Trump has promised this term as well.They begin on Inauguration Day, as soon as he takes the oath of office, Miller has said of deportations. Trump has not yet formally announced the appointment, though Vice President-elect JD Vance has already posted his congratulations to Miller. What we know about the role: Another political appointment that doesnt require Senate confirmation, this position is set to focus heavily on providing policy guidance likely focused on immigration, given Millers expertise to the president-elect. What message this sends: Between this appointment and Homans, Trump has made clear that his promised mass deportations will be one of his top policy goals when he retakes office. West Palm Beach, FL - November 6 : Susie Wiles speaks with Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump after he was declared the winner during an election night watch party at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida in the early hours of Wednesday, Nov. 06, 2024. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Jabin Botsford/Washington Post via Getty ImagesTrump campaign adviser Susie Wiles has been named chief of staffWho she is: A longtime Florida campaign operative, Wiles helped run Trumps 2016 campaign in the state and was a senior national adviser to him in 2024. Shes heavily credited for the success Trump had during the Republican primary in 2024 and had previously aided Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis during his gubernatorial run in 2018 prior to a falling out between the two. Wiles has also been a corporate lobbyist and worked with a spectrum of Republicans in the past, including former Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Florida Sen. Rick Scott. Susie is tough, smart, innovative, universally admired and respected, Trump said in a statement. What we know about the role: The chief of staff is effectively a gatekeeper who helps shape the presidents priorities and offers policy counsel. The position is the most prominent political appointee in the White House and is not Senate confirmed. Notably, Trumps former chief of staff John Kelly has been a major critic of Trump, describing him as a fascist who favors a dictator approach.What message this sends: Wiles has been credited with professionalizing Trumps campaign operations and reining in some of the chaos that has marked his past operations. That said, his campaign was still rife with racist remarks that echoed authoritarians as well as frequent lies about former Vice President Kamala Harriss policies and identity. Kelly has said that he attempted to restrain the president during his first term, though it was still plagued by in-fighting and tumultuous policies on everything from climate to immigration. 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:

Americans disheartened by this years election results may find themselves in a 2016 redux. Facing yet another Donald Trump presidency, you might be asking yourself: How do I cope? How will I steel myself to do it all over again for the next four years? This time around, Trump and his allies have vowed to deport millions of people, fire civil servants and appoint loyalists in their stead, and further restrict abortion access. These policies are genuinely distressing and can feel overwhelming for the many millions of people who will be affected by them. But it is not 2016. Having a clear-eyed plan for how youll handle what lies ahead is more protective than succumbing to despair. You can take the lessons learned to buttress your coping skills and avoid psychological exhaustion to make it through the coming days and the next four years. How to cope right nowDont suppress your emotions, process themIn the immediate aftermath of the election results, you may be flooded with emotions ranging from despair to rage. You cant suppress those emotions of fear and despair. You have to process them, says Adrienne Heinz, a clinical research psychologist at Stanford University. When you finally accept how you feel and the reality, you can start to focus on what you can change.Processing emotions requires quiet time with your thoughts. Its important in this moment to tune out distractions, like social media, and resist avoidant coping strategies, such as sleeping or doomscrolling, and sit with your feelings instead whether out in nature or while meditating in your living room.Right now, we probably dont have very high distress tolerance were maxed out, Heinz says. But just remembering those emotions dont last forever. They might feel like theyre going to eat you and swallow you whole, but if you can walk through them and come out the other side, you will be more emotionally intelligent.You may want to seek out a trusted friend or a mental health professional to help you work through some of your feelings, says Riana Elyse Anderson, an associate professor at Columbia Universitys School of Social Work. However, give yourself permission to mute group chats with friends if the conversation or information shared feels overwhelming.Stay in the momentInstead of worrying about whats to come, hard as that may be, ground yourself in the present. Remind yourself that the tree on your lawn is still there, that the bus is still following its route, says licensed clinical social worker Jne Hill. Squirrels are still scurrying along. Life is still going on, Hill says.She also recommends spending time with children who generally have other concerns theyre more interested