This story first ran in The Logoff. Sign up here to get stories like this delivered to your inbox every weekday. Good evening, and welcome to the first edition of The Logoff the newsletter that gives you the Trump news you need so that you can log off and get back to the rest of your life.Theres so much going on today, but I want to focus on the legal fight over birthright citizenship, as its outcome will affect millions of people.What did the law say before Trump? Under the Constitution (the 14th Amendment, to be precise), almost everyone born on US soil automatically becomes a US citizen, no matter their parents immigration status. Donald Trump signed an executive order yesterday that would change that: It would deny automatic citizenship to babies born to parents who are both immigrants in cases where neither parent is a naturalized citizen or legal permanent resident. (My colleague Ian Millhiser has more details here.)So what happened today? Eighteen states filed a federal lawsuit to block the order from taking effect, and the case seems destined to go all the way to the Supreme Court. There, most legal observers expect the justices to side with the states (and with 125 years of legal precedent) that birthright citizenship is constitutional. There are no guarantees (particularly not with this Court) but its likely that this executive order is destined for failure.So where does this leave us? Barring something unexpected, birthright citizenship will likely survive. You should pay attention for two reasons: First, theres always a chance of a shock result in court. And second, the order itself is an indication of how thoroughly Trump has dragged once outlandish ideas into the GOP mainstream. Whats the larger lesson here? Trump opened his presidency with a barrage of policy changes, and nowhere were the changes bigger than on immigration. Almost all of it will be challenged. Some orders will survive; others will be the subject of lengthy legal battles. Where those battles end up will determine whether Trump succeeds in a radical overhaul of the immigration system or just a series of changes to it. And itll be a long time before we have final answers.And with that, its time to log off Juanita Escobar for VoxThis is a crimson-rumped toucanet. And birds like these are a big reason why Colombia has a thriving ecotourism industry. My colleague Benji Jones wrote all about it here.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

On Monday, his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued a wave of executive orders. Some are ridiculous, such as an order purporting to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Others are ominous, such as an order seeking to drastically increase the number of federal civil servants who can be fired at will. Many of the orders seek to implement the kind of harsh immigration policies that have always been at the heart of Trumps political message.The most alarming of these immigration orders seeks to strip millions of future Americans of their citizenship.There isnt even a plausible argument that this order is constitutional. The Constitution is absolutely clear that all people born in the United States and subject to its laws are citizens, regardless of their parents immigration status. The Supreme Court recognized this principle more than 125 years ago. Nevertheless, Trumps order, labeled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, purports to deny citizenship to two classes of Americans. The first is children born to undocumented mothers, whose fathers were not themselves citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of birth. The second is children whose fathers have similar immigration status, and whose mothers were lawfully but temporarily present in the United States at the time of birth.Almost immediately after this executive order was released, pro-immigration advocates started naming prominent Americans who might not be citizens if this order were in effect when they were born including former Vice President Kamala Harris. That said, the order does not apply to current US citizens, and is not retroactive: It only attempts to deprive persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order of citizenship.Sign up for The Logoff newsletterOverwhelmed by Trump news? Our new daily newsletter features the most important updates on the new administration followed by thought-provoking story recommendations so you can stay informed without letting political news take over your brain. Sign up here.It is likely that immigration advocates will obtain a court order blocking Trumps executive order soon a group of civil rights groups, including the ACLU, already filed a lawsuit seeking such an order. And, because the Supreme Court has already ruled that birthright citizenship is the law of the land, any lower court judge hearing that lawsuit should be bound by the Courts 125-year-old decision.But the current Supreme Court also has a 6-3 Republican supermajority, which recently, and surprisingly, ruled that the president is allowed to use the powers of his office to commit crimes. So there is always some risk that this Court will ignore settled law and rule in Trumps favor.The Constitution is absolutely, positively, crystal clear that Trumps executive order is illegalThere are difficult questions in US constitutional law. The question of whether the federal government can deny citizenship to nearly anyone born in the United States is not one of them.The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. All persons means all persons, including people with two noncitizen parents, or even people with two parents who are undocumented immigrants.Of course, this amendment does contain one exception to its broad rule. Only babies who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are born are entitled to birthright citizenship. The word jurisdiction refers to an entitys power to exercise legal authority over that person. A court, for example, has jurisdiction over a particular litigant if it has the power to issue binding rulings against that person. Or, as Judge James Ho, an exceedingly conservative Trump appointee to a federal appeals court, wrote in a 2011 op-ed, a foreign national living in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof because he is legally required to obey U.S. law.Basically, if someone is present in the US at birth, they are with just a handful of exceptions that Ill explain below subject to the countrys laws. They are therefore under US jurisdiction and, according to the text of the 14th Amendment, have a right to birthright citizenship.Trumps executive order posits that many children of immigrants arent under US jurisdiction. However, that creates a problem for the government. If Trumps claim is correct, that would not simply mean that these children are not entitled to birthright citizenship. It would also mean that they would be free to ignore US law, and that it would be unlawful for the government to arrest, detain, or deport them.In any event, the Supreme Court rejected Trumps position in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which held that a man born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent was a citizen. Wong Kim Ark listed three categories of individuals who would not automatically become citizens even if they were born in the United States: children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and some children of members of the Indian tribes.The third of these three exceptions is no longer relevant: The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 bestowed citizenship on all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States. But the two remaining categories the children of diplomats and members of foreign occupying armies both involve people who are not subject to US jurisdiction. Foreign diplomats typically have diplomatic immunity from the laws of the country where they serve, and hostile occupiers are not subject to US law because the entire point of such an occupation is to displace the US government.Other noncitizens, by contrast, are still required to obey US law while they are present in the United States. So the 14th Amendment provides that their children are US citizens.Trumps executive order doesnt even try to justify itself legallyIts notable that Trumps birthright citizenship order never makes a legal argument justifying the presidents decision to defy an almost universally accepted interpretation of the Constitution that was embraced by the Supreme Court nearly a century ago. Instead, it simply declares that the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States (which is true, because the children of diplomats do exist), then lists the categories of US citizens Trump wishes to target.That said, some of Trumps allies have previewed the kinds of legal arguments his administration might make to justify this order.In a 2020 op-ed questioning Harriss eligibility for the vice presidency, for example, Trump lawyer John Eastman (who is currently facing disbarment proceedings in California) made an argument similar to Chief Justice Melville Fullers dissent in Wong Kim Ark. According to Eastman, the 14th Amendments reference to people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States really means subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States. Eastmans op-ed is brief, so he doesnt fully explain his argument; its unclear why he thinks, for example, that temporary visitors to the United States are only partially subject to US law. But the most obvious problem with Eastmans argument is that the Constitution does not say subject to the complete jurisdiction it simply says subject to the jurisdiction.Similarly, in a 2018 op-ed, former Trump administration official Michael Anton claimed that the 14th Amendment does not apply to people who owe allegiance to another country. Though much of Antons argument is difficult to parse, he appears to believe that people who have sufficient ties to another country cannot have children who are US citizens at birth.This argument, however, is precluded by Wong Kim Ark. The US citizen at the heart of that case was born to persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China. That is, his parents were found to have allegiance to China. Yet the Supreme Court held that this man was entitled to birthright citizenship nonetheless.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 was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Within hours of being sworn into office on Monday, President Donald Trump announced a spate of executive orders and policies to boost oil and gas production, roll back environmental protections, withdraw from the Paris climate accord, and undo environmental justice initiatives enacted by former President Joe Biden.Trump has called climate change a hoax, and appointed fossil fuel industry executives and climate skeptics to his Cabinet. His first-day actions represent a complete remaking of the countrys climate agenda, and set the tone for his administrations approach to energy and the environment over the next four years. RelatedDrill, baby, drillAmong the most significant actions Trump took Monday was declaring an energy emergency, which he framed as part of his effort to rein in inflation and reduce the cost of living. He pledged to use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure, an unprecedented move that could grant the White House greater authority to expand fossil fuel production. He also signed an executive order to encourage energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, and another expediting permitting and leasing in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We will have the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it, Trump said during his inaugural address. We are going to drill, baby, drill.The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve can store 714 million barrels of crude oil, but currently holds about 395 million. Under his administration, he said, the cache will be filled up again right to the top. He also said the country will export energy all over the world.We will be a rich nation again, he said, standing inside the Capitol Rotunda, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help.Richard Klein, a senior research fellow for the international nonprofit Stockholm Environment Institute, noted that fossil fuel companies extracted record-high amounts of oil and gas during the Biden administration. Even if it is technologically possible to boost production further, its unclear whether that will reduce prices. Dan Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California Berkeley, said it is a direct falsehood that increasing fossil fuel extraction would drive down inflation. He agreed that the US should declare a national energy emergency but for reasons exactly the opposite of what Trump had in mind. We need to quickly move to clean energy, to invest in new companies across the US, Kammen told Grist.Exiting the Paris agreement (again)Trump delivered on his promise to once again withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the United Nations pact agreed upon by 195 countries to limit global warming, which the new president referred to on Monday as a rip-off. In addition to signing an executive order saying the US would leave the agreement titled Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations to set the departure in motion. Due to the rules governing the accord, it will take one year to formally withdraw, meaning US negotiators will participate in the next round of talks in Brazil at the end of the year. By this time next year, however, the US could join Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the only nations that arent part of the accord. It simply makes no sense for the United States to voluntarily give up political influence and pass up opportunities to shape the exploding green energy market, Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. Only two in 10 Americans support quitting the Paris agreement, according to a poll by the Associated Press.Trumps announcement came just 10 days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2024 Earths hottest year on record, one marked by life-threatening heat waves, wildfires, and flooding around the world. Experts say things will only get worse unless the US and other countries do more to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled, climate scientists wrote last October. They noted then, even before Trumps election, that global policies were expected to cause temperatures to climb 2.7 degrees Celsius (6.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. One analysis by Carbon Brief estimated that a second Trump administration would result in an extra 4 billion metric tons of climate pollution, negating all of the emissions savings from the global deployment of clean energy technologies over the past five years twice over.Reversing course on electric vehicles Trump also took action to revoke the electric vehicle mandate, in keeping with his campaign promise to support autoworkers.In other words, youll be able to buy the vehicle of your choice, he said during his inaugural address even though there is no national mandate requiring the sale of electric vehicles and consumers are free to purchase any vehicle of their liking. The Biden administration did promote the technology by finalizing rules that limit the amount of tailpipe pollution over time so that electric vehicles make up the majority of automobiles sold by 2032. Under Joe Biden, the US also launched a $7,500 tax credit for consumer purchases of EVs manufactured domestically and planned to funnel roughly $7.5 billion toward building charging infrastructure across the country. Rolling back incentives to build electric vehicles in the United States is going to cost jobs as well as raise the price of travel, said Costa Samaras, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University who served as a senior policy leader in the Biden White House. Fueling up an electric vehicle costs between one-third and one-half as much as driving on gasoline, not to mention the benefits for reducing air pollution. Ultimately, to lower the price of energy for US consumers, we need to diversify the sources of energy that were using and ensure that these are clean, affordable, and reliable.Rescinding environmental justice initiativesTrump signed a single executive order undoing nearly 80 Biden administration initiatives, including rescinding a directive to federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions. The Biden-era policy protected communities overburdened by pollution and directed agencies to work more closely with them. That move was part of a broader push that Trump described in his inaugural address as an attempt to create a color-blind society by stopping the government from trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. Klein said the objective was embarrassing. Kammen said it was a huge mistake to move away from environmental justice priorities.Blocking new wind energy Trump officially barred new offshore wind leases and will review federal permitting of wind projects, making good on a promise to end leasing to massive wind farms that degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers. The move is likely to be met with resistance from members of his own party. The top four states for wind generation Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas are solidly red, and unlikely to acquiesce. Even Trumps pick for Interior secretary, Doug Burgum, refused to disavow wind power during a hearing last week, saying he would pursue an all of the above energy strategy.Many state and local policymakers, including the members of America Is All In, a climate coalition made up of government leaders and businesses from all 50 states, pledged to take up the mantle of climate action in the absence of federal leadership.Regardless of the federal governments actions, climate mayors are not backing down on our commitment to the Paris Agreement, said Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, in a statement. Our constituents are looking to us to meet the moment and deliver meaningful solutions.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 dizzying array of executive actions President Donald Trump issued on Monday, the first day of his second term, show that he is increasingly willing to push the envelope, challenging both laws and norms in an effort to get the government to do what he wants.His pardons of January 6 rioters are far more sweeping than many predicted. His immigration actions go much further than those he took in his first term, some in ways that seem blatantly illegal. And he laid the groundwork to push out many federal government employees who he thinks might get in his way.Other actions raised more questions than they answered. Trump punted his promised tariffs off to February, and mostly avoided weighing in on major foreign policy hotspots. And its still very unclear what, exactly, is going on with Elon Musks DOGE.But we arguably got a lot more insight into what Trumps second term will bring on his first day than weve gotten in the past year. Hes rushing headlong into some confrontations while holding off, for the time being, on others. Heres what we learned.Just over a week ago, soon-to-be-Vice President JD Vance opined that nonviolent trespassers prosecuted for entering the Capitol on January 6, 2021, should be pardoned but that days violent rioters obviously should not be.Trump had other ideas when he issued his sweeping clemency for those he called the J6 hostages. He did separate out 14 members of two far-right groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who had been convicted of seditious conspiracy, commuting their sentences instead of giving full pardons. But all other individuals convicted of offenses related to the Capitol chaos that day received full unconditional pardons including those who assaulted police officers, and including the Proud Boys leader, Enrique Tarrio.Trump, it has always been clear, was delighted by the storming of the Capitol on January 6; he doesnt care that his supporters assaulted police, terrorized members of Congress, and threatened to hang his own vice president. What mattered to him was that they were his supporters. So he handed them a get-out-of-jail-free card, even to those who violently tried to overthrow democracy. 2) Its Stephen Millers America nowTrumps Day 1 executive orders were most numerous and detailed on the topic of immigration. The president revived previous hard-line administration policies, such as a refugee admissions freeze, deportation orders, and border wall construction. He also rolled back some Biden policies intended to let more migrants come in legally if they followed an orderly process, ending Bidens parole program and shutting down an app created for migrants to schedule appointments to make asylum requests.But on some fronts, Trumps orders already went much further than he did in his first term and showed a newly emboldened willingness to defy legal caution. For instance:He ordered that the US military would now be responsible for the mission of closing the border. He used a public health emergency rationale to shut down the asylum system even though theres no public health crisis at the moment. He ordered that federal prosecutors recommend the death penalty for any unauthorized immigrant convicted of a capital crime.He fired several top officials in the US immigration court system, including the systems acting head.And he declared that despite what the Constitution says, birthright citizenship would no longer apply to children born in the US to unauthorized immigrants or visa-holders (unless one parent was a US citizen or lawful permanent resident).Most of these will likely be the subject of lawsuits, with the birthright citizenship order generally believed to be highly unlikely to withstand court scrutiny (the ACLU already sued over it). And all of these have the fingerprints of Stephen Miller, the anti-immigrant hardliner who now once again wields immense power as deputy White House chief of staff and Homeland Security adviser.Trump and Miller likely think aggressive and seemingly illegal policies like the birthright order are worth a shot and may have some effect at deterring future migrants from coming even if theyre eventually struck down. Whats clear is that Trumps team is not asking for permission to do sweeping restrictionist policies theyre going as hard as they can right out the gate.3) The groundwork was laid for a civil service purgeThough Trump fired some federal employees Monday, the first day did not seem to bring a mass firing of federal bureaucrats, but the groundwork was laid for something like that to happen in the future.First off, Trump restored what was previously known as his Schedule F executive order, issued in late 2020 shortly before he left office (it was never really implemented and Biden soon revoked it). The idea behind Schedule F now rebranded as Schedule Policy/Career is to reclassify various important civil servant jobs as exempt from civil service hiring rules and protections, making it easier for those workers to be fired.Secondly, Trump took aim at part of the federal workforce known as the Senior Executive Service (SES). These are, basically, the top jobs at agencies in the civil service, which liaise with the political appointees to run things. Trumps order demanded plans from his agencies for making SES more accountable (easier to fire). His order also said hiring for SES jobs would now be done by panels composed mostly of political appointees, rather than civil servants as is currently the case.Third, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo letting agencies hire unlimited Schedule C appointees another class of political appointees that dont go through the civil service hiring process. And fourth, another order instructed Trump appointees to come up with plans for reforming the civil service hiring process itself.Altogether, this shows an intense focus from Trumps people on wresting agency authority away from civil servants and toward greater numbers of political appointees and though mass firings havent happened yet, it may be only a matter of time.Since Trump announced he would appoint Elon Musk to chair a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), its been unclear what exactly this supposed new department would be or how it would work.A Trump order Monday made the unexpected announcement that, in fact, an existing part of the executive branch the US Digital Service, set up during the Obama administration to modernize government IT would become the US DOGE Service. Now, this executive order laid out a surprisingly limited mission of modernizing federal technology and software, rather than DOGEs previously announced remit of overhauling government spending, regulations, and personnel. Liberals on social media crowed at this apparent demotion for Musk.I wouldnt be so sure about that. Reports on Musks planning, and public statements from people in contact with his team, suggest they are planning to go very big indeed, in ways that havent yet been revealed. With a new report that Musk is likely to get a West Wing office, its hard to believe hes scaled back his grand ambitions. 