in the book fair they just visited or the new move they learned in karate. This can bring you back into the present moment. Dont forget to lean into joy wherever you can this is what refills your energy stores.Avoid fatalistic thinkingAlthough the country has clarity on its next president, there are still plenty of unknowns about what exactly will unfold over the next four years. Uncertainty breeds anxiety, research shows, so its understandable to feel uneasy.Daniel Hunter, founder of Choose Democracy, an organization that provides resources to help Americans prepare for an undemocratic power grab, says his experience in activism has taught him that the solution isnt to bury your head in the sand or jump to the worst-case scenario. Try not to paint a narrative of the future based on assumptions.Consciously engage in that uncertainty and hold there are things we dont know, he says. We can grieve for the things we know, and we can grieve for the things we dont know, the things were not certain about. But thats different than telling ourselves a story.Curb reactionary impulsesTrumps first administration was a near-daily blitz of chaotic headlines, Hunter says. Trump would announce at 3 am some new policy that had never been discussed before, he says. Then people would feel like we have to react and do something about that. What it meant was we stayed in a constant state, or near-constant state, of Trump setting the agenda. This time around, try to be more measured and targeted with your reactions, Hunter says. Use moments of outrage to ask yourself what you feel inspired to do and what youd like to accomplish, and continue to press forward on those things, regardless of a political context, he says. Hunter points to the effectiveness of the so-called Muslim ban protests, which communicated the publics outrage over the policy at airports across the country. The disruption that happened in the airports, he says, was a major piece of putting the pressure on in a material way.Focus on what you can changeIn a similar vein, instead of devoting your attention to things you have no power to change, like the enactment of specific policies or Cabinet appointments, Heinz says to focus on what you do have control over. Choose one issue that resonates with you and find ways to get involved locally. It might be organizing something at the grassroots level to support new families who need child care, Heinz says. It could be going to a city council meeting to talk about housing.You can also consider areas where you dont feel like you have total control, Hill says. Are you not feeling in control of your livelihood, of your safety, your security, just being able to go out and not be attacked or injured? The question to then ask is, what can you control to make yourself feel safer during this moment? Perhaps thats spending more time with friends in your home. Maybe I want to spend some time beautifying and taking care of it, Hill says.Social isolation can make you feel fatigued and emotionally exhausted, studies suggest. Lonely people may also be less trusting of others, another study found. Surrounding yourself with people you love can bring comfort, Heinz says. The morning the race was called, Hunter texted a few friends to make plans to get together and commiserate, cry, laugh.Knowing your neighbors and finding local groups of people who champion the same causes as you can help you form community. Anderson recommends Mobilize to find events and volunteer opportunities near you. Think about what makes you feel like youve made a difference in the world. Is it protesting? Working with a mutual aid organization? Making dinner for your elderly neighbor? Ask yourself what issue in your town or city matters the most to you and how you could make an impact there. Getting people in person with each other is how were going to be able to show up for each other and also get the work done more effectively, Anderson says. Youve got to liveAuthoritarianism is fueled by fear, isolation, and perceived helplessness, Heinz says. That combination ultimately leads to psychological exhaustion, she says. But throwing yourself completely into resistance mode will ultimately lead to burnout. On the other end of the spectrum, there will be moments when you want to curl up in bed and shut out the world, but that isnt an effective long-term strategy, either.To keep from full emotional exhaustion, you need to set boundaries. We need psychological boundaries, Hunter says, not on our phones all the time, spaces where were not talking about it. Take time to rest and recuperate, but dont disengage. Set time limits on your news consumption, but dont avoid it completely. Balance upsetting coverage with good news, stories of progress, and examples of people who have gone through tragedy and made it to the other side. Support those you love and stand together with your community to protect others. How we live [is] not really a question thats intrinsically tied to a political outcome, Hill says. Obviously, it has real-life impact, globally and personally, but that philosophical question of how you live your life is not something that can be dictated by other people.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:

In the weeks after Donald Trumps 2016 victory, many top tech leaders found themselves at a meeting in Trump Tower, frowning and quite obviously full of dread. Now, the same executives sound enthusiastic when they say theyre looking forward to working with the next president.After Tuesdays election, the congratulations from the tech elite to Trump came in fast. The day after he secured the White House, everyone from Tim Cook to Mark Zuckerberg posted their well wishes for Trumps second term. Even Jeff Bezos weighed in, hailing Trumps extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory. This, from a man who has been in more than one public feud with Trump.The newfound praise does not, however, signal a political realignment in all of Silicon Valley. Tech executives as well as rank-and-file workers overwhelmingly supported Kamala Harris in the election, which shouldnt be too surprising: Shes been involved in Bay Area politics for many years and has deep ties with the tech and venture capital industries. That allegiance continued the trends of the Obama era, which was marked by a bit of a love fest between Washington and Silicon Valley. Barack Obama, who won the White House in 2008 with the help of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, embraced the ethos of startup culture and celebrated tech companies as a positive force in the United States. He developed personal relationships with executives like Zuckerberg and championed tech-friendly policies. Now, that era is over. In its place is something darker and dominated by a small but very loud group of techno-libertarian Trump fans whose ranks include not only Elon Musk but also the industrys most influential investors, most of the PayPal Mafia, and the vice president-elect. Does that mean the tech industry has taken a turn to the right? Is Silicon Valley Trump country now?It is neither left nor right, Democrat or Republican, Margaret OMara, an American history professor at the University of Washington, told me after the election. She pointed out that the tech industry culture in Silicon Valley has its roots in post-Vietnam baby boomers viewing personal computers as a form of liberation. They didnt feel like they had anything in common with political conservatives, but they shared a libertarianism that ran its way all the way across the political spectrum, OMara added. Its kind of a funny libertarianism.Tim Cook and other tech leaders met with Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, and other members of the transition team at Trump Tower on December 14, 2016. Albin Lohr-Jones/Getty ImagesYou get a sense of Silicon Valleys anti-bureaucratic worldview in everything from Apples famous 1984 ad, which quite literally suggests tearing down the establishment, to Googles celebrated 20 percent rule, which lets employees work on side projects of their own choosing. Theres also a more extreme version of this philosophy in the tech industry, especially lately, one that leans into anti-establishment thinking, which explains their affinity for crypto. These 21st-century techno-libertarians just want to be left alone to build things and make money. The tech executives busy kissing the ring this week are not necessarily part of this crowd. The Tim Cooks of the world are just doing business, and that requires doing business with the president of the United States, whomever it might be. After the tumultuous first Trump administration, these leaders learned that the president-elect responds best to flattery and praise. Theyve actually been sucking up to Trump for months in hopes that they might have some sway in the event of his return to office. This would be handy for many reasons. The Biden administration, in a break from Obama, has been tough on Big Tech. He appointed anti-monopoly legal star Lina Khan to chair the Federal Trade Commission, and she mounted multiple antitrust suits against the countrys biggest tech companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta. Now, Khan is currently waiting to see if shell keep her job, and the targets of those lawsuits may have an ally in Trump, who gets to decide Khans fate. In addition to less intense regulatory scrutiny, tech companies would also enjoy lower corporate taxes, which Trump has promised to provide. In my mind, this isnt a story about Silicon Valley overall and DC overall, said Robert Lalka, a professor at Tulane University. Instead, whats occurring now involves the influence of far fewer people: a very close-knit network of like-minded Trump supporters, especially if we focus on the PayPal Mafia, and the transformation of the Republican Party and its policy agenda.The PayPal Mafia refers to a group of entrepreneurs who worked at PayPal in its early days before going on to found or help build hugely influential tech companies. If you had to pick a godfather of the PayPal Mafia and hence the leader of this pro-Trump techno-libertarian political revolution it would be Peter Thiel. The PayPal co-founder donated over $1 million to Trumps campaign back in 2016 and spent $10 million to help JD Vance win a Senate seat in Ohio in 2022. Thiel also helped fund a project to establish autonomous, floating nations in international waters, where they would be free of all laws and regulations one reason he has been called the avatar of techno-libertarianism.The motivations of the techno-libertarians, also now known as techno-authoritarians, are more twisted. Elon Musk, who was also a PayPal co-founder, emerged this year as Trumps biggest supporter after donating nearly $119 million to his campaign through his America PAC and has made the promotion of free speech one of his missions. Free speech is also a big part of why, after accusing