5) Trump wants to reshape the US energy industryTrump has long vowed to roll back Bidens efforts to fight climate change and unleash fossil fuel production, so its no surprise that he withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, gave the green light to drilling in Alaska, and tried to roll back funding for green energy projects in Bidens Inflation Reduction Act. He also pursued his longtime vendetta against the wind energy industry with an order halting all wind energy permitting for projects on federal lands and in the ocean.Yet Trumps Unleashing American Energy executive order made another big policy move it aggressively took aim at the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a longtime bugaboo of Republicans, and even some Democrats, who view it as a major reason why its become so difficult to build things in the US. In theory, NEPA makes the government consider the environmental impact of projects; in practice, critics argue, its convoluted process makes projects more time-consuming and bogs them down with delays. Trumps order proposes taking NEPA enforcement out of the hands of the Council of Environmental Quality, rescinding existing regulations about it, and coming up with a new and more streamlined process for how to enforce the law and ease permitting.6) Lots remains TBDWith Trump doing so much on his first day, its also interesting to read tea leaves about what he didnt do.On economic policy, he issued a brief, vague order instructing agencies to try and lower the cost of living, and he signed a trade order that had lots of phrases like undertake a review of and investigate the feasibility of. But he did not issue the Day 1 tariffs that he promised for Canada and Mexico (in a press conference, he set a new deadline of February 1 for that). Translation: His tariff policies are not yet ready for prime time, and perhaps still the subject of wrangling among his economic advisers over how sweeping they should be.On foreign policy, too, Trump issued a brief and vague America First Policy Directive for his first confirmed Cabinet appointee, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He also announced hed pause foreign aid for 90 days and designate Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. But he did little about the rest of the world, not making any big Day 1 announcements on, for instance, Ukraine, Israel, or China.We shouldnt read too much into these omissions perhaps Trump is simply waiting until his team is confirmed and in place. But, notably, those are two areas where his coalition is genuinely torn between tariff superfans and skeptics who fear economic disruption, and between internationalists and isolationists. To find out what Trump will do on these topics, well just have to wait a bit longer.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

As Down to Earth enters its fourth year, the urgency surrounding the global biodiversity crisis has never been more apparent. When we launched this project in 2021, our mission was clear: to bring the complex issues surrounding biodiversity into the public eye in a way that was both accessible and compelling. Since then, weve dug deep into the forces threatening the natural world, from deforestation and habitat destruction to the cascading impacts of climate change. Our reporting has been featured by the national Climate Desk collaboration, shared by popular national radio and broadcast programs, and has been cited in government reports that help inform policy. Vox is one of the nations few mainstream newsrooms that is committed to covering biodiversity. Along the way, weve showcased the wonder of nature its complexity, vibrancy, and immense value while making the case that biodiversity isnt just a concern for ecologists; its something that impacts every single one of us.Mar Hernndez for VoxIn the years that have passed since we launched Down to Earth, the biodiversity crisis has deepened. Over a million species face extinction, ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest are tipping into collapse, and climate change is playing an increasingly influential role in the decline of biodiversity. The need for informed conversation and urgent action has never been more pressing. Protecting biodiversity isnt just about saving the animals and plants we love; its about securing the foundations of human life itself our food, water, medicine, and climate stability. The need for robust, thoughtful, and accessible reporting on these issues is clearer than ever.This year, were excited to build on our coverage. We will tell stories that explore big ideas in the environmental movement; spark wonder and celebrate the incredible species with which we share the planet; connect news and emerging research to real-world stakes; and explain how animals and ecosystems are changing under human influence.Mar Hernndez for VoxAt Down to Earth, our mission is to make biodiversity more mainstream and make it a central part of the conversation were all having about the future of our planet. We believe that understanding the natural world doesnt have to be daunting or depressing. Thats why we approach every story with the same down-to-earth, approachable, and conversational style that Vox is known for. Whether were diving into complex scientific research or telling the stories of the species and ecosystems most at risk, we want you to feel like youre right there with us, learning and exploring together. Were here to make this conversation as engaging and accessible as it is urgent.With the support of the BAND Foundation, were poised to explore conservations most pressing questions today, with the expertise of environmental correspondent Benji Jones leading the charge. Well also feature contributions from a diverse range of freelance writers, all bringing fresh perspectives and stories.Mar Hernndez for VoxIn our next chapter of Down to Earth, youll continue to find stories that not only inform but also inspire action. From the unseen heroes of the natural world the enigmatic species that provide essential services to humanity to the big-picture investigations into predator restoration and the environmental policy decisions shaping our future, were committed to giving you the full picture.As we move forward, our goal remains the same: to help you understand why biodiversity matters why its worth protecting and to connect the dots between the natural world and the broader, urgent challenges facing humanity. The crisis is real, but with awareness, action, and engagement, we can still save so much.Mar Hernndez for VoxYouve 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:

Malaria kills more than a thousand children every day. Measures like antimalarial medications and insecticide-treated bed nets, which stop infected mosquitoes from transmitting the disease-causing parasite to people while they sleep, have saved millions of lives at a relatively low cost. Yet despite these interventions, which reduced mortality by about 29 percent, over 430,000 children died from malaria last year. With the recent approval of two new malaria vaccines, RTS,S and R21, we have the opportunity to make another leap in the fight to eradicate malaria. Malaria can be deadly for people of all ages, but its especially life-threatening for young kids: Over 75 percent of malaria deaths happen in children under 5. For now, malaria-endemic countries like Cameroon, Burkina Faso, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are focusing vaccination efforts on infants, who are already brought into clinics for routine shots anyway. Over the past year, 10.2 million doses were delivered to children across 17 countries. (So far, neither vaccine is approved for adults.)The shots are largely paid for by Gavi, an international organization that uses donations from rich governments and philanthropies to subsidize lifesaving vaccine rollouts in countries with a gross national income per capita below $1,810 about 2 percent that of the United States.Last summer, Gavi announced its goal to raise $9 billion to fund immunizations from 2026 to 2030, with over $1.1 billion of those funds earmarked for new malaria vaccines. Thats enough to save around 180,000 childrens lives over the next five years. But we could theoretically save many more. A new paper by the Center for Global Development (CGD) estimates that 800,000 more child deaths could be avoided between now and 2030 if Gavi buys and distributes as many vaccines as manufacturers can make. Though manufacturers say they have over 100 million doses ready to go, Gavis plan would buy only a fraction of them. To buy all of the currently available doses and put them into the field now, Gavi would need to triple its $1.4 billion malaria vaccine budget.CGDs proposed strategy to buy and distribute as many doses as possible today, and trust that manufacturers will replenish their supply quickly goes against conventional wisdom about vaccine rollouts. Gavis current strategy is to gradually ramp up R21 vaccinations, prioritizing the most vulnerable children first, while only distributing as many doses as can be stably purchased in the long run. By doing so, Gavi hopes to balance the urgent need to save lives with the importance of maintaining a sustainable vaccine supply. This is how most vaccines are introduced, including the first Covid vaccines in the US: quickly get them to the people who need them most, then ramp up to bigger populations slowly enough that suppliers can keep up. Scott Gordon, head of Gavis malaria vaccine program, said that the success of a vaccine rollout largely depends on how ready a country is to get those shots into arms. Both available malaria vaccines require at least three doses to work, which means giving a person one shot isnt enough. Clinics have to make sure people come back. But other global health experts argue that now is the time for a more aggressive approach, to take advantage of the opportunity presented by these new vaccines.We suddenly have a tool where we can save lives at fairly low costs, said Justin Sandefur, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and co-author of its new paper. He argues that shying away from the most ambitious vaccine rollout possible costs too many lives to justify: Logistically, bureaucratically, and politically, this is the kind of thing that we know how to do.Choosing the right vaccine will give countries more bang for their buckThe RTS,S and R21 vaccines are very biologically similar. Both vaccines target the same protein on the surface of malaria-causing parasites, teaching the body to attack the parasites before they make it to the liver and cause an infection. The RTS,S vaccine, which was recommended for use by the World Health Organization in 2021, is about 56 percent effective much better than nothing, but short of the WHOs 75 percent target. Last December, the WHO also prequalified the R21 vaccine, which performed about 20 percent better at preventing severe malaria than RTS,S in its clinical trials. Prequalification is essentially approval: It means WHO believes R21 is safe, effective, and ready to be sold to UN agencies. Effectiveness aside, R21 is much cheaper: $3.90 per dose, versus $10 per RTS,S dose. Because R21 particles are more densely packed with malaria protein antigens than RTS,S, a single dose of R21 can be much smaller than a single dose of RTS,S. Some other chemical differences also make R21 simpler to manufacture than RTS,S. As it currently stands, Serum Institute of Indias production capacity for R21 is nearly seven times greater than GSKs production capacity for RTS,S. In fact, Serum Institute has already made 100 million doses, and it says it has the capacity to make even more. So, R21 is more effective, much cheaper, and theres loads more of it than RTS,S. 1Day Sooner, a nonprofit focused on high-impact infectious disease studies, argues that R21 should be rolled out as quickly as possible, in addition to RTS,S. Demand for the vaccine is high among parents in malaria-endemic countries who are well aware of the danger to their children. But so far, its been hard for clinics to ensure parents bring their babies back for all four doses they need. Many people, in African countries and elsewhere, are hesitant to get themselves and their children vaccinated against anything at all. But demanding poor parents in rural areas to travel long distances to get to a clinic not once, but four times creates extra logistical hurdles. Ghana, for example, used a combination of strategies to get people to return for all their shots, including sending text reminders and making vaccinations part of regular checkups at local clinics. While public health experts considered the rollout an overall success, Ghana still struggled with monitoring and logistics. With these challenges in mind, Gavi plans to ramp up R21 vaccinations gradually, to avoid overwhelming health care systems and to make sure the vaccine supply remains stable in the long run.Phase 3 clinical trials suggest that three doses of the R21 vaccine work about as well as four doses, the last of which would be administered as a booster shot a year after the first three. But protection offered by only one or two doses seems to deteriorate relatively quickly without the final shots, according to some preliminary field reports. Experiments havent specifically tested the efficacy of getting one or two doses yet, but while even a single dose may reduce malaria risk relative to getting no shots at all, existing evidence suggests its nowhere near as effective as a full four-dose course. It comes down to a couple of major strategic questions, neither of which have clear answers. First, would more lives be saved by fully vaccinating fewer people, or by partially vaccinating more people? In either case, organizations still have to decide whether to buy and use up all the doses that Serum Institute has to offer, potentially trading lives saved in the short term for supply stability lost in the long term, or to proceed with a more gradual rollout. The problems with Gavis current vaccine rollout planDespite R21s advantages, Gavi isnt accepting applications from countries who want to update older requests for RTS,S to request R21 instead. The situation is baffling, Sandefur told me: The groups strategy seems to be standing in the way of its own vaccination goals.Gavis goal is to help vaccinate at least 50 million children against malaria by 2030. Combined with other tools like bed nets, insecticides, and antimalarial medication, Gavi estimates malaria vaccines could reduce the burden of malaria on poor countries by up to 92 percent.At its current pace, Gavis rollout plan will require a decade to fully vaccinate everyone whos eligible. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Serum Institute, the makers of RTS,S and R21, theoretically have the combined capacity to produce as many as 115 million vaccine doses per year. Thats enough to fully vaccinate 25 million children right now. If Gavi bought and distributed every available dose, it would meet its 2030 goal in just one year, and save about 300,000 kids who might otherwise die. By gradually incorporating RTS,S and R21 vaccines into their regular slate of vaccines, countries can harness the health care infrastructure they already have available and deliver shots at routine checkups. Vaccinating all infants also means everyone will eventually be vaccinated against malaria. But focusing on getting everyone protected in the long run sacrifices the opportunity to save more lives in the short term. Vaccinating infants maximizes the number of lives saved per shot, but focusing exclusively on infants now, despite the vaccines being approved for children up to 5 years old, will leave many kids unprotected.Gavis long-standing view is that having multiple vaccines on the marketplace inspires competition, which helps them get better procurement prices, adds to the challenge. This would make sense if they were paying for a cheaper less-effective vaccine to drive down the cost of a better, more expensive vaccine. But theyre doing the opposite, Sandefur said, by purchasing a vaccine thats not better than R21 but costs significantly more. Several countries that originally requested RTS,S have since asked Gavi to switch to R21 to lower their end of the bill. At first, Gavi was hesitant, but they have since started to direct R21 to richer countries that can pay more of their share, saving RTS,S for poorer countries who wont have to pay more.The new vaccine does reportedly have some skeptics, however. In conversations that informed their latest analysis, the Center for Global Developments experts said they heard the same thing again and again: Gates hates this vaccine. But why would the Gates Foundation, which spends millions upon millions of dollars vaccinating the Global South, not like an effective vaccine that could save hundreds of thousands of lives?Its not that the Gates Foundation is snubbing malaria vaccines as one of Gavis biggest donors, Gates is helping to fund the R21 rollout. But rather than put all its eggs in the R21 basket, its also investing in self-replicating vaccines and monoclonal antibodies (like the one my colleague Dylan Matthews tested in a human challenge trial earlier this year). Philip Welkhoff, director of the Gates Foundations malaria program, said, We should work to save as many lives as possible with existing tools and resources including these vaccines while continuing to innovate to develop the next generation of tools which will be required to end malaria for good. The problem, though, is that these next-gen vaccines are still years away. Withholding decent vaccines while waiting for better ones could result in thousands of preventable deaths. One monoclonal antibody treatment, called L9LS, is undergoing phase 2 clinical trials, and results are promising so far. However, Welkhoff estimates that this treatment is still at least five years away from being widely available, much less affordable. The risk of regret from underspending on vaccine rollout today, the Center for Global Development states, far outweighs any risk of regret from spending too much.Gavi has budgeted $1.4 billion to vaccinate 52 million children by 2030. According to the Center for Global Developments calculations, it would need another $2 billion to vaccinate all infants in malaria-endemic countries, and another $1 billion on top of that if it also vaccinated toddlers under three. But Gavis only got so much money, Sandefur said. Theyre not actually sure theyre going to get the money that theyre banking on, much less the extra $2 to 3 billion it will take to save the maximum number of lives.The big thing stopping an ambitious vaccine rollout in the Global South is money. Getting a full multi-dose vaccine regimen to people is challenging enough in rich countries; remember Covid? Its much harder in countries like the DRC, where the government spends as little as $2 per capita on health (the US spends about $12,500). Vaccines cost more than the doses themselves. Getting shots in arms requires basic supplies like syringes and alcohol wipes, keeping vaccine doses refrigerated, and training clinicians in far-flung clinics all of which cost money. Then countries have to pay for community outreach programs. Its just like in the US, said Sandefur. Youre going to have to win the public debate about this being a good thing for the community to embrace.Even if Gavi rustles up enough money to buy every available dose of the R21 vaccine that Serum Institute has available, Sandefur said its not clear that theyve budgeted for the spending you would need to actually do the rollout. Sandefurs impression, after visiting the DRC in September, is that all of this data-crunching is a bit academic. Were all sitting there trying to work out numbers, he said, and I think the country just has a demand to go big.Nigeria has the largest malaria burden in the world, and may want these vaccines more than anyone. Nigeria only misses Gavis income cutoff by a couple of hundred dollars per capita, but its been hovering just above that line for enough years that per Gavis pricing system theyre expected to pay more for new malaria vaccines than they currently spend per child on health care. So, theyre not buying them. Every year that Nigeria cant afford vaccines, 95,000 children under 5 could die. Given numbers that stark, the Center for Global Development is urging Gavi to bend its eligibility rules enough to give Nigeria more support.Where will the money come from? In a dream scenario, Gavi could simply ask Elon Musk to fork over 0.5 percent of his wealth to fill its $2 billion funding gap. But since hes busy cozying up with President Donald Trump and planning a $2 trillion federal budget cut in the US, that seems unlikely.More realistically, Sandefur suspects the money will come in bits and pieces, almost certainly, if it comes at all. Im not sure that it will.Some of it will need to come from stepped-up contributions from rich countries like the US and the UK. This March, Gavi will co-host a pledging summit with the European Union and the Gates Foundation in an attempt to raise at least $9 billion. The guest list includes government leaders from wealthy countries, vaccine manufacturers, and private company executives. Support for the program is more bipartisan than most things in the current political landscape, which is good. But Western countries generally dont treat the fight against malaria with the same urgency as they treated the Covid-19 pandemic. In order for Gavi to hit its funding goal, rich countries like the US and the UK will all need to donate more than they have in the past. The Global Fund, which invests in anti-malarial treatments like bed nets, doesnt currently fund the new vaccine rollout. Theyre very worried that malaria vaccines are going to come and steal their malaria budget, Sandefur said. New dual insecticide-treated bed nets are cheaper than a full four-dose vaccine regimen, making them a great, cost-effective tool in areas where malaria transmission rates are relatively low. At their current efficacy rates, neither available vaccine can replace tools like antimalarial drugs and bed nets. But vaccines should be treated as an extra line of defense, on top of other things like insecticides and first-line drugs. At least temporarily, Sandefur suggested that the Global Fund help Gavi pay for the vaccine rollout. (The Global Fund did not respond to a request for comment.)This is also an opportunity for everyday folks to step up and help fund the rollout of existing vaccines not just innovative pilots and technical assistance at the margins, Sandefur said. Lets buy some vaccines, guys.Malaria has long been a target for effective altruists, because its a massive problem with several existing, low-cost solutions. Open Philanthropy, a foundation that does rigorous research to guide charitable giving, helped fund the clinical trials that got R21 recommended by the WHO. But while two of the top four charities listed by GiveWell, a nonprofit focused on cost-effective, high-impact charity, support malaria prevention efforts, neither buy vaccines directly. Sandefur thinks this should change.You can fix this with a shot, he emphasized. Lets go ahead and do that.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: Future Perfect