it of censorship, Musk bought Twitter in 2022 and turned it into X, where the promotion of right-wing propaganda and misinformation may or may not have helped Trump get elected too. Its not hard to see why Musk would benefit from a close relationship with the White House. The billionaire certainly didnt have much of a rapport with the Biden administration, which snubbed him at an electric vehicle summit, an incident that reportedly led Musk to embrace Trump. Musks rocket company, SpaceX, makes billions of dollars through government contracts, while his car company, Tesla, is lobbying for fewer regulations around self-driving cars as it attempts to launch a robotaxi business. Musks company Tesla Energy, formerly SolarCity, has received billions in subsidies over the years and surely looks to benefit from the federal governments continued investment in the energy transition. Meanwhile, Trump has promised Musk a role in his administration as the secretary of cost-cutting a position that doesnt yet exist, but one that Trump seems to be seriously entertaining.The other loud pro-Trump voices in Silicon Valley share a web of connections to each other and to Musk. Theres former PayPal COO and Musk pal David Sacks, who spoke at the Republican National Convention in July; Joe Lonsdale, who co-founded Palantir with Peter Thiel and helped launch Musks America PAC; and Marc Andreessen, who last year published the 5,200-word Techno-Optimist Manifesto that envisions tech leaders as keepers of the social order. Its worth noting that not every member of the PayPal Mafia has pledged allegiance to Trump. Reid Hoffman, another former PayPal COO and LinkedIn co-founder is a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser. He donated $7 million to pro-Harris and pro-Biden PACs, even though hes a vocal Lina Khan critic. He was also on a list of more than 100 venture capitalists who threw their support behind Harris leading up to the election.Donald Trump did a campaign stop at a crypto-themed bar in New York Citys West Village on September 18. Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesAnd then theres cryptocurrency.Andreessens VC firm announced in 2022 it was going all-in on crypto, a bet thats starting to pay off after two years of looking very foolish. Trump has promised to create a strategic cryptocurrency stockpile for the US government in his second term. Trumps general anti-regulation, pro-crypto stance sent Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies soaring to all-time highs after election night, following a widely covered crypto winter that lasted a couple of years. You could argue that the crypto vote was vital to helping Trump and a lot of other Republican candidates win, too. The crypto industry has emerged as one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the country, pouring tens of millions of dollars into races against politicians they perceive to be anti-crypto and its working. So far, 48 candidates backed by pro-crypto PACs have won their races this year. Zero have lost. When you think of it that way, Trumps win on the back of techno-authoritarian billionaires seems less like a seismic shift in the politics of the tech industry and more like a bunch of one-issue voters who donated lots of money and got their way.I think a lot of it is about crypto, OMara said. Crypto is also tied in and always has been tied in to a broader worldview, which is one of libertarianism, deregulation, or privately regulated markets that are separate from government. She described this ethos as escaping the state.Now, the techno-libertarians are the state. The day after Trump declared victory, he asked Musk to join him on a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And in the coming months, several more members of the PayPal Mafia get to decide what US tech policy will be for the next four years. You have to wonder if they just want to tear it all down. Or maybe theyll get bored and move to a floating nation in international waters where there are no laws and never have been.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:

The US nuclear industry has been struggling to hold its ground for decades as it contends with rising costs, an aging fleet, a shrinking workforce, and stiff competition from natural gas and renewable power. The most recent US nuclear reactors to come online, units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, started up in 2023. It was years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Meanwhile, more than a dozen reactors have shut down since 2013. Several companies developing advanced reactors and small modular reactors, promising greater safety and lower costs, have seen their projects and their businesses collapse.Nuclear power has been holding fairly steady for decades. Energy Information AdministrationBut in the past year, some big tech companies have taken steps toward a revival. Amazon has signed a $500 million deal with X-energy to deploy 5 gigawatts worth of small modular reactors (SMRs) in Washington state. The company is also investigating new nuclear projects in Virginia. Google and nuclear startup Kairos Power agreed to develop molten salt-cooled nuclear reactors, an approach that promises greater efficiency and lower costs. Microsoft has made advanced nuclear energy, including technologies like SMRs and fusion, a part of its energy strategy. These tech firms are looking to meet their climate goals while sating energy appetites that