Standing in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, President Donald Trump captured the vibes buoying Republicans and the American right writ-large as he promised a lengthy list of crackdowns and policy reversals.My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal, Trump said. As our victory showed, the entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda, with dramatic increases in support from virtually every element of our society.As he takes office, it can feel like Trumps movement has the cultural and political upper hand. Republicans won the popular vote in both the presidential and congressional races. Trumps popularity has never been higher. Broligarchs, celebrities, and big business are lining up behind him.But another way of looking at it is that Trumps popularity is probably at its peak and modern presidents tend to start off their terms with high support before the public gets disillusioned. He did, after all, barely win the election. Republicans only control Congress by tiny majorities. And most of his high-profile policy proposals arent as popular as he claims.Most of the American public isnt outright rejecting everything Trump is offering (at least, not yet). On at least three different issues, Trumps position is significantly popular. But theres a difference between what the public supports and the mandate Trump claims.Where Americans back Trump Earlier this month, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Marist College, and the public opinion and market research firm Ipsos (in partnership with the New York Times) conducted polling to gauge Americans feelings about a range of Trumps proposed actions or positions. The results are clear, if not that helpful in giving Trump a mandate: Americans are pretty much split evenly on most issues. But they back Trumps side in at least three areas: pursuing an isolationist foreign policy, being less accommodating of transgender people, and pursuing a restrictionist immigration policy.For example: Six in 10 Americans think we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home, according to the Ipsos poll. And majorities think the federal government is spending too much money on aid to both Israel (53 percent) and Ukraine (51 percent).The views on both countries are reversals from earlier in 2024, when Ipsos polling found slight majorities supported continued military aid to both.On gender identity and trans rights, majorities also side with Trump. The highly politicized issue of transgender female athletes competing in womens sports, for example, isnt necessarily a top of mind concern for many Americans, but about 80 percent in the Ipsos poll think this should not be allowed. And, about seven in 10 Americans say that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty-blocking drugs or hormone therapy to anyone under the age of 18, including nearly all Republican respondents, and most Democrats.Opinions on immigration policy are a different beastPublic polls over the last two years capture a much more muddled picture on Trumps plans for immigration and border enforcement. They show an overall sense of antipathy for the status quo: Americans are angry at the influx of legal and illegal immigrants over the course of the Biden presidency, afraid about the state of security at the southern border, and willing to turn away from a welcoming approach to migration.But when asked more specific questions, Americans become more critical. The AP-NORC poll and the Ipsos poll both show an overwhelming majority of respondents support some kind of legal immigration, meaning the public believes theres some value in welcoming outsiders. About 30 percent of respondents, primarily Republicans, think the US legal immigration should be reduced a lot or a little, while 24 percent think the government should increase legal immigration. That breakdown mirrors some of the tensions inside the Trump alliance, as some in the pro-business wing, like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy argued with anti-immigration Trump acolytes in late December. When it comes to illegal immigration, opinions are also nuanced. Some 55 percent of Americans in the Ipsos poll, including a third of Democrats, support deporting all immigrants who are here illegally. A plurality 43 percent in the AP-NORC poll say the same thing. That support increases significantly when specifically suggesting the deportation of those who have criminal records or those who crossed the southern border during the post-pandemic surge: 87 percent support the former, while 63 percent support the latter in the Ipsos pollAnd yet that support changes when you ask about exceptions: 63 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat support protecting DACA recipients those immigrants who were children when they entered the US illegally.This complexity doesnt come across in the way Trump and his supporters talk about mass deportations and raids. They speak, and will likely act, as if theres overwhelming support for removing every undocumented immigrant. But whats been pretty constant over the last few years is that Americans have warmed up to the idea of mass deportations in theory. To see them actually play out, however, will likely change that opinion.What the public doesnt seem to wantAnd then theres the stuff the American public isnt really excited about: tariffs, prosecuting political opponents, pardoning January 6, 2021, rioters, and trying to get rid of birthright citizenship.The Ipsos poll captures something relevant to the executive order Trump is signing that seeks to overturn the 14th Amendments guarantee of birthright citizenship that anyone born on US soil is American to the children of undocumented immigrants. A solid 55 percent of the country rejects this.Theres also a mandate against Trumps plans for political retribution: Nearly three-quarters of Americans reject the idea that Trump should use the government to investigate his political opponents, while a separate AP-NORC poll shows that just two in 10 Americans support his proposed pardoning of people who participated in the January 6 Capitol attack. Six in 10 oppose those pardons.And finally, Americans are not excited for either broad or targeted tariffs that Trump has said he wants to enact. The AP-NORC polling shows almost half of US adults somewhat or strongly oppose new tariffs on all foreign goods. A slight majority also opposes more scaled back tariffs that specifically target China and Mexico, per the Ipsos survey.It might just seem like semantics to argue that the numbers for support of Trump support arent so cut and dry. But the nuance here matters: The next few months are likely to be packed with attempts by the new administration to push for big changes under the guise of having a mandate. A closer look, though, reveals what policy shifts the public might actually support and which it might not.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 has never been on better terms with corporate America. Yet his ostensible trade agenda has never been more antithetical to the interests of big business.In recent weeks, tech billionaires whod once projected ambivalence (if not hostility) toward Trump including Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates have paid him their respects at Mar-a-Lago. The worlds wealthiest entrepreneur, Elon Musk, has become the new presidents righthand man. And Trumps pick for treasury secretary, hedge fund manager Scott Bessent, won wide applause within the financial industry. Even as Trump has cozied up to Big Tech and Wall Street, however, he has pledged to enact trade policies that would undermine both, along with myriad other US industries. On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to put a tariff of between 10 percent and 20 percent on all imports to the United States, along with a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods and a 25 percent import surcharge on Canadian and Mexican wares at least, until our neighbors choke off the flow of all migrants and drugs across Americas northern and southern borders.This protectionist agenda is far more radical than anything Trump attempted during his first term. It threatens to hamper American tech companies by increasing the cost of semiconductors, depress stock valuations by reducing economic growth and fueling a global trade war, and disrupt the US auto industry, whose supply chains were built around the presumption of duty-free trade with Mexico.Thus, American investors, executives, and entrepreneurs watched Trumps first day in office with bated breath: Would his inaugural address and initial executive orders prioritize corporate Americas financial interest in relatively free global exchange or his own ideological fixation on trade deficits?Trumps Day 1 actions did not fully clarify his priorities on this front. In his inaugural speech, the president reiterated his broad commitment to protectionism. Meanwhile, his administration prepared to launch federal investigations into Americas trade deficit in general, as well as the trade practices of China, Mexico, and Canada in particular. Nevertheless, Trump did not actually establish any new tariffs on his first day in office, as his administrations arch-protectionists had hoped that he would.Investors interpreted Trumps caution as a sign that he would be heeding his advisers push for a more limited and incremental tariff policy; stocks rose Monday while the US dollar fell (stiff tariffs would increase the value of Americas currency). Wall Streets relief may be premature. Trump appears as ideologically perturbed by Americas trade deficit as ever. And Monday night, Trump said that his administration was thinking of enacting 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico on I think February 1. Still, given that his remarks about imminent tariffs were made off the cuff, in response to a reporters question, and that Trump has a history of falsely predicting that he will fulfill various campaign promises in roughly two weeks, it is unclear whether he was referencing an actual plan the administration had in the works.How he intends to balance his protectionist instincts against his desire for a booming stock market and fawning billionaire class remains uncertain. Trumps impending trade memorandum does not end his administrations internecine conflict over trade policy, but merely prolongs it.Why Wall Street took comfort in Trumps Day 1 trade actionsIn recent weeks, arch-nationalists in Trumps orbit including his longtime immigration adviser Stephen Miller had pushed for Trump to immediately declare a national emergency on trade, according to the Wall Street Journal. This would theoretically give Trump broad authority to rapidly enact steep tariffs. (Though some of the legal mechanisms that authorize tariffs require either an investigation or comment period, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 would arguably provide Trump with a legal basis for dispensing with such procedural niceties, once he declared said emergency.)But on Day 1, the president declined to take that approach. Trump did foreground his commitment to protectionism in his inaugural address, vowing to immediately begin the overhaul of our trade system to protect American workers and families. He promised to tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens and establish an External Revenue Service to collect these taxes from foreign entities (Trumps case for establishing a new agency to perform a function already fulfilled by US Customs and Border Protection is unclear). The president even dedicated multiple paragraphs of his speech to lionizing President William McKinley, a champion of extremely high tariffs.Nevertheless, it isnt hard to see why investors responded favorably to Trumps actions. The president initially kept his protectionist promises abstract. While his pledges on other policy fronts were more concrete for example, he vowed to revoke Joe Bidens emission restrictions on new vehicles and designate international drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations he did not formally reiterate his commitment to a universal tariff.Instead, Trumps advisers told reporters Monday that he would issue a broad memorandum directing federal agencies to investigate and propose remedies for Americas trade deficit, as well as the purportedly abusive trade practices of China, Mexico, and Canada. The fact that Trump declined to take a more drastic immediate step might suggest that the business wing of the Trump White House is exerting at least some influence over trade policy. Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that Trump aides were considering a proposal to narrow Trumps universal tariff plan, such that it would only apply to sectors deemed crucial to Americas national or economic security. Trumps initial restraint on trade lends credence to such reports of his administrations scaled-back ambitions.Of course, Trumps threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Monday night calls that restraint into question. And futures markets initially turned down in response to Trumps remarks. Yet the president has long been explicit that his vow to impose enormous duties on Americas top trade partners is a gambit for securing concession on border enforcement from our nations neighbors. It is therefore possible to interpret his reiteration of that threat as an act of posturing.Trump has strong incentives for moderating on tradeIts entirely possible that Trumps caution on trade will indeed end on February 1, if not sooner. But there are at least three reasons to think Trump will reward Wall Streets early optimism and abandon his most radical trade policies. First, those policies would benefit virtually no major interest group within the Trump coalition. Second, Trump has historically been obsessed with the stock markets performance on his watch. And third, he has recently displayed a willingness to subordinate hardline nationalism to Big Techs economic needs. Imposing even a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods would not only harm various business interests, but would also likely increase costs for consumers. Thus, such a duty would harm both Trumps donors and voters. If Trumps first term is any guide, his universal tariff would not even redound to the benefit of American manufacturers, who would be vulnerable to higher costs and retaliatory tariffs from foreign nations. Generally speaking, presidents seek to avoid enacting policies that harm the bulk of their coalition, to the benefit of a narrow band of ideologues. And this is what implementing Trumps grandest visions for trade policy would likely entail.Second, the imposition of a universal tariff would roil stock markets. During Trumps first term in office, he monitored the markets performance obsessively, tweeting about it incessantly and suggesting that stock values were a barometer of sound policy, warning in 2018, If Democrats take over Congress, the stock market will plummet.Finally, Trump has recently shown some sensitivity to the interests of his newfound friends in tech, even when those interests conflict with the tenets of rightwing nationalism. Over the holidays, Elon Musk feuded with their co-partisans over the desirability of high-skill immigration and the H-1B visa, which help American tech companies to hire foreign talent. Trump ultimately expressed support for Musks position. Trump really believes in protectionismAll this said, to the extent that Trump has any deep-seated policy beliefs, the notion that free trade hurts America is one of them. Trump has been advocating for massive duties on foreign goods since at least 1988, when he called for putting a 15 percent to 20 percent tariff on imports from Japan. Unable to seek a third term in office, Trump faces no binding political constraints. According to the New York Times, Trump feels he has a mandate to enact his ideological vision and sees himself as his own best adviser.When the Washington Post reported that Trumps aides were scaling back his universal tariff plans earlier this month, he abruptly declared on Truth Social, The story in the Washington Post, quoting so-called anonymous sources, which dont exist, incorrectly states that my tariff policy will be pared back. That is wrong.Trump did strike a similar tone Monday night. And his memorandum could well serve as a prelude for all his signature trade proposals, establishing a more robust legal foundation for imposing a universal tariff and punitive duties on Americas top trade partners.In backing Trump, many in corporate America placed a bet on his prudence and loyalty. As Monday demonstrated, that is not the safest wager. 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 Donald Trump declared hed act like a dictator on Day 1 during his presidential campaign, there have been real concerns that hed be true to his word that hed take a series of unilateral actions that threaten the integrity of American democracy.With Trumps Inauguration Day in the rearview mirror, were in a position to assess just how justified those fears were. Four specific moves illegally attempting to end birthright citizenship, reviving the Schedule F order that could initiate a civil service purge, pardoning January 6 rioters, and ordering multiple investigations into the Biden administration deserve particular attention. Each contributes, in its own way, to the weakening of democratic principles such as the rule of law and nonpartisan government that prevent authoritarian-inclined leaders like Trump from consolidating power. If he gets away with each of them, it will likely invite anti-democratic behavior of greater and greater import. They are tests, of a kind: early ways of assessing how resilient our system will prove to an anti-democratic leader. Well all soon learn the answer.Trumps blatantly unconstitutional immigration orderThe 14th Amendment of the US Constitution makes it achingly clear: Anyone who is born in the United States is a citizen. Trumps most troubling executive order attempts to overturn this constitutional right by executive fiat, ordering US officials to stop issuing citizenship documents to any future children born to undocumented migrants. Its an order that will test just how willing the federal bureaucracy and the courts are to defend against unlawful Trumpian behavior.The precise wording of the amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside is fairly straightforward. Trumps argument is that undocumented migrants and immigrants with temporary visas are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but the case is legally absurd.The only people inside the US nowadays who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country are diplomats, as they enjoy diplomatic immunity from American law. Undocumented and temporary migrants, who can be arrested by American police and deported by American courts, are very much subject to American jurisdiction which means their children would clearly be American citizens. This is not merely my interpretation of the law, but also red-letter Supreme Court precedent. In the 1898 case US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled definitively that the 14th Amendment applies even to the children of migrants who are ineligible to be naturalized. So Trump isnt just offering an implausible interpretation of the amendments text; he is ordering federal officials to ignore the law as defined by the Supreme Court and listen to him instead.When given an illegal order, government employees are within their rights to refuse it. The extent to which the federal bureaucracy ignores this order will test just how willing theyll be to act on those rights. And the extent to which federal courts step in to stop Trumps efforts to amend the Constitution unilaterally will test how willing Republican judges and justices are to put the rule of law over Trump and the GOPs interests.Trumps Schedule F ticking time bombAt the tail end of Trumps first time in office, he issued an executive order creating a new classification for federal civil servants called Schedule F essentially, a tool for converting a civil servant jobs protected from removal based on party into political appointments he could fire at will. The order got nowhere before former President Joe Biden took office and promptly repealed it.Well, Schedule F is back. One of Trumps Day 1 executive actions restored the 2020 order and added a few tweaks, including an inquiry as to whether additional categories of positions should be included in Schedule F beyond the ones considered in the first executive order.In theory, this could be as damaging to democracy as the birthright citizenship order if not more so. Schedule F in its original form applied, per some estimates, to somewhere around 50,000 civil servants (and potentially quite a lot more). Purging that many people and allowing Trump to replace them with cronies would be a powerful tool for turning the federal government into an extension of his will.But at present, the scope of the threat is hypothetical.We dont know how many positions Trump will come after, or how effectively he can get around the legal roadblocks Biden erected to prevent such a purge. All the executive order does at present is create a tool that Trump could abuse; how much itll be abused, and whether its abuse can be stopped via litigation, remains unclear.Trumps dangerous pardons for January 6 offensesWhen it came to people convicted of crimes relating to January 6, a group Trump calls J6 hostages, there was a range of plausible predictions including, for example, reserving pardons for only nonviolent offenders.Trump chose maximalism. His proclamation commuted the sentence of 14 offenders, including Oathkeepers leader Stewart Rhodes, and then issued a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. All told, thats roughly 1,500 insurrectionists whose convictions were wiped out at the stroke of a pen. He also instructed the Department of Justice to dismiss all pending indictments related to that days events.The threats to democracy here are threefold.RelatedFirst, the move incentivizes future political violence. Any extreme right-wingers who want to attack Democrats now have at least some cause to believe that the president will shield them from legal consequences. Second, it abuses the extraordinary latitude of the pardon power. As Biden demonstrated on his way out, the president currently enjoys fairly wide discretion to pardon whoever they please. In theory, the pardon power could be used to induce any government official to break the law, as Trump could simply promise a pardon if they get caught. Trump going this far this early suggests he might be willing to push the power to limits.Third, Trumps involvement in what should theoretically be a Department of Justice affair decisions on which specific cases ought to be pursued reminds us that he has little respect for the departments traditional independence, seeing it as an agency that should operate as the presidents personal lawyers.Well see, in the coming days, whether anyone in government or out of it can think of ways to check this decisions fallout.Trumps potentially dangerous investigationsTwo Trump executive orders, covering weaponization of government and federal censorship respectively, initiate formal inquiries into government conduct during the Biden administration.What this means, in brief, is that the attorney general and the director of national intelligence are instructed to start looking into actions taken by the formal government in a series of areas ranging from January 6 prosecutions to FBI investigations of threats against teachers to cooperation with social media companies. Once the inquiries are complete, these officials are to recommend unspecified punishments for any wrongdoing uncovered.In theory, this could amount to nothing: an order to look into something that quietly fades away. But it also could begin a process by which Trumps picks for these two positions, Pam Bondi and Tulsi Gabbard (both still unconfirmed), begin identifying federal officials to be purged and replaced by Trump loyalists above and beyond the Schedule F proceedings. It could also create a pretext for prosecuting Trumps political opponents in the private sector, or at least initiating burdensome investigations into their business.Which of these two outcomes is more likely depends on Cabinet officials in question. If confirmed, Gabbard and (especially) Bondi will be in charge of interpreting these orders, with wide latitude to do as they please. Their choices, and the decisions of those who answer to them, will determine whether or not this ends up being a nothingburger or a harbinger of a democratic crisis 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:

One of the first bills that could be sent to President Donald Trump would vastly expand immigration detention and make it easier for states to influence immigration policy. It passed the Senate Monday with the support of 12 Democrats and will now head to the House for final approval.That bill, the Laken Riley Act, is named after a young woman who was killed last February by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela. Her murderer was sentenced to life in prison. Riley has become a cause clbre for Republicans, who argue that her death is the result of former President Joe Bidens immigration policies that allowed him to walk free despite a shoplifting charge. The House and Senate GOP lawmakers broadly back the bill, but it has received a mixed reception from Democrats. Some Democrats, reeling from major losses in 2024, Americans frustration with the immigration status quo, and record-high border crossings under Biden, backed the bill, however.The bill passed the House earlier this month with the support of 48 of the House of Representatives 215 Democrats. After considering major amendments to the bill brought by Democrats, the Senate passed the bill with hardly any alternations. Two Democratic senators, Ruben Gallego of Arizona and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, co-sponsored the Senate version.The bill has two major parts:It would mandate that the federal government detain all immigrants accused of theft and other related crimes.It would give states a broad right to bring lawsuits against federal immigration policy.The bills proponents argue it will be a major step forward for public safety. But once signed by Trump, the bill could also strain existing immigration enforcement resources, infringe on immigrants due process rights, and create a chaotic (and potentially unconstitutional) situation in which states are allowed to dictate federal immigration policy.The Laken Riley Act would vastly expand immigration detentionRight now, federal law mandates that immigrants who have committed certain serious crimes, including murder, rape, domestic violence, and some drug offenses, be detained. But beyond those categories, federal immigration officials have discretion.In 2021, the Biden administration issued policy guidance prioritizing people who were a national security threat, public safety threat, or border security threat (those who had recently entered the US without authorization). Otherwise, the Department of Homeland Security urged individual immigration officers to use their prosecutorial discretion essentially, to leave everyone else alone.The rationale was that immigration agencies have limited resources for enforcement, and Biden was aiming those resources as what he viewed as key threats among the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US.The federal government will never have enough money or manpower to deport every undocumented noncitizen, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School. Courts are not equipped to delve into the details of who to prioritize for deportation.Trump already rescinded Bidens enforcement priorities in one of his first executive orders on Monday. The Laken Riley Act further upends enforcement, requiring that a much larger population of undocumented immigrants be detained. The bill would require federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants accused of theft and other related crimes like shoplifting or burglary. Accusations triggering mandatory detention could be made in the US or another country. For example, if someone was charged with burglary in Venezuela and that came to the attention of US immigration officials, the accused burglar would have to be detained on that basis.This would be a major expansion of immigration detention and deportation. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimates that the bill would cost $83 billion over the next three years, enough to fund 118,500 additional detention beds, 40,000 more personnel, and a 25 percent increase in deportation flights. That updated estimate, reportedly circulated among Democratic leadership last week, is many times higher than ICEs previous $3.2 billion estimate. These immigrants would be detained even if they werent convicted and without the opportunity for a bond hearing. Currently, its rare for anyone in the US accused of a crime to be detained without a bond hearing, even when the crime is as serious as murder. In immigrants cases, mandatory immigration detention can actually impede their prosecution by making it logistically harder for them to show up for proceedings in their criminal cases. Immigrants, even those without documentation, have the same rights to due process as any other individual in the US, and immigrant advocates have argued this raises serious due process concerns: It increases the risk that an innocent person could be held on a prolonged basis with limited access to legal counsel that could help them win a case challenging their deportation.This potential provision could be unconstitutional given our Fifth Amendment right around liberty, Adriel Orozco, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, a think tank focused on immigration policy said. Its ramifications are so far-reaching in the human context.The bill would expand states role in shaping federal immigration policyThe other major prong of the bill would give states the automatic right to bring lawsuits challenging federal immigration policy on detention and visas, or decisions in individual immigration cases, if they can demonstrate they have experienced financial harm exceeding $100. This is a mechanism that Republicans say is necessary to ensure the federal government is complying with its mandate to detain immigrants under the act. But in practice, it means courts would have to rule on the merits of states claims rather than being able to dismiss them outright, and could potentially be inundated with such lawsuits.You could see any number of really hostile state officials filing lawsuits to change decisions that they dont like, Sarah Mehta, ACLU senior border policy counsel, said. That could include, for example, challenging the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries against which Republicans have taken a hardline stance, such as China, she said. That would have worrying implications not just for US immigration policy, but also lead to states dictating US foreign policy and having a major impact on the US relationship with both adversaries and allies. It could also make for open season on the decisions made by thousands of immigration line officers in the course of their day-to-day work.Its possible that Democratic states could also try to use the bill to challenge federal immigration policy, perhaps to stem the tide of arrivals to blue cities a phenomenon some state and local Democratic leaders have complained about though its not clear exactly on what basis they would do so. Mehta said that the provision allowing for lawsuits is clearly constitutional overreach and courts might recognize it as such if the bill were to become law. She noted that the US Supreme Court already ruled in a 2023 case brought by Texas challenging the Biden administrations immigration enforcement priorities that such policies are under the exclusive purview of the federal government based on the Constitution, recognizing the need for a unified US response to immigration. States shouldnt be intervening in foreign policy or any of these immigration decisions because they dont have the expertise, Mehta said. If the bill becomes law and survives legal scrutiny, the result is that courts would become the final arbiters of immigration policy, Yale-Loehr said. Now that the legislation has passed without amendments, it could sow chaos, inviting lawsuits challenging every new regulation or policy memo without addressing broader issues in the USs broken immigration system, which hasnt been meaningfully reformed since 1986. Those issues include an underresourced asylum system that isnt equipped to handle diverse populations; processing people at the border in a humane and orderly way, and expeditiously returning them to their home countries if they do not qualify for protections in the US; a lack of legal pathways to the US designed for current economic and humanitarian needs; millions of undocumented immigrants who have laid roots in the US yet have no way of achieving legal status; and factors pushing people out of their home countries that will continue to drive people to migrate.The Laken Riley Act would leave all of that unresolved.Update, January 20, 7:50 pm ET: This story, originally published January 16, has been updated in light of the bill passing the Senate.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:

Ending birthright citizenship has been on President Donald Trumps wish list for years, and hes reportedly expected to issue an executive order doing so in the earliest stages of his presidency. But ending it may not be as easy as hes promised. Under a longstanding interpretation of the Constitution and federal law, children born in the US automatically become American citizens, even if their parents are undocumented. Trump, however, has previously promised that, On day one of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the children of illegal immigrants will not receive automatic US citizenship.Its not clear exactly what the executive order may specifically entail. But in 2023, Trump suggested that he would mandate that at least one parent must be a US citizen or green card holder for their child to qualify for automatic citizenship. Federal agencies would be directed to deny passports, Social Security numbers, and public benefits to children with two undocumented parents. The executive order would almost certainly be challenged in court. Though its impossible to say what the Supreme Court may ultimately decide, history and precedent isnt on Trumps side. I think that birthright citizenship is such a bedrock principle of American law that of all the things on the Trump agenda, this is the one least likely to be successful, said Hiroshi Motomura, a professor at UCLA School of Law.Trump has framed the policy as a solution to birth tourism when pregnant people travel to the US to give birth in order to secure US citizenship for their child and a means of removing a pull factor for unauthorized immigration, which has sharply declined at the southern border in 2024. The policy also reflects Trumps longtime efforts to assert a particular vision of what it means to be American in an era when the USs white population is declining. In his first term, he reportedly eschewed immigration from shithole countries, referring to Haiti and African countries. And he has more recently claimed that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country. Its not clear how many people could be impacted by the policy. However, about 5.5 million American citizen children currently live in mixed-status households, some of them with two undocumented parents, which would have made them ineligible for automatic US citizenship under Trumps proposed policy. That suggests that the affected population of future children born in the US could be large.What the law saysThe prevailing belief among legal experts is that ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, that there is not enough support in Congress to pass one, and that Trumps proposed executive order would not hold up in court. President Trump cannot do this, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean at UC Berkeley School of Law. President Trump cannot change the Constitution by executive order.He said that ending birthright citizenship by executive order contravenes the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be considered US citizens. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Chemerinsky said that this has always been understood to mean that all born in the United States (or naturalized as citizens) are United States citizens, in addition to any individuals under US jurisdiction abroad, such as children born to US military personnel in foreign countries. The phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof was intended to exclude only Native Americans born on tribal land as well as children of enemy occupiers and foreign diplomats. The Supreme Courts 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark makes clear that those born in the United States are citizens, Chemerinsky added. That case concerned a child born in California to Chinese immigrants who were lawful permanent residents of the US. At the time, no Chinese citizens were allowed to become naturalized US citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The court ruled that the child was a US citizen because he was born in the US, even though his parents were noncitizens. Can Trump ban birthright citizenship anyway?Right-wing immigration hawks have argued that the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause ought to be interpreted differently to exclude children of unauthorized immigrants from the benefits of automatic citizenship. The clause, they argue, was meant to exclude anyone who had any loyalties to a foreign power, including citizens of other countries. But even some of Trumps allies including Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant think tank appear to acknowledge that he would face an uphill battle in court to realize his plan. I think it would be immediately challenged in the courts, and I think that the challenge would have all of the history and the origins of the statute behind it, Motomura said. I cant predict what any court will actually do, but I think the historical record is so clear.Still, if Trump succeeds in enacting his executive order, its impact would be far-reaching. Birthright citizenship has served as an engine of integration for immigrant populations in the US, and ending it would also undermine Americas cultural identity as an inclusive immigrant society, Motomura said, adding that it would hit people of Mexican and Central American origin the hardest.That aspect cant be ignored, Motomura said. Its the resurrection of the use of US citizenship rules with a real racial impact, and I think an intentional racial impact.Update, January 20, 2025, 2 pm: This story, originally published November 19, 2024, has been updated in light of Trumps plans for the first day of his second 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:

When it comes to speeches, there are two Donald Trumps. The first is Teleprompter Trump, who reads a prepared speech and tends to be staid, sleepy, and insincere. The second is Rally Trump, who riffs in front of a cheering crowd and is wild, aggressive, and more true to the person that Trump really is.We saw this duality on display immediately after Trumps inauguration. In his official inaugural address in the Capitol Rotunda, Teleprompter Trump delivered a largely unmemorable performance a sleepy address that gave audiences little substance to remember it by. In an impromptu follow-up performance given to the overflow crowd in nearby Emancipation Hall, Rally Trump made an appearance giving a rambling but undeniably more energetic monologue that Trump himself described as a better speech than the one I made upstairs.Rally Trumps speech was a much better guide to what actually animates Trump than the more buttoned-down teleprompter address. And the portrait the second address painted is of a man who remains convinced of his own fictions and obsessed with revenge against those who challenged them.The Rally Trump speech really got going when Trump began talking about things he left out of the official inaugural address. He singles out prospective pardons for January 6, 2021, Capitol rioters as an important example, saying its action not words that count and youre gonna see a lot of action on the J6 hostages.You can see how deeply Trump cares about transforming the official history of January 6. Its not good enough that he is returning to office: He needs to rewrite what happened such that the people who rioted to try and steal the 2020 election for him are the victims hostages rather than criminals. Its all in service of the grander goal of insisting that Mr. Trump cannot lose and never has, and of using his new powers to try and force reality to match this insistence.Similar thinking was at work in Trumps next riff on outgoing President Bidens preemptive pardons for potential Trump prosecution targets like General Mark Milley, Liz Cheney, and Bidens own family members.Trump insisted these people were very, very guilty of very, very bad crimes, accusing the January 6 committee which he referred to as the unselect committee of political thugs of deleting all the information on Nancy Pelosi (its unclear what criminal statute this would fall under). Its clear that Trump really does want to go after these people as part of his campaign to rewrite the events of the 2020 election; the extent to which hes stymied by Bidens pardons remains an open question.Over the course of the next half hour, Trump continued down his revisionist lane.Trump implied that Liz Cheney opposed him not because of any perceived threat to democracy but because her dad was a war profiteer. He spent a while disputing a specific piece of January 6 testimony that he attempted to seize the wheel of the presidential limousine to drive to the Capitol. He explicitly restated that the 2020 election was rigged against him, and then insisted that we would have won the state of California in 2024 if it werent for illegal votes.The point is not that any of this is new ground for Trump. Rather, its that none of it is.In his first truly authentic speech after returning to office, where he felt unchained to discuss what he really cared about, he spent the bulk of the time obsessing over election results and January 6, endlessly litigating the past and (at times openly) stating his desire to seek recompense and revenge for the indignity of losing an election.The Rally Trump speech was the truest reflection of the once-and-current presidents feelings and, I suspect, his governing priorities. And four years of a president who uses his power to punish political enemies and reward his lawbreaking friends does not augur well for American democracy.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

Its a very cold day in the District of Columbia. The frigid temperatures have prompted the inauguration of Donald Trump and JD Vance to be moved into the US Capitol Rotunda.But thats not all thats changed between this day and Trumps inauguration eight years ago.Trumps Electoral College victory in 2016 shocked many, including the winner himself, according to many of his campaign staffers.Washington DCs elected officials and political insiders, Democrats and Republicans alike, were still reeling in January 2017 as Trump laid his hand on a Bible and solemnly swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.Now, in 2025, things have changed considerably. The Supreme Court has granted the president broad immunity from criminal prosecution. Trump has vowed to exact retribution against his political adversaries. While his team was unprepared to assume office the first time, now his staff has reportedly prepared more than 100 executive orders to be signed on Day 1. Organized resistance to Trump is muted this time around, the guardrails protecting democracy are weaker, and many Democrats in Congress say they are willing to work with him.Today, Explained host Noel King spoke with Susan B. Glasser, staff writer and a columnist for the New Yorker, about her memories of Trumps first inauguration and how hes being received differently this time. Glasser is the author, with Peter Baker, her husband and the chief White House correspondent for the New York Times, of the 2022 book The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021.Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. Theres much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.Susan B. GlasserIve been to a lot of different inaugurations here in Washington, going back to Bill Clintons. And 2016 was like nothing Ive ever seen in Washington DC. It was almost like an alien invasion. The streets were deserted. Definitely not the largest inauguration crowd ever in Washington. Nobody knew what to expect. It was just absolutely a time of disorientation, by the way, for Republicans here as well as for Democrats. It was a sense that anything was possible, that the wheels were possibly coming off of the American system. And I will never forget, I was at an inauguration watch party at the top of a hotel here in Washington that looks out over Pennsylvania Avenue where the inaugural parade is. I was sitting there with a close friend and colleague of mine from Politico. And the moment when Barack Obamas helicopter flew off, it just [felt], Were on our own this is really happening.Noel KingIts worth noting that it would not have only been Democrats feeling that on that day, Donald Trump being something new. Can you give us a bit of a sense of just how anti-establishment a figure he was perceived on that Inauguration Day and who maybe he was making the most nervous?Susan B. GlasserYeah, for sure. It was Republicans as well as Democrats who not only didnt know what to expect, but had a profound sense of disruption and concern about it. Remember that Trump had been opposed by the vast majority of his own party in the Republican primaries in terms of the establishment types, the elected officials. And for many of those elected Republicans here in Washington, they viewed this, correctly, I think, as a sort of a hostile takeover by an outsider of their own party. And remember the famous comment from George W. Bush, who was sitting on the platform in his role as former president for Trumps first inauguration. He turned to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting next to him in her role as a former first lady, not in her role as the defeated opponent of Donald Trump. And he said to Hillary Clinton, That was some weird shit, referring to Donald Trumps famous American carnage inaugural address. I later asked the two of them about that. And lets just say that they are not denying that that exchange happened and that that was the experience that they both felt of that moment.Noel KingSo eight years ago, everything was eerie and what the heck is going to happen, and the crowds are not out in the same way that you might expect. In 2025, who is coming out to support Donald Trump that wasnt there last time? Who is notable this year?Susan B. GlasserWell, there is a big change. First of all, we can talk about the opposition to Trump or the lack thereof. And thats the other important point about 2016, is that immediately a resistance paradigm kicked in among Democrats, among people who were upset and appalled and worried about Trumps victory. There was an almost immediate sense that weve got to resist this, weve got to stand up to this. There was the Womens March, as youll recall, immediately after the Trump inauguration. It had huge participation here. And so there was a sense of action being taken, I would say, and that this was something that could or would have to be gotten through for the next four years. I think that that for me is the biggest difference now, eight years later. Not only is there no such massive public kind of acts of resistance planned for the immediate aftermath of Trumps inauguration, but you have Democrats still embroiled in a game of finger-pointing and blame game among themselves about why they lost the election. You have many business leaders, establishment Republicans, and other types of people who would have considered Trump anathema back in 2016, who are not only openly supporting him, but I think theyve come to the conclusion that this is the new normal not only of the Republican Party, but to a certain extent of the country that Trumpism is not some one-off aberration, but an important factor for a long time to come in this countrys politics.Noel KingTell us about the types of corporations. So we hear that big business is getting behind Trump, at least symbolically, in this inauguration. What kinds of big business are we talking about and who represents them on Inauguration Day?Susan B. GlasserThe participation in Trumps inaugural committee, the fundraising for that committee, is a really striking difference that tells you about the level of acceptance from 2016 to today. Since Trumps election in November, youve seen many of Americas corporate leaders of many blue chip corporations, certainly ones that are not associated exclusively with red America, chipping in and announcing $1 million contributions either from the corporation or from the CEO personally or from both of them. Were talking companies like Apple, for example. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, is reported to be one of the people who is going to appear at Trumps inauguration, who gave a $1 million contribution. And Tim Cook, hes not a MAGA tweeter like Elon Musk, the worlds richest man, whos donated an extraordinary amount, something like a quarter of a billion dollars, to the effort to elect Donald Trump in 2024. Tim Cook is not a political donor. He seems to be going along with the idea that you have to pay to have access to the Trump administration going forward. And Ive been really struck by that. Thats a huge difference from 2016. The other big difference is not only are you seeing blue chip companies and mainstream Republican donors or even Democrats or former Democrats giving to Trumps inauguration, but its almost like its a concerted message thats being sent to Americas corporate elite, which is that if you dont pony up at least $1 million for this inauguration, you do not have a seat at the table in this future administration.Noel KingAnd so is that what, on this day, support for Trump looks like? Is it giving money to the inauguration? Or is there anything else that we should be looking for?Susan B. GlasserWell, I think thats just a sort of a tip-of-the-iceberg indicator. Donald Trump, of course, is very, very concerned about the public optics, the public narrative. I imagine that it pleases him to no end in Mar-a-Lago to see the parade of business leaders whove sought an audience with him since the election, whove made these very public displays of giving to his inaugural committee. But that is a reminder that theres so much that we dont see thats not publicly disclosed, that we journalists will have to do a lot of digging and a lot of hard work to understand the nature of what else these business leaders are getting.First of all, Trump is appointing many very wealthy individuals and business leaders to his Cabinet. By any reckoning, it is the wealthiest Cabinet with the most billionaires ever appointed in American history. So thats one thing. What are the other possible conflicts of interests, other business concerns that they might bring with them into these cabinet roles, first of all? Second of all, theres the question of the transparency, or lack thereof, of Trumps own family interests and personal financial interests, which was a big issue in his first administration as well. And third, theres the kind of unofficial power that many of those in Trumps orbit exercised in his first term and that I expect them to exercise in a second term as well. And thats very hard to track and is not something that we can find on a disclosure form.Noel KingWhat about elected Democratic lawmakers? Are the Democrats behaving this year in ways that are unexpected or different from last time?Susan B. GlasserYeah, I mean, inaugural addresses have a long tradition of being much more aspirational and very high altitude looking at the big picture goals and dreams and hopes for the country. Not Donald Trump. First, he comes in in 2016 and he has this very, very dark inaugural address, talks about American carnage, huge break with historical past. Then in 2020, what does he do? He denies the results of the election that he legitimately lost. Thats the first time in history, in all of American history, that has happened. He sics a violent mob of his supporters on the US Capitol on the day when theyre certifying Joe Bidens win and Trumps defeat. He refuses to attend the inauguration of his successor. These are ruptures with our past. And so you cant speak about what Democrats are doing this year in anything other than the context of what Trump did four years ago. Even there what you have is Democrats, theyre much more right now an institutionalist party, a party about saying were here to stand up for the traditions and the guardrails that exist in American democracy. So you have Joe Biden not only accepting Trumps victory, Kamala Harris accepting Trumps victory, conceding defeat, planning to attend the inauguration, but theyre not seeing this as the celebration of America in a nonpartisan sense that it used to be. I just saw that George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton are not planning on attending the traditional post-inaugural luncheon at the Capitol that normally, of course, they all do attend. And this speaks to Donald Trump turning almost everything into a partisan test of how you react to him. Thats the reason why my husband and I called our book about Trumps first term The Divider. For him, everything is a confrontation. Everything is a division. And that now applies to this tradition of American inaugurations.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:

First lady Jill Biden, President Joe Biden, President-elect Donald Trump and Melania Trump stand together ahead of Trumps second inauguration, at the White House on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.Donald J. Trump and JD Vance were officially sworn in as the 47th president and vice president of the United States on Monday, January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. Their inauguration looks different from previous years, in part because it is being held inside the Capitol Rotunda, instead of outside the US Capitol, as a polar vortex threatens much of the nation with below freezing temperatures.Trump is expected to issue hundreds of executive orders as soon as he is inaugurated for his second presidency, including vows to impose tariffs on imported goods and to carry out a mass deportation effort. (How Trump plans to carry out these plans remains unclear.) He also pledged to provide major pardons for the roughly hundreds of nonviolent defendants convicted of storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.Follow here for the latest news, analysis, and explainers about Inauguration Day.6 factors to watch in the incoming Trump administrationThe broligarchs have a vision for the new Trump term. Its darker than you think.

Theres a dominant narrative in the media about why tech billionaires are sucking up to Donald Trump: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, all of whom have descended on the nations capital for the presidential inauguration, either happily support or have largely acquiesced to Trump because they think hell offer lower taxes and friendlier regulations. In other words, its just about protecting their own selfish business interests.That narrative is not exactly wrong Trump has in fact promised massive tax cuts for billionaires but it leaves out the deeper, darker forces at work here. For the tech bros or as some say, the broligarchs this is about much more than just maintaining and growing their riches. Its about ideology. An ideology inspired by science fiction and fantasy. An ideology that says they are supermen, and supermen should not be subject to rules, because theyre doing something incredibly important: remaking the world in their image. Its this ideology that makes MAGA a godsend for the broligarchs, who include Musk, Zuck, and Bezos as well as the venture capitalists Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen. Thats because MAGA is all about granting unchecked power to the powerful. Its a sense of complete impunity including impunity to the laws of nature, Brooke Harrington, a professor of economic sociology at Dartmouth who studies the behavior of the ultra-rich, told me. They reject constraint in all of its forms.As Harrington has noted, Trump is the perfect avatar for that worldview. Hes a man who incited an attempted coup, who got convicted on 34 felony counts and still won reelection, who notoriously said in reference to sexual assault, When youre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.So, what is the anything that the broligarchs want to do? To understand their vision, we need to realize that their philosophy goes well beyond simple libertarianism. Its not just that they want a government that wont tread on them. They want absolutely zero limits on their power. Not those dictated by democratic governments, by financial systems, or by facts. Not even those dictated by death. The broligarchs vision: science fiction, transhumanism, and immortality The broligarchs are not a monolith their politics differ somewhat, and theyve sometimes been at odds with each other. Remember when Zuck and Musk said they were going to fight each other in a cage match? But heres something the broligarchs have in common: a passionate love for science fiction and fantasy that has shaped their vision for the future of humanity and their own roles as its would-be saviors. Zuckerbergs quest to build the Metaverse, a virtual reality so immersive and compelling that people would want to strap on bulky goggles to interact with each other, is seemingly inspired by the sci-fi author Neal Stephenson. It was actually Stephenson who coined the term metaverse in his novel Snow Crash, where characters spend a lot of time interacting in a virtual world of that name. Zuckerberg seems not to have noticed that the book is depicting a dystopia; instead of viewing it as a warning, hes viewing it as an instruction manual.Jeff Bezos is inspired by Star Trek, which led him to found a commercial spaceflight venture called Blue Origin, and The High Frontier by physics professor Gerard K. ONeill, which informs his plan for space colonization (it involves millions of people living in cylindrical tubes). Bezos attended ONeills seminars as an undergraduate at Princeton.Musk, who wants to colonize Mars to save humanity from a dying planet, is inspired by one of the masters of American sci-fi, Isaac Asimov. In his Foundation series, Asimov wrote about a hero who must prevent humanity from being thrown into a long dark age after a massive galactic empire collapses. The lesson I drew from that is you should try to take the set of actions that are likely to prolong civilization, minimize the probability of a dark age and reduce the length of a dark age if there is one, Musk said. And Andreessen, an early web browser developer who now pushes for aggressive progress in AI with very little regulation, is inspired by superhero stories, writing in his 2023 Techno-Optimist Manifesto that we should become technological supermen whose Heros Journey involves conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community. All of these men see themselves as the heroes or protagonists in their own sci-fi saga. And a key part of being a technological superman or ubermensch, as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say is that youre above the law. Common-sense morality doesnt apply to you because youre a superior being on a superior mission. Thiel, it should be noted, is a big Nietzsche fan, though his is an extremely selective reading of the philosophers work.The ubermensch ideology helps explain the broligarchs disturbing gender politics. The bro part of broligarch is not incidental to this its built on this idea that not only are these guys superior, they are superior because theyre guys, Harrington said.For one thing, they valorize aggression, which is coded as male. Zuckerberg, who credits mixed martial arts and hunting wild boars with helping him rediscover his masculinity (and is sporting the makeover to prove it), recently told Joe Rogan that the corporate world is too culturally neutered it should become a culture that has more masculine energy and that celebrates the aggression. Likewise, Andreessen wrote in his manifesto, We believe in ambition, aggression, persistence, relentlessness strength. Musk, meanwhile, has jumped on the testosterone bandwagon, amplifying the idea that only high T alpha males are capable of thinking for themselves; he shared a post on X that said, This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making. Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.This idea that most people cant think for themselves is key to Nietzsches idea of the ubermensch. What differentiates the ubermensch, or superman, is that he is not bogged down by common-sense morality (baseless) or by God (dead) he can determine his own values. The broligarchs because they are in 21st-century Silicon Valley and not 19th-century Germany have updated and melded this idea with transhumanism, the idea that we can and should use technology to alter human biology and proactively evolve our species. Transhumanism spread in the mid-1900s thanks to its main popularizer, Julian Huxley, an evolutionary biologist and president of the British Eugenics Society. Huxley influenced the contemporary futurist Ray Kurzweil, who predicted that were approaching a time when human intelligence can merge with machine intelligence, becoming unbelievably powerful. The human species, along with the computational technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problems and will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a postbiological future, Kurzweil wrote in 1999. Kurzweil, in turn, has influenced Silicon Valley heavyweights like Musk, whose company Neuralink explicitly aims at merging human and machine intelligence. For many transhumanists, part of what it means to transcend our human condition is transcending death. And so you find that the broligarchs are very interested in longevity research. Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Thiel have all reportedly invested in startups that are trying to make it possible to live forever. That makes perfect sense when you consider that death currently imposes a limit on us all, and the goal of the broligarchs is to have zero limits. How the broligarchs and Trump use each other: startup cities, crypto, and the demise of the factIf you dont like limits and rules, it stands to reason that youre not going to like democracy. As Thiel wrote in 2009, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. And so it shouldnt come as a surprise that the broligarchs are trying to undermine the rule of democratic nation-states.To escape the control of democratic governments, they are seeking to create their own sovereign colonies. That can come in the form of space colonies, a la Musk and Bezos. But it can also come in the form of startup cities or network states built by corporations here on Earth independent mini-nations, carved out of the surrounding territory, where tech billionaires and their acolytes would live according to their own rules rather than the governments. This is currently Thiel and Andreessens favored approach. With the help of their investments, a startup city called Prospera is already being built off the coast of Honduras (much to the displeasure of Honduras). There are others in the offing, from Praxis (which will supposedly build the next America somewhere in the Mediterranean), to California Forever in, you guessed it, California.The so-called network state is a fancy name for tech authoritarianism, journalist Gil Duran, who has spent the past year reporting on these building projects, told me. The idea is to build power over the long term by controlling money, politics, technology, and land.Crypto, of course, is the broligarchs monetary instrument of choice. Its inherently anti-institutionalist; its appeal lies in its promise to let people control their own money and transact without relying on any authority, whether a government or a bank. Its how they plan to build these startup cities and network states, and how they plan to supplant the traditional financial system. The original idea of crypto was to replace the US dollar, but since the US dollar is intimately bound up with global finance, undercutting it could reshape the whole world economy.Trump seems to be going along with this very cheerfully. Hes now pro-crypto, and hes even proposed creating Freedom Cities in America that are reminiscent of startup cities. His alliance with the broligarchs benefits him not only because theyve heaped millions of dollars on him, but also because of how theyve undermined the very notion of the truth by shaping a post-truth online reality in which people dont know what to believe anymore. Musk, under the guise of promoting free speech, has made X into a den of disinformation. Zuckerberg is close on his heels, eliminating fact-checking at Meta even though the company said it would be scrupulous about inflammatory and false posts after it played a serious role in a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.Even more pernicious is the fact that these guys can control the algorithms, so they can decide what people actually see, Duran said. The problem is not so much that people can lie its that the system is designed to favor those lies over truth and reality.Its a perfect setup for a president famous for his alternative facts. But the underlying ideology that unites MAGA and the broligarchs is contrary to the aims of most ordinary Americans, including most Trump voters. If the US dollar is weakened and the very idea of the democratic nation-state is overthrown, that wont exactly make America great again. Itll make America weaker than ever. 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:

Support independent journalism that matters become a Vox Member today.On Monday, just hours before leaving office, President Joe Biden announced that he pardoned several individuals who may be the targets of political prosecutions in the incoming Trump administration. Incoming President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened retribution against perceived enemies. According to a statement from the White House, Bidens pardons went to former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, former federal public health official Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2020, attack on the US Capitol, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee.For more than 150 years, the Supreme Court has understood the presidents power to issue pardons as entirely within his discretion; typically, neither Congress nor the courts may intervene. Yet, while the Constitution permits Biden to pardon whoever he wants, such a pardon wont necessarily protect its recipient from everything Trump or his allies in government might do to make life difficult for Trumps perceived enemies.Current law provides that people who are pardoned receive broad legal protections against federal criminal charges. Any pardons Biden issued should be virtually invulnerable to a court challenge. In Ex parte Garland (1866), the Supreme Court held that the presidents pardon power is unlimited, except that the president cannot pardon impeachments. Under Garland, the pardon power extends to every offence known to [federal] law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. It also is not subject to legislative control.There is always some risk that the current Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 Republican supermajority, will ignore precedent. But the idea that presidents get to decide who is pardoned and that courts do not get to second-guess those decisions is well-established and stretches back to at least the post-Civil War period.Three limits on Bidens pardon powerThere actually are three very significant limits on the pardon power, however. A person pardoned by Biden might still be successfully targeted by Trump administration officials or Trumps allies in state government.One is that, as the head of the federal government, Biden can only pardon federal crimes. So someone who receives a pardon from Biden (or any other sitting president) might still be prosecuted by state officials for offenses under state law. The Trump administration, in other words, could potentially lean on MAGA-friendly state prosecutors to target individuals who receive a federal pardon from Biden.It should be noted that state prosecutors should not be allowed to target a former federal official for something that official did pursuant to their duties as a federal employee. The seminal Supreme Court case on this point, In re Neagle (1890), arose from a truly wild set of facts. Stephen Field, a justice of the US Supreme Court, had a longstanding feud with David Terry, a former chief justice of California. In 1889, while Field was eating breakfast at a train station in California, Terry approached and assaulted Field. Fields bodyguard, a deputy US marshal named David Neagle, then shot and killed Terry.After California charged Neagle with murder, the US Supreme Court ruled that this prosecution must be dismissed. Neagle, the Court explained, was acting under the authority of the law of the United States when he killed Terry, and thus was not liable to answer in the courts of California for carrying out his official federal duties.Assuming the current Supreme Court honors its precedent in Neagle, in other words, former federal officials should be safe from prosecution for state crimes they allegedly committed while acting under the authority of the United States. So if a state were to target, say, former federal public health official Anthony Fauci over federal policies he pushed during the Covid-19 pandemic, he should be immune from that prosecution.The second limit on the pardon power is that, while Garland states that presidents may issue a pardon at any time after the pardon recipient allegedly committed a criminal act, the president may not prospectively pardon future acts. This means that anyone Biden pardoned could still be targeted in the Trump administration for anything they do after Biden leaves office.The third limit is that the pardon power has traditionally been understood to extend only to criminal offenses and not to civil lawsuits or other non-criminal investigations (although at least one scholar has argued that it should be extended to civil offenses). Thus, while Biden could potentially shield Trumps perceived enemies from federal criminal prosecutions, the Trump administration might still sue a pardoned individual for allegedly violating a civil statute. It could also potentially use non-criminal investigations, such as an IRS income tax audit, to target people Trump views as foes.As a final point, its worth noting that lawyers are expensive. Anyone Biden might preemptively pardon, who is targeted by the federal government, could run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees even if the courts ultimately determine that this individual is both immune from prosecution and not liable for any civil offense.This is doubly true if the Trump administration manages to shunt any criminal proceeding or civil dispute against a pardoned individual into a MAGA-aligned judges courtroom, who might defy precedents like Garland or Neagle. While the Supreme Court may eventually intervene and declare the individual immune from prosecution or suit, that may not happen until after years of investigations and months of lower court proceedings.And, even if a federal investigation uncovers no illegal activity or even no activity that the Trump administration can characterize as illegal in order to bring meritless charges such an investigation might still uncover embarrassing or damaging information that could then be made public. Perhaps one of Trumps perceived enemies is engaged in an extramarital affair. Or maybe they simply said something hurtful about a family member or business partner in an email they thought would remain private.The bottom line is that, if the federal government is determined to make your life miserable, it can probably achieve that goal very easily, even if you never spend a day behind bars.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 set to become President Donald Trump again. And hes made a lot of promises about what hes going to do with his executive power.On immigration, hes said hed like to enact mass deportations and end birthright citizenship (which is constitutionally protected), among other things. Hes made grand pledges on foreign policy, telling Americans he can solve the war in Ukraine as easily as you might open a bag of chips. Hes said hell reshape our (and the world) economy with sweeping tariffs. And his allies have hinted at even more unorthodox actions as well, including moves that could gut the federal workforce and classify Mexican cartels as terrorist groups.The bottom line is, if Trump does even a fraction of the things he and his team have floated, hes going to radically reshape the United States. However, his vision of the future may not come to pass. A president only has so much power, and Trump is infamously mercurial perhaps hell change his mind. And it may be that matters outside his control (for example, a global pandemic) completely warp his policy plans.All that to say, its impossible to predict just what Trump will do. What is possible, however, is creating a framework for thinking about what might happen during his second term. To help with that, I asked each member of Voxs politics team to answer a question: Whats the one thing you think is most important for people to keep in mind as Trump returns to power?Heres what they had to say:Andrew ProkopThe first time Trump was president, no ones theory of how hed govern was exactly right. Trumps most outspoken critics underestimated how, well, normal his administration would be on many policy matters. Good or bad, much of it was normal Republican stuff. Plus, though Trump often sounded unhinged, there was often at least some method in his madness, as he remained constrained by institutions and checks on his power, and could often be convinced to back down from his bluster.And yet, there was Trumps attempt to steal the 2020 election just one of many instances where he shockingly challenged long-standing democratic norms to try and get what he wanted, going far further than the political cognoscenti expected, and defying his apologists claims that he wasnt as dangerous as he seemed. So, when will second-term Trump be surprisingly normal? And when will he push the envelope in ways that risk destabilizing the country and the world?Think policyNicole NareaThe first Trump administration reshaped the conversation around immigration for the long haul, successfully framing it around the border and enforcement, while ignoring the contributions of immigrants living in the US. This time around, hes said hed like to go further. However, the policy changes Trump is reportedly considering mass detention and deportations, ending birthright citizenship, and shutting down the border are not a real fix to an immigration system badly overburdened and in need of modernization or the factors that cause people to migrate in the first place. That is, even if Trump is successful in radically altering immigration policy, hes unlikely to succeed in fixing immigration. An actual solution would, for starters, update legal pathways to the US to fit its economic and humanitarian needs, increase staffing levels across the system (not just among immigration enforcement), and quickly and fairly process people at the border.Eric LevitzThe incoming Trump administration is riven by competing factions. And its internal power struggles could have profound consequences for the next four years of public policy.Some in Trumps orbit want to scale back his tariff proposals, while others (including the president) wish to stick to a more radically protectionist agenda. Incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeks to confront Beijing and protect Taiwan, while Trump advisor Elon Musk maintains close business ties to the Chinese Communist Party and has expressed opposition to anti-China trade policies.Musk and other pro-Trump tech moguls support guest worker visas for highly skilled foreigners, while deputy chief of staff/homeland security adviser Stephen Miller aims to restrict such visas.One version of MAGA could lead us toward a global trade war, mass deportation, and confrontation with China another, toward incremental changes in economic and foreign policies. Much therefore depends on who wins the Trump administrations civil wars.Remember that tomorrow isnt todayChristian PazI think it will be important to hold two ideas in our minds at the same time with this new administration: that Trump and his allies will overstep their popularity, and that Democrats will have to pick their fights in order to be an effective opposition.Trump and congressional Republicans are probably going to operate as if they have a huge popular mandate behind them. Yes, it might seem like all signs are pointing to them having one, but remember this: Trumps popularity is still historically low and it will probably drop once he begins to govern. Republicans control Congress by single-digit margins. Still, Democrats are on the back foot. You can probably expect they wont operate with the same kind of resistance they did eight years ago. Theyll have to evolve, bide their time, and not reflexively condemn Trump every time he does something. The bet is Trump will fumble things, giving Democrats the opportunity if they are strategic to capitalize on his mistakes. Zack BeauchampIt has become unfashionable to talk about Trump as a threat to American democracy. As if the fact that he won fair and square, and is being treated normally by much of the American elite, has somehow neutralized his inclination to break rules and shatter guardrails.That tendency, of course, has not been neutralized. The question for the new administration is not whether Trump will take actions that damage American democracy, but how severe that damage will be.The most important thing in the next four years will be tracking specific policy initiatives such as Schedule F reclassification of federal employees that contribute to democratic decline, and developing strategies to avert the worst outcomes.Patrick ReisTracking Trump is overwhelming for anyone. Hell make big proclamations on social media that go nowhere. His team will make major new policies while insisting that nothing has changed. And in the media, all of that will be surrounded by a swirl of accusations and defenses. So how is anyone to separate fact from fiction? It starts with patience. When Trump speaks, wait to see if he backs it up. When you hear about major changes, read past the headlines, and seek out outlets that aim to clarify, rather than amplify, the news. A clear-eyed understanding of the Trump administration is possible its just not always possible in real-time.The politics team, and all of Vox, will have a lot more for you on Trump and his administration in the days, months, and years to come. As the incoming president likes to say, stay tuned!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:

How many people are living in poverty in America? It depends on whom you ask. If its the US Census, the answer would be somewhere around 37 million people. But that number doesnt necessarily capture everyone who might be considered poor, because measuring poverty largely depends on how we define it. And some definitions, including the one used to determine the federal poverty line, can be surprisingly arbitrary.Thats a problem, because understanding how we measure poverty is critically important not just because it gives us a sense of how deep the problem is in American society, but also because it allows us to better evaluate anti-poverty programs. If we look at the federal poverty line, for example, it looks like poverty has mostly been stagnant, slowly ebbing and flowing without much meaningful change. In 1970, for example, 12.6 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line and in 2023, 11.1 percent of Americans did. But by other measures, poverty has dramatically dropped over the past six decades.So how do we measure poverty, and should we look for another way? The poverty line, explainedThe official poverty rate, as measured by the US Census, is seriously outdated. It was developed in 1963 by an economist at the Social Security Administration, and it determined that the threshold should be three times the minimum food budget of a given family. That calculation was based on data from the 1950s, which found that the average American family spent about a third of their income after taxes on food. To put a finer point on this, heres how my colleague Dylan Matthews described this methodology in 2015: The way we measure poverty is based on a 51-year-old analysis of 59-year-old data on food consumption, with no changes other than inflation adjustment. Thats bananas. Its only gotten older since then, and its flaws dont stop there. The official poverty measure also leaves out critical components of a persons income, including some major anti-poverty programs. While it does count certain social benefits outside someones regular wages that contribute to their income things like unemployment or Social Security benefits major assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid, or housing vouchers are excluded. Additionally, because it calculates incomes pre-tax, it leaves out tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. As a result, the official poverty rate misses how major social programs are helping lift people out of poverty.Since 2011, however, the Census has taken steps to address these issues by applying another measure of poverty the Supplemental Poverty Measure. This calculation ditches the decades-old practice of only using food spending to determine the costs of a familys basic needs, adding other expenses like shelter, clothing, and utilities to the equation. It also counts noncash benefits like food stamps or housing vouchers toward someones income, and unlike the official poverty measure, which largely ignores geography, it accounts for regional cost-of-living differences. According to researchers at Columbia University, who calculated what the Supplemental Poverty Measure would have been in the years before the Census started using it, poverty declined by 40 percent between 1967 and 2012. But when they removed some aspects of a persons income, including certain tax credits and social programs, then it looks like poverty has stayed pretty much the same over the same time period.What else is missing?All of this sounds very technical. But where the government chooses to place the poverty line can make a material difference in someones life: If someone technically falls above the poverty line, that doesnt mean that they suddenly no longer struggle to make ends meet. And though a persons income might not change, if the poverty threshold changes, someone may then have a more difficult time covering basic costs because they might lose access to some welfare benefits like food stamps.So while various poverty measures can help give us a sense of how big of a problem it is, its also important to look at other factors that set people back and design programs to address those issues. Sky-high housing costs, for example, eat up many families incomes. According to Harvards Joint Center for Housing Studies, for example, 22.4 million renter households, representing about half of renter households, are rent-burdened meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent. And some 12.1 million households were severely rent burdened, meaning they spent more than half of their incomes on rent. Rent burdens dont show up in some poverty measures, including the official Census metric; but addressing these exorbitant housing costs would significantly help families across the board, especially those with lower incomes, and likely help alleviate poverty overall. Ultimately, the problem of poverty doesnt come down to how we measure it, but to how much government is willing to do to ensure that everyone can have a decent and dignified life. And no matter how we choose to measure poverty, one thing is for certain: We are nowhere close to guaranteeing that standard of living in America.This story was featured in the Within Our Means newsletter. Sign up here.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:

Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a new framework for thinking through your ethical dilemmas and philosophical questions. This unconventional column is based on value pluralism the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Here is a Vox readers question, condensed and edited for clarity.I live in an isolated part of a developed country, relatively far from anything else, and am struggling with my relationship to flying in the face of climate change. Most advice on minimizing flying seems tailored to more connected areas in the US or Europe we have no trains or buses, and its a 12+ hour drive to the nearest city. Ive considered moving to a more connected area where these would be options, but then Id experience the same angst any time I wanted to visit my family where I currently live. Ive tried to take the approach of flying less frequently and staying for longer periods of time, but I feel resentful toward the carefree way I see friends around me approaching this issue, like flying out every month to watch a game. I feel like Im torturing myself with guilt over something that no one cares about, and that the good I do by avoiding the one roundtrip I would take on a vacation per year is erased by the behaviour of my peers. On the other hand, the contribution my annual flight would make, in terms of global emissions and demand in the airline industry, is minuscule. I feel generally opposed to making climate change about individual actions, but flying is also something that is such a privileged action that it feels like a special case. I also feel conflicted because I dont think I deserve to travel if I cant do it ethically, but the strategies often proposed as alternatives are not available to me. Dear Resentfully Landbound, Your question has me thinking about Greta Thunberg. In 2019, the Swedish activist wanted to attend a climate conference in the US, but she refused to fly because of the high carbon emissions associated with air travel. So instead, she traveled across the Atlantic by boat. On rough seas. For two weeks.Should we all be doing what Thunberg did?I think Thunberg is a heroic young activist, and theres value in activists who take a purist approach, like refusing to ever fly. But the value lies less in their individual action and more in their ability to serve as a powerful jolt to our collective moral imagination to shift the Overton window, the range of behaviors that seem possible. Thunbergs well-publicized sailing voyage, for example, helped convince others to fly less. But to say her approach has been a potent rhetorical tool is different from saying its a model that every individual should follow to a tee. For one thing, not everyone can sail the seas for two weeks whether because of the time required, a physical health condition, or some other factor. And its not clear that all people should forgo all flying. Thats because we each have multiple values. Yes, protecting our planet is a crucial value. So is, say, nurturing relationships with beloved family members and friends who live abroad. Or developing a career. Or learning about other cultures. Or making art. So, even though minimizing how much we fly is a virtuous thing to do, some thinkers would caution you against treating that as the only relevant value. Take contemporary philosopher Susan Wolf, who wrote an influential essay called Moral Saints. She argues that you shouldnt actually strive to be a person whose every action is as morally good as possible who is as morally worthy as can be. If you try to optimize your morality through extreme altruistic self-sacrifice, she says, you end up living a life bereft of the personal projects, relationships, and experiences that make up a life well lived. You can also end up being a crappy friend or family member.We often think of virtues as being connected to morality, but Wolfs point is that there are non-moral virtues, too like artistic, musical, or athletic talent and we want to cultivate those, too.If the moral saint is devoting all his time to feeding the hungry or healing the sick or raising money for Oxfam, then necessarily he is not reading Victorian novels, playing the oboe, or improving his backhand, she writes. A life in which none of these possible aspects of character are developed may seem to be a life strangely barren. In other words, its okay even desirable to devote yourself to a variety of personal priorities, rather than sacrificing everything in pursuit of moral perfection. The tricky bit is figuring out how to balance between all the priorities, which sometimes conflict with each other.In fact, I think part of the appeal of the purist approach is that it actually makes life easier on this score. Even though it demands extreme self-sacrifice, the extreme altruist never has to ask herself how much of the luxury (in this case, flying) to allow herself. The right answer is clear: none. By contrast, if youre trying to balance between different values, its nigh on impossible to arrive at an objectively right answer. Thats very uncomfortable we like clear formulas! But I tend to agree with philosophers like Bernard Williams, who argue that its a fantasy to think we can import scientific objectivity into the realm of ethics. Our ethical life is just too messy and multifaceted to be captured by any single set of universally binding moral principles any systematic moral theory. And if thats so, we have to look at how compelling we find the case for each competing value. Its often obvious to us that we shouldnt give equal weight to all of them. For example, Im obsessed with snorkeling, and Id love to be able to travel to all the top snorkeling destinations this year, from Hawaii to the Maldives to Indonesia. But I know I cant justify taking infinite flights for infinite snorkeling trips during a climate emergency! At the same time, that doesnt mean I wont ever go on any trip whatsoever. I do sometimes let myself travel by air, especially if its for a purpose that is not only pleasurable but also essential to a life well lived, like nurturing relationships with friends and family members who live far away. And when I fly, I try to make those miles really count by staying for a longer time. This is basically what youre already doing: Ive tried to take the approach of flying less frequently and staying for longer periods of time, you write, describing the one roundtrip I would take on a vacation per year. I think thats a reasonable approach, especially given the lack of trains and buses in your area.So, even though you framed your dilemma as a question about whether or how much to fly, I dont actually think the flying bit is your real problem. The real problem is this bit: I feel resentful with the carefree way I see friends approaching this issue, like flying out every month to watch a game. I feel like Im torturing myself with guilt over something that no one cares about.To be clear, its totally understandable to feel resentful; what your friends are doing does sound excessive. But the issue is that your resentment is making you miserable. And a virtuous but miserable life is not likely to be sustainable.Some do-gooders can go to altruistic extremes without feeling resentful or judgmental. They may be able to forgo flying entirely and use that choice to create new forms of meaning and connection and to enrich other aspects of their lives, so that they dont become joyless, judgy, or one-dimensional moral optimizers of the sort Wolf described. But most of us are not in that category. And unless you are, I wouldnt counsel you to go down the purist path, because resentment and judgmentalness can cause their own harm. They harm you, they harm the relationship between you and the targets of your judgment, and they can ultimately harm the cause itself because theyre off-putting to others and they make being climate-friendly seem impossibly hard. If youre like most of us, a path of moderation will probably work better. You can decide on a balance that you think is reasonable for example, one roundtrip flight per year and stick with that. Once youve done that, ditch the guilt thats torturing you. Thatll help diffuse the resentment, some of which I suspect is actually resentment toward yourself, because of how youve been torturing yourself. But that on its own might not be enough to get rid of all the resentment, because flying once annually still might feel like a big sacrifice relative to what your peers are doing. So one key intervention here is to expand your aperture, to look at what a broader group of people are doing, so that you dont feel youre sacrificing for the sake of something that no one cares about. More people care than you might think! A study published in Nature Communications found that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans are living in a false social reality: They dramatically underestimate how much public support there is for climate policies. They think only 37 percent to 43 percent support these policies, when the real proportion of supporters is roughly double that. (And support is high across the world.) The study authors note that this misperception poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change, because its hard to stay motivated when you think youre alone in caring. Concretely connecting with others who are choosing to fly less will help bring this home for you, and make you feel that youre part of a community that shares your values. Networks you can reach out to include Stay Grounded, We Stay on the Ground, and Flying Less. The sense of belonging and camaraderie you get from being part of such a group can help you form positive emotional associations with your reduced-flying lifestyle youll feel like youre gaining something, not just losing. I think thats especially important given that resentment can actually feel good in the short term (even if it damages our well-being in the long term). Righteous indignation is a rush; it gives us an energy boost. So we cant expect the brain to give it up just like that we need to replace it with something else that feels good. The best candidate may be the pleasant emotion that philosophers and psychologists have identified as resentments exact opposite: gratitude. Next time you feel resentment bubbling up, go out in nature and do something you enjoy birding, hiking, swimming and really savor it. Pay close attention to each sound, each smell. Remind yourself that your reduced-flying lifestyle is helping to preserve this source of pleasure. In other words, its enabling you to get more of what you love. As you do that, I hope youll feel not only proud that youre living in line with your values, but also very grateful to yourself. Bonus: What Im readingThis dilemma reminded me not just of Greta Thunberg, but also of Simone Weil, a WWII-era philosopher who died early because she starved herself, refusing to eat more than people in occupied France. She was a moral saint if ever there was one. And as this excellent essay in the Point Magazine notes, Weil is a saint, but many couldnt stand her. Shes admirable for how much she cared about others suffering, but is her extreme self-sacrifice actually exemplary, in the sense that we should all follow her example? I dont think so. I also finally picked up a book thats been on my to-read list for ages: Strangers Drowning by Larissa MacFarquhar. It does a beautiful job telling stories about extreme altruists and getting you thinking about the pros and cons of the purist path. Im enjoying Isaiah Berlins essay The Pursuit of the Ideal, in which the moral pluralist philosopher argues that theres no one right way to live, whether on the individual or state level. Utopias have their value, Berlin writes, since nothing so wonderfully expands the imaginative horizons of human potentialities but as guides to conduct they can prove literally fatal. 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:

Joe Biden has had a rough go of things. He leaves the presidency with the worst end-of-first-term approval rating of any president since Jimmy Carter; 55.8 percent of Americans disapprove of his job performance and only 37.1 percent approve, as of Friday.Bidens legacy will take years to sort out, and I certainly think he made serious mistakes. But one of the greatest triumphs of his presidency has gotten far too little attention, including from journalists like myself. That triumph is the reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP).The phrase reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan feels like it was concocted by an AI instructed to design the most boring string of words in the English language, but bear with me. This action, taken by Bidens Department of Agriculture in 2021, resulted in a 21 percent increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps colloquially) benefits. The safety net program that is most precisely targeted at Americas poorest and most vulnerable people got a substantial, ongoing increase.That last part is notable, because so much of Bidens presidency was spent on temporary measures, with a spree of short-lived programs unleashed in 2021 to tackle the Covid pandemic and help the economy recover from its aftereffects. The TFP hike stands out because its still going indeed, its meant to be permanent and its something that the Biden administration did on its own, in accordance with a law that Congress passed in 2018.As a fan of the food stamps program, I think this was an outstanding measure by Biden, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and USDA nutrition leaders Stacy Dean and Cindy Long. Critics of food stamps, in particular among House Republicans, have long sought to roll back the measure, and it is a possible target for cuts in the Trump years. But whatever you think of the food stamp expansion, its an important part of Bidens legacy, one that will reverberate longer than a burst of inflation or a temporary stimulus bill.Food stamps benefits, explainedA shocking amount of US government policy is based on the eating habits of people in the 1950s.The best known case of this is the construction of the official poverty measure, the most frequently invoked statistic for measuring the extent of poverty in the US. It was devised in 1963 by Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration, and based on the US Department of Agricultures 1962 Economy Food Plan. That plan was itself based on 1955 data, and meant to determine how much money a family of four would need for food, if they were really pinching pennies.The USDA had been putting together plans like this for decades; the 1962 report gives a short history, which goes back to pioneer nutrition investigator Wilbur Olin Atwater, who worked at the department in the 1890s. The point of the plans was instructional, similar to the food pyramid of more recent decades: to demonstrate for average families how they could purchase food that met their caloric and nutritional needs at a reasonable cost. The Economy Food Plan was the result of an attempt to find the cheapest possible diet that could still provide basic nutrition. The report clarifies that this means it assumes households will buy less fruit, vegetables, or meat, and focus on cheap and lasting items like dry beans and potatoes. It is essentially for emergency use, the report concludes. Orshansky tripled the cost of this emergency diet to arrive at a level of income below which a family would be in poverty, since families of three more typically spent a third of their income on food at the time. (For all the complaints about grocery inflation, Americans now spend only about 10 percent of their income on food.)That was the poverty line, and it has not changed since, with the exception of annual adjustments for inflation, according to the consumer price index. It serves to determine eligibility for programs like Medicaid, health insurance credits, and food stamps, and its all based on 1950s eating habits.For food stamps, though, food plans take on additional significance. Eligibility is based on the poverty line (which is in turn based on the 1962 Economy Food Plan), but the benefit amount received under SNAP is determined by something called the Thrifty Food Plan, which succeeded the Economy Food Plan starting in 1975. The maximum SNAP benefit for a given family is set as equal to the cost of a diet for a family of that size under the Thrifty Food Plan; benefits are then steadily reduced as the familys income increases. For instance, a four-person household this year has a maximum monthly benefit of $975, because that is the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan for a family of four. Food stamps assumes that a family can afford to pay 30 percent of their income on food, so a four-person household with $1,000 in monthly earnings would receive $975 minus (30 percent times $1,000) = $675 a month.When the Thrifty Food Plan was first established in 1975, it was set at the same level as the 1962 plan, only adjusted for inflation. It was the same approach used when setting the poverty line. The plan was then updated repeatedly, in 1983, 1999, and 2006, but each time the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan only grew according to inflation. This was required: The updates were, as a matter of policy, meant to be cost-neutral. The plans allocation of the budget between different types of foods changed quite a bit over this period, but the overall cost could not.This was inadequate on a number of grounds. For one thing, food price inflation and overall inflation are not the same, and there have been key moments, like the mid-1970s and the aftermath of the pandemic, when food inflation was notably higher than overall inflation. But more importantly, the requirement to not increase prices meant that the Thrifty Food Plan came to involve a diet that assumed families had far more time to cook and meal prep than they actually did, and that they would subsist on bizarre diets that no one actually eats anymore.My favorite example is that the 2006 Thrifty Food Plan, to produce a cheap diet that provides adequate protein, suggested that a family of four should eat 40 pounds of low-fat milk and yogurt a week. Thats 18.1 kilograms, and since a Chobani cup of yogurt is 150 grams, that implies that the household is eating the equivalent of 120 yogurt cups a week. No one actually eats like this. The TFP also assumed that households had 2 hours and 18 minutes free, every day, to prepare food; the actual amount for households on SNAP was more like 50 minutes. As such, the plan prescribed bulk purchases of goods that took time to chop, process, soak, etc., that many households just did not have. It also did not budget for people to buy convenient items that might be slightly more expensive, like canned beans instead of dry ones.How the Biden administration revamped food stampsStacy Dean, who served as deputy undersecretary for USDAs Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services from 2021 to 2024, explained to me that her teams efforts to reform the Thrifty Food Plan were authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Donald Trump. Section 4002 of the law stated that the Department of Agriculture should by 2022 and at 5-year intervals thereafter reevaluate and publish the market baskets of the thrifty food plan based on current food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance.The team was thus instructed that the Thrifty Food Plan had to reflect how people actually ate (consumption patterns) and the foods they actually chose (food composition data), rather than assuming that poor Americans subsist largely on giant tubs of yogurt, or oatmeal and beans. The administration concluded that complying with that instruction meant the total cost of the Thrifty Food Plan could not stay the same. It was not possible to accurately reflect the actual cost of food and not increase the cost of the plan.You can see this in the long report the USDA put out in 2021 outlining the changes. (They beat the 2022 deadline by a year.) For the first time in more than 45 years, maintaining cost neutrality did not drive the process, the report states. Instead, the Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation process started first with assessing the foods and beverages that make up a healthy, practical diet, then determining a cost at which they could be purchased by resource-constrained households.Dean said that by far the most important factor driving the 21 percent increase in the cost of the plan was that the department had better data on food prices with which to work. In the past, they were using peoples recollection of what they paid for food. Do you remember what you spent on food last week? she asked me. You might remember in aggregate, but not for individual items. Instead of that survey data, Dean and her team used data directly from retailers that the USDA was already collecting for other purposes. This provided a much more accurate and up-to-date sense of what people were paying for food which led to a conclusion that food costs were greater than the old Thrifty Food Plan reflected.Dean emphasized to me that the goal was to get an accurate sense of what a thrifty household was actually paying for food, rather than an attempt to change SNAP per se. To that point, USDA has actually been revising downward the Thrifty Food Plan for Hawaii (which, along with Alaska, gets its own estimate separate from the mainland) because it believed the earlier estimate of the plans cost was too high.But the overall effect of the TFP reevaluation was to substantially increase food stamp benefits for the more than 41 million people who use it. While the resulting SNAP program is still quite modest (it went from offering $4.80 per person per day to $6.20 per person per day), that had significant budgetary implications. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the TFP change would cost $250 billion to $300 billion over 10 years. Where SNAP goes under TrumpWhile the Biden team saw the Thrifty Food Plan update as merely following the law Congress wrote, Republicans unsurprisingly saw the matter differently. Conservative think tanks like the Foundation for Government Accountability made attacking the change a major priority, and Republican members of Congress railed against it in hearings. Some will cynically point to provisions to update the Thrifty Food Plan in the 2018 Farm Bill as the basis for USDAs action, but Congress never agreed to permit a quarter of a trillion-dollar spending increase, Sen. John Boozman (R-AZ), the incoming chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, argued in 2023.The 2018 Farm Bill itself expired on September 30, 2023, and has been continually extended as-is since then by Congress. But that means were overdue for a new farm bill, and Republicans like House agriculture chair GT Thompson (R-PA) have signaled they want to use the bill to roll back the TFP boost. Donald Trump proposed sweeping cuts to food stamps in each of his budgets as president, and lists of spending options being circulated by congressional Republicans give reversing the Thrifty Food Plan changes a prominent place, alongside cuts to Medicaid.All that suggests that Republicans will probably try to cut food stamps this year. But theres reason to be optimistic theyll fail. Food stamps have always survived based on an unusual coalition between farm-state members of Congress and urban members, where the latter support farm subsidies that dont help their constituents in exchange for food stamps that do, and vice versa. Farm bills pass through regular order, meaning they need 60 Senate votes, and no Senate Democrat is going to vote for a bill that substantially cuts food stamps. Even if Republicans try to use budget reconciliation to avoid needing 60 Senate votes, their thin House majority means only a few defections would be needed to kill food stamp cuts. Theres a reason Trump merely proposed cuts last time, while signing a farm bill that didnt cut the program at all.If the Thrifty Food Plan changes endure, they stand as an unambiguously positive part of the legacy of Dean, Vilsack, and Biden himself. Its tempting to view the 20212025 period as an interregnum in an era mostly defined by Donald Trump and the ways in which hes reshaped American politics. But interregna can leave lasting marks too. And this could be an immensely positive one.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 Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles have destroyed over 10,000 structures homes, businesses, and everything inside from bathroom cleaner to electrical wiring. Naturally, people in the Los Angeles area are reaching for their phones to see what the Air Quality Index (AQI) says about the air around them. But to the surprise of most people, the AQI has been good or moderate across Los Angeles, even in neighborhoods that have been most impacted by the fires. In Pasadena, the AQI went from a high 293 (a rating of very unhealthy) on January 11 to a low of 30 (a good rating) the next day. How can that be?Throughout the week, concerned residents attended calls run by leading organizations like the Coalition for Clean Air and local NRP station KCRW asking more questions, like: When entire neighborhoods full of buildings and cars burn, whats released into the air? How far do they have to be from the fires to be safe from these pollutants? And how do they protect themselves from bad air?Air pollution is a silent killer that no one is immune to. Every year, 7 million people all across the globe die prematurely from the effects of air pollution. In the United States, exposure to air pollution is associated with 100,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. Long-term exposure can lead to a range of health effects in almost every organ system of the body, says Ed Avol, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Californias (USC) Keck School of Medicine.Wildfires play natural, important roles in their ecosystems, particularly in western states like California. But human-caused climate change is causing these blazes to become more severe and more frequent. This means that more humans will be exposed to bad air.But just how bad is that air? Unfortunately the answer isnt as straightforward as you might think. But heres what we do and dont know about air quality, and how to think about lowering the risk to air pollution.The Environmental Protection Agency developed the AQI to give the public a tool to understand how good or bad the air is throughout the day. Using data collected by 5,000 air monitors placed all across the country, it tracks the levels of specific pollutants in the air, assigns it a number, and that number corresponds with a color-coded category to help people understand the quality of the air and what activities are safe to do in the outdoors. You can find the latest AQI on the EPAs AirNow website or through its AirNow app. They also offer a fire and smoke map, which shows the AQI and what neighborhoods are under smoke outlooks.As former Vox reporter Rebecca Leber explained:The AQI is calculated based upon five criteria pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: fine particulate matter known as PM2.5, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide. When you look at the AQI on your phone or on a website, the number it shows you represents the primary pollutant. The pollutants that drive the AQI number tend to be PM2.5 and ozone.In the case of the California wildfires, the pollution source is exposing millions of people in the greater Los Angeles area to smoke. And that smoke contains some pollutants that are outside of the scope of the AQI. Its correct that when all these things are burning, theres a lot more toxic compounds in the air, says Rima Habre, a professor of population and public health sciences at USCs Keck School of Medicine. As fires burn down houses and buildings, the blazes can release certain volatile organic compounds, toxic metals, and toxic gases into our air all of which the AQI does not account for. Thats causing people to worry about the air, and whether their health will be impacted in the long-term as it was for first responders in the 9/11 attacks. Ash from the wildfires, which can irritate your skin or lungs, falls out of the air and settles onto the ground and therefore is not accounted for in the AQI, Habre says. So the AQI could say that the air is good, even if theres visible ash on your house or street.There are ways to measure the potential harmful pollutants and chemicals in the air that are outside of the AQI thats how we know they exist in the first place, Avol says. But we dont routinely measure all of these things, all the time, everywhere because that would be unfathomably expensive, he added.Is the AQI still useful in the context of wildfires? Yes and no. Its still an important resource, but it simply wasnt designed for situations like these unprecedented mega wildfires burning down thousands of buildings and structures. But there are ways to help make choices around safety and risk, even when the AQI cant tell us the full picture.When I attended air quality information webinars this week, I heard Los Angeles residents ask a lot of the same questions: How far do they have to be from the wildfires to be safe from bad air? How can they keep their families safe?The uncomfortable truth is that there isnt a one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. You could live several miles away from the fires, but if the wind is moving in the direction of your home, you could be at risk for exposure to bad air. But both Avol and Habre say you can analyze your risk, and make decisions on how to lower your risk from exposure to bad air.First, take into account your own personal health and the health of your family. Does anyone have respiratory conditions, like asthma? Is anyone immunocompromised? If so, these are extra reasons to stay cautious of the air, Habre says.You can then check the AQI and observe your environment. If the AQI says the air is good, but it smells like smoke or theres a lot of ash present, or if the wind is blowing in your direction while fire is present, take precautions: Limit your time outside, wear a well-fitting N95 mask, which can help filter out PM2.5. And, when you do have to go outside, make sure your shoes and clothes arent tracking in ash when entering your home. Its also a good idea to run air purifiers indoors while keeping windows and doors shut.Understandably, its a difficult and scary time for Los Angeles residents. On top of losing entire homes and neighborhoods, the wildfires have forced us to face an uncomfortable truth, which is that life is not risk-free and that there is no way to completely protect ourselves from the consequences of disasters like these. But it doesnt mean were totally powerless in lowering our risk to short and long-term health consequences. Theres a lot of agency here, Habre says. Making informed choices, even imperfect ones, may be the best way to move through this uncertain period.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 Trumps first term is expected to start with a flurry of executive orders, starting shortly after hes sworn in.Exactly what those orders will contain is hard to know for sure right now. But executive orders policy proclamations issued by the president under their executive authority will likely be a powerful tool through which Trump can quickly and unilaterally enact key parts of his agenda.Thats because executive orders can help him circumvent Congress, where Republicans currently have the narrowest majority in the House in 100 years and they still need at least seven Democrats to pass most legislation in the Senate. There are limits to what he can accomplish via executive order, and some of his agenda requires legislation to implement, especially if it demands new appropriations (which Congress controls). But just as in his first term, Trump can quickly undo major pillars of his predecessors legacy via executive order as he has promised.Executive orders played a key role in the chaotic start to Trumps first term eight years ago, which began with several high-profile executive orders, including a travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and the withdrawal from a major multilateral trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Many of these efforts were challenged in court by Democratic states and left-wing advocates, often successfully. Trump did win several of these battles, however, sometimes expanding the bounds of presidential power.Its not yet clear what Trump will try to do this time or if courts will react the same way. But looking back could help understand whats ahead.The beginning of Trumps first term was marked by an onslaught of executive ordersTrumps first week in office in 2017 featured five splashy executive orders, including several that sparked years-long litigation:The travel ban, which caused chaos at US airports in the days right after implementation, was initially blocked in court as discriminatory and then revised several times. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a version of the ban that blocked citizens from five Muslim-majority countries, as well as Venezuela and North Korea on national security grounds.A declaration of a national emergency on the border, under which he claimed the authority to redirect $6 billion in military funds to begin construction on the southern border wall, a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign. Several federal courts ruled that he had no such authority to use funds appropriated by Congress for other purposes, but the Supreme Court allowed him to move forward with it. A decision to green light the controversial Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines during his first week in office, which also faced legal challenges. Courts found that the projects did not undergo sufficient environmental review, and President Joe Biden later rescinded their approvals.An executive order cracking down on so-called sanctuary cities, which refused to allow local law enforcement to share information with federal immigration agents or hand over immigrants in their custody from receiving federal law enforcement grants. The order was challenged in court, but the Supreme Court never reached a final decision on it.A number of Democratic state attorneys general sued, but after Trump lost the 2020 election, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. Without any settlement on the legality of the order, Trump could again try to withhold funding from sanctuary cities and re-litigate the issue. Only one of Trumps initial executive orders was never challenged in court. His decision to exit TPP, former President Barack Obamas signature trade deal between 12 nations, was clearly within his rights as president and never faced litigation. On Day One of his second term, Trump is expected to issue executive orders rolling out his plans for mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, implementing tariffs on Mexico and Canada, shutting down the border, and more. He reportedly claims to have more than 100 ready to go with the aim of erasing Bidens legacy overnight.Look, I can undo almost everything Biden did, through executive order, Trump told Time in November. And on Day One, much of that will be undone.His advisers many of whom have spent the last few years contemplating what he could achieve via executive order at conservative think tanks like America First Legal and the Heritage Foundation are more prepared than they were during his first term. Heritages Project 2025 lays out a blueprint for a potential policy agenda, and some of its authors and editors have since joined the administration. At least some of Trumps Day One executive orders are bound to be tied up in the courts, just as they were last time. One potential thorn in his side may be a revival of a liberal resistance. This time around, the Democratic response to Trumps plans has been more muted. But a group of former Biden-Harris officials in collaboration with the legal organization Democracy Forward are gearing up to challenge Trumps initial executive orders in court and turn public opinion against him. In addition to Democracy Forwards efforts, the ACLU and other legal organizations are preparing to inundate the new Trump administration with litigation.Still, some of his executive orders are also bound to pass legal scrutiny, especially after Trump stacked the federal courts with friendly judges. Though legal scholars may argue that some of his proposals (such as ending birthright citizenship unilaterally) are patently illegal, what the courts may be willing to permit is anyones guess. Just as in his first term, Trump is planning to test the limits of his executive authority.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 is often said that climate disasters are great equalizers. They rip through neighborhoods, rich and poor, devastating communities and upending lives without discriminating between them.But it is, of course, not that simple. As the wildfires blaze through Southern California, class divides are as evident as ever. It is true that even the rich and famous could not spare their homes from burning to the ground. But it is also true that while most residents have to wait for public assistance, the wealthy have more resources to come to their rescue. Private firefighters, for example, have been in high demand in some cases, even protecting individual mansions to prevent the fires from touching them. One real estate investor pleaded for help on social media, asking if anyone has access to private firefighters that could save his home. Will pay any amount, he wrote on X.RelatedWhat happens when a wildfire reaches a city?No matter how much money you have, natural disasters can still be unforgiving, and losing a home is always a tragedy.But once the fires finally go out, inequality will almost certainly rise because of the class divides that are already entrenched in Los Angeles. Rich people will be able to rebuild their homes and neighborhoods, while middle- and low-income families might be permanently displaced. Studies of past California wildfires have shown that they drove gentrification something that Hawaii residents have been dealing with since deadly wildfires ravaged through residential areas on Maui. Already, there have been reports of landlords hiking rents in and around Los Angeles, despite the fact that dramatically increasing rents during a state of emergency is illegal in California. The ongoing wildfires have already destroyed more than 12,000 structures, including homes, schools, and houses of worship. The question for some of these communities especially those in middle- and low-income areas is whether theyll ever come back, or whether the post-disaster gentrification will render them unrecognizable.How wildfires fuel gentrificationWhen a natural disaster strikes a community, housing prices almost always rise. In the short term, the reason is obvious: Apartments and houses have been damaged or destroyed, so there are fewer of them, and that decline in supply causes rents to spike. But as rebuilding efforts drag on, many middle- and low-income people never return to their neighborhoods because they cant afford to. One of the reasons gentrification happens is that everything just becomes more expensive, said Jennifer Gray Thompson, founder and CEO of After the Fire, a nonprofit that helps communities prepare for and recover from wildfires. One reason is the high cost of building, but there are others, including landlords taking advantage of high demand to raise rents and real estate investors buying up properties to try to profit off of them later.Rebuilding can be a slow and arduous process. In late 2018, a wildfire effectively leveled the town of Paradise, California, burning through 95 percent of its buildings. Five years after the fire, only about a third of the towns pre-fire population of 27,000 had returned, and the median home price skyrocketed from $236,000 to $440,000. As a result, many victims of the fire have been permanently priced out, and the town has started to draw people in from wealthier regions like the Bay Area. In Paradise they are a little over six years post-disaster they are about 30 percent rebuilt and their population has changed dramatically because a lot of their population was elderly and not well resourced at all, Thompson said. When you get those two combinations, youre almost always going to have a massive change of demographics.Nicole Lambrou, a professor of urban and regional planning at California State Polytechnic University Pomona, has found similar patterns. Lambrou has studied wildfires and the displacement that happens in their wake, and while she notes that theres no single, concrete measure of gentrification, she and her colleagues found many signs of deepening inequality after the disasters. We looked at American Community Survey data [in communities affected by wildfires], and we have found that disabilities decreased, education rates increased, renter occupied housing decreased, and median age also decreased because there is a vulnerability in wildfires thats associated with age, Lambrou said all markers of gentrification, with more vulnerable populations leaving impacted areas for good.Disaster or climate gentrification that is, a neighborhood drawing in wealthier newcomers while pricing out longtime residents after a natural disaster like a wildfire or hurricane is not exactly new. Many communities destroyed by various storms have struggled to bring back their lower-income residents. And while it generally has the same contours as non-disaster-related gentrification, it tends to accelerate the process because natural disasters immediately displace a sizable population and open up a lot of land for speculators to cash in on. Thats why in Lahaina, Hawaii, where wildfires killed over 100 people and destroyed more than 2,000 buildings in 2023, residents have been trying to raise money for a community land trust buying up plots of land before speculators do, and renting or selling homes at more affordable rates. One striking trend that contributes to making post-disaster communities less affordable is that people looking to buy a second home swoop in. When Lambrou and her colleagues were doing their fieldwork in Paradise to study the impacts of the fire, housing agents told them that they noticed a trend of Bay Area residents, who only live a couple of hours away, buying second homes. We did in fact find that thats the case if you look at the data, Lambrou said. Secondary home ownership goes up substantially in these areas.What can California do to prevent more gentrificationWhile wildfires undoubtedly displace many people, it doesnt mean that all communities follow the same pattern of gentrification in the ashes. For starters, Paradise was almost entirely burned down, while current fires are devastating a much smaller portion of the greater Los Angeles area by comparison. The LA metropolitan area might also fare better than places like Paradise in part because the citys strong, diverse economy means that people who lose their jobs to the fire can more easily find employment and are more likely to stick around. If you have a place like Santa Rosa, which is part of a larger metropolitan region or even a place like Ventura, which is so close to the greater LA area, you can find alternative employment, you can find alternatives for your children, Lambrou said, adding that those areas tended to have quicker recoveries after previous wildfires and keep a larger portion of the pre-fire population. Conversely, in Paradise, they lost a lot of their schools, their major employer was the Adventist hospital, which burned down and they decided to not rebuild, and so they lost a lot.Still, recovery efforts can be designed to minimize the potential for disaster-related gentrification, and the state has already taken some steps to do just that. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for example, issued an executive order that cuts red tape by suspending environmental reviews, which will help communities affected by the fires to rebuild at a faster pace. The executive order also ensures that homeowners wont see their property taxes soar after they rebuild their homes by maintaining their pre-fire tax assessments.The state also needs to make sure that it administers funds in an equitable manner. In the past, research has shown that wealthier and whiter communities are more likely to receive government support after a fire.But ultimately, California was already home to some of the most expensive real estate in the world. The state has not been able to keep up with its housing production goals, and the ongoing housing shortage which is only exacerbated by the fires has been the main driver of gentrification. Doubling down on building more housing and increasing population density is key to bringing home prices down in the long run. Victims of the wildfires, however, arent going to be able to wait that long to see housing prices come down. So what the state does next, and how it directs its resources, will be critical in allowing communities to rebuild. After all, the reason natural disasters arent great equalizers comes down to how a government responds.Update, January 17 at 6 pm ET: This piece was originally published on January 17 and was updated to include more context from Jennifer Gray Thompson.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 TikTok ban seems imminent. The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law that would spell the end of TikTok as we know it in the United States, and now all parties involved are freaking out. Influencers are fleeing to rival platforms, including Xiaohongshu, a China-based app also known as RedNote. Politicians, even the ones who initially supported the ban, are trying to delay it. TikTok employees are surely wondering what theyll do at work next week.Others, however, are wondering if a future without TikTok could actually be a great thing for America. The complete demise of TikTok would mean one of the largest social media-slash-entertainment platforms is effectively out of the picture. That would leave billions of hours of attention free and millions of people craving new content, preferably short, viral videos that are microtargeted to each individual user and continuously update the cultural zeitgeist in weird unexpected ways. Thats what made TikTok so popular in the first place. If some other upstart platform has a better idea, though, the United States is open for business. And one app falling and being replaced by another would be nothing new.This kind of innovation has driven the social media industry, like a flywheel, since its inception in the early aughts. A platform, like MySpace, becomes popular and dominates attention spans for a few years, before falling out of fashion as newer platforms, like Facebook, show up with better features. Innovation spins the wheel, but boredom, cultural shifts, and enshittification how platforms start out serving users and end up serving their own purposes slows it down again. In TikToks case, there are obviously other forces at play: geopolitics and the fickle authority of the US government. Its still unclear if the government will enforce the ban or whether TikTok might find a way to maintain an American operation. Nevertheless, if it comes to pass, the end of TikTok would not necessarily mean that hundreds of millions of its users would return to the warm embrace of Instagram or YouTube, both of whom have comparable short-form video products. In fact, millions of soon-to-be former TikTok users are joining platforms like RedNote in order to protest the TikTok ban as well as the power of Big Tech.There are a lot of reasons why RedNote probably wont become the next TikTok. Chief among them is the fact that Chinese government censors arent thrilled by the influx of American users and whatever politically sensitive content they might bring with them. Its entirely possible that these TikTok refugees will find themselves kicked off RedNote in the coming weeks.That means the race to become the next TikTok starts now. Sure, plenty of TikTok users will retreat to familiar, aging platforms owned by Meta and Google. The TikTok ban also stands to inject the decentralized network of servers known as the fediverse that powers platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon with millions more users in search of their new favorite social media app, whatever it might be. Mark Cuban even said ahead of the Supreme Court decision that he would fund a TikTok alternative built on Blueskys AT Protocol, which is an open, decentralized network for social apps. If or how that happens remains to be seen.The media landscape hasnt shifted from one medium to another, said Rebecca Rinkevich, executive director of institutes at Harvard Law Schools Berkman Klein Center. Its broken into hundreds of fragmented channels unique to every individual making the attention economy more competitive than ever. The battle for eyeballs is won with novel features and algorithmic advantages.But before we get too deep into how the intriguing and often confusing fediverse works, it helps to understand why so many people dont want to go back to Instagram.The mechanics of the TikTok ban may be an outlier in the history of social media companies lifecycles, but the disappearance of a platform can lead to better platforms emerging.Take Napster, for instance. The file-sharing app lit up college campuses in the late 1990s and early 2000s by offering access to free digital music. This upset the recording artists, who eventually sued Napster out of existence. Within a decade, though, a Swedish startup called Spotify would take over the music industry, based in part on the Napster model of peer-to-peer file sharing. Spotify was a true revelation, offering essentially infinite music at a fairly low monthly cost, which is how it came to be worth nearly $100 billion. But now Spotify is plagued with complaints about how its platform just isnt as user friendly as it used to be. Some call this platform decay. Others call it enshittification.In the words of the Cory Doctorow, who coined the term, enshittification is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. In this 2023 essay, Doctorow goes on to argue that TikTok was well on its way to enshittification, as it couldnt resist the temptation to show you the things it wants you to see, rather than what you want to see a problem, given that TikToks whole reason for being was showing you what you wanted to see. (Theres a reason its pages are called For You.) Thats why, even without the actions of Congress, TikTok couldnt be the trending, avant-garde social media platform forever. It had already fallen into a cycle we saw with MySpace, then Facebook, Instagram, YouTube basically any platform that rose to prominence on the back of its utility and popularity with users and then decayed into something less useful but more profitable. In the past couple of years, TikToks decay has shown itself in the form of pushy ads and an inescapable shopping feature.Everyone got on this platform and Instagram and YouTube initially because it offered something exciting and free and added value to their interactions online, Rory Mir of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said. Over time, its been diluted by advertisements, manipulative content, and just has become a bad experience for the user.Of course, theres still a chance that TikTok will live to die another day in the United States. The law that the Congress passed last year requires the social media platforms parent company ByteDance to divest or shutter its US operations by Sunday. Apple and Google, by law, will have to stop offering TikTok in their app stores after that date. Although the app will continue to work, ByteDance wont be allowed to update it, so it will degrade over time. ByteDance, however, reportedly plans to shut down the app on the deadline, if it doesnt get a lifeline. But it might not have to. The Biden administration has said that it would not enforce the ban before Donald Trumps inauguration on Monday. Trump, who called for a TikTok ban back in 2020, is reportedly considering issuing an executive order to save TikTok soon after his inauguration, which TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew will be attending. Legally, Trump probably cant do that with an executive order alone, since Congress passed the law and Biden signed it, but he could order his Department of Justice not to enforce the ban. Apple and Google could continue to let users download the app, ByteDance could keep updating it, and nobody would get fined up to $5,000 per user that can still access the app, if thats the case. And thats a big if.TikToks surprise survival, though, wouldnt halt that cycle of decay. Already millions of TikTok users were prepared to leave before the ban took effect, flooding alternative video apps like RedNote, Lemon8, and Flip. So not everyone is defaulting to watching Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, and it remains to be seen if they can or would return to TikTok. They may be ready for something new.A fediverse by any other nameIf the conversation around TikTok alternatives feels familiar, thats because we had a very similar one a couple years ago, when Elon Musk bought Twitter. Many predicted that Musk would transform that platform into a right-wing echo chamber, which he did, and wanted to move their attention elsewhere. That search for a new place to post is what introduced a lot of people to the idea of the fediverse, which is a good idea with a terrible name.The fediverse is a blanket term for a new approach to social media, one that relies on open-source software and decentralized networks of servers. Heres a useful definition from David Pearce at The Verge: Its an interconnected social platform ecosystem based on an open protocol called ActivityPub, which allows you to port your content, data, and follower graph between networks.In theory, your social media followers will follow you from network to network. You could also set up a single feed that would show you content from several platforms at once. So imagine if you didnt have to pick one TikTok alternative but instead you could see Reels, Shorts, and Snaps in one place. Thats not possible because Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat are closed ecosystems. There are signs that some legacy platforms are open to a new way of doing things, though. Meta turned heads last year, when it allowed Threads users to crosspost to fediverse platforms and follow fediverse accounts. There are also a growing number of developers building more open alternatives to major platforms using fediverse-friendly protocols.Bluesky emerged as the most promising Twitter alternative last year in part because it offered users a familiar, friendly front end experience without getting into the details of protocols, servers, or fediverse principles. (Freedom from Musks politics on X probably didnt hurt