have exploded with the push for artificial intelligence. Last year, new data center power demand grew 26 percent to more than 5 gigawatts in North America. The case to lean into nuclear power at this moment is compelling. It could generate massive quantities of electricity, day or night, rain or shine, without emitting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Nuclear fission is also one of the safest energy sources. Coal kills more than 32 people per terawatt-hour of electricity produced while nuclear kills about 0.03. But building a new nuclear power plant from scratch, especially a new design, is an arduous, expensive process that can span decades. At the same time, old, carbon dioxide- and soot-spewing coal power plants are also shutting down. Many states are looking to fill the void while also trying to meet their goals to decarbonize their power grids.Thats why tech companies are also looking to revive shuttered nuclear plants. Progress is underway to resurrect reactors at three nuclear power plants that were slated for dismantling and could restart as soon as next year. Its a stunning and unprecedented development for the nuclear industry. If you told me we wouldve been talking about this 10 years ago, I wouldve laughed at you, said Patrick OBrien, head of government affairs and communications at Holtec International, a nuclear services company that until recently specialized in shutting nuclear plants down. Three plants are on the resuscitation list. The 800-megawatt reactor at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan, which shut down in 2022, is slated to revive by the end of 2025; Holtec bought the Palisades plant in 2022 and is now leading its restart. Microsoft signed a deal with Constellation to resuscitate the 835-megawatt Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which initially turned off in 2019 and could power up by 2028. NextEra Energy is mulling breathing life back into the 600-megawatt Duane Arnold nuclear power plant in Iowa. The plant closed in 2020 after sustaining damage during a derecho, a fast, powerful thunderstorm. Restarting these plants is a critical test for nuclear power in the US, and how they fare will bolster or erode confidence in broader ambitions for a new generation of nuclear deployment.But whether they will help keep global warming in check depends on how much they will displace dirtier energy sources as opposed to merely enabling new demand. How to restart a nuclear reactorAlas, restarting a nuclear power plant doesnt involve flipping a comically large circuit breaker. The reality is much more tedious. For a would-be nuclear resurrectionist, the main tasks are appeasing the regulators and reinvigorating the hardware. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal agency in charge of commercial nuclear reactors, says the reason these power plants Palisades, Three Mile Island, Duane Arnold are eligible to be restarted is that, from the regulators perspective, theyre only mostly dead. When a reactor first gains approval from the NRC, its initial operating license runs for 40 years. At the end of the first license, the operator can then seek a 20-year extension. The key to all of these restart efforts is the fact that the licenses that are involved have not yet hit their expiration date, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC. These reactors were shut down ahead of schedule not for technical problems but because the business wasnt panning out. After shutting down a plant, operators remove fuel from the reactors and place it in spent fuel pools. They disassemble pipes and machinery. They drain coolants and lubricants to prevent contamination. A complete decommissioning can cost up to $2 billion and take 20 years. But the three plants under restart consideration havent gotten far along in the disassembly process. Until recently, no one has sought to bring back a plant already slated for retirement, so there isnt an established rulebook for how to go about it. Theres never been a case up to this point where a company has come back and said, Well, Ive changed my mind, Burnell said. The first thing someone seeking to resuscitate a nuclear reactor must do is seek an exemption from the current rules that make shutting down a one-way street, which requires an enormous amount of paperwork. The operator then has to put a safety plan in place and bring the plant back up to the original requirements under its operating license. Therein lies the next undertaking. Palisades, Three Mile Island, and Duane Arnold shut down relatively recently, but theyve still been offline for years. Imagine letting a car sit in your driveway unused for a couple of years and then trying to fire it up. Odds are, it wont start on the first try. The motor may have seized, the fuel may have separated, the battery may have discharged completely. Even sitting unused, components like rubber hoses, gaskets, and tires can oxidize and turn brittle with time. Metal parts can rust. A shuttered nuclear power plant faces similar concerns, albeit with significantly higher consequences. Nuclear operators have to first meticulously investigate all the parts of their offline facilities before they get the thumbs-up to power up again. However, this shutdown, inspection, and resuscitation process can also be an opportunity. Holtecs OBrien noted that operating nuclear power plants have regularly scheduled downtime lasting a month or so to conduct maintenance and refuel. But a longer outage gives the operator more time to do more extensive upgrades and restoration. We have parts of the turbine that have been sent out to North Carolina for refurbishment thatll be gone for a year with the work being done, OBrien said. You couldnt have done that when youre an [actively] operating plant.The other challenge is the workforce. Running a nuclear power plant requires highly specialized personnel, and since the US has been so slow in building reactors, many veteran staffers have retired or left the industry while fewer new graduates are rising to replace them. Palisades employed 600 workers when operating and brought in 1,000 more during refueling and maintenance periods.When a plant is slated for shutdown, many of those workers leave the area or retire. So to restart a nuclear facility, operators need to get their teams back together, sometimes bringing workers out of retirement while recruiting and training new ones. Nuclear revivals still have to prove their economicsThe biggest challenge for nuclear restarts may not be the hardware or the regulations, but competition. According to a 2021 report from the Congressional Research Service, The US nuclear power industry in recent years has been facing economic and financial challenges, particularly plants located in competitive power markets where natural gas and renewable power generators influence wholesale electricity prices.Related:Why nuclear plants are shutting downThe reactor revivers say they can overcome what killed these power plants in the first place. With Palisades, Holtec is securing a power purchasing agreement with Wolverine Power Cooperative, a nonprofit that provides electricity to 280,000 homes and businesses in rural Michigan. Rather than competing head-to-head with other generators, this guarantees the plant can sell a given amount of electricity at a fixed rate. OBrien said Holtec is putting up $500 million of its own money. The company also received $300 million in grants from the state of Michigan and a $1.52 billion loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy for its effort. Holtec is also aiming to use the Palisades site to deploy two 300-megawatt small modular reactors, essentially becoming its own first customer for these reactors and demonstrating them for future clients. Since the site is already certified to be a nuclear power plant, it cuts out a lot of the development costs that come with building a plant on fresh soil. Holtec is aiming to have its first SMR up by 2030. While a lot of the recent activity around nuclear power has been fueled by the energy-hungry tech industry, Michigan has set its own ambitious climate goals that make Palisades an even more attractive option. The state is aiming to phase out all of its coal-fired power plants by 2030. Coal currently provides more than 22 percent of the states electricity. Thats a big hole to fill in over the next six years. Like many states, Michigan is experiencing growing electricity demand, particularly as hotter summers increase cooling needs. The rise of electric cars and switching from natural gas heating to electric heat pumps is increasing energy appetites as well. The state also sees an opportunity to get a piece of the AI action and is instituting tax breaks for new data centers.Revived plants like Palisades cant keep running forever though. In a car, regular oil changes, tire replacements, and inspections can keep it on the road for a long time. But if the engine block starts to wear down, its usually not worth the time or money to replace it. Similarly, with a nuclear power plant, ongoing fueling and maintenance can keep it operational, but if its equivalent of an engine block the reactor pressure vessel around the reactor core becomes brittle over time as neutrons from nuclear fission bombard it, that can be expensive and difficult to replace. Its integrity is often the main determinant of the overall lifespan of a nuclear plant. Palisades was already 50 years old when it went offline, and the NRCs current regulations are set up to allow for two 20-year renewals after an initial 40-year license for a nuclear power plant. Weve had several plants that have come in for a second renewal, which would allow them to run essentially for 80 years, Burnell said. A plant could theoretically push that further, but no one has tried yet. And all nuclear plants have to deal with rising costs. Maintaining a nuclear workforce is getting more expensive, and safety regulations continue to ratchet up. Inflation is making materials more pricey and higher interest rates are increasing financing expenses. At the same time, photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines have experienced extraordinary price drops and explosive growth around the world.The nuclear industrys challenges remain immense, but concerns about climate change might end up being the most compelling driver for new nuclear power. When it comes to ample, around-the-clock, zero-emissions power, nuclear is a strong contender in the competition. But nuclear energy is now facing another curveball. Donald Trumps reelection to the White House likely means that addressing climate change will become a lower priority, as it did during his first term. How much the federal government will continue backing nuclear restarts and new companies is unclear, and the industry might need to figure out a new pitch for more public investment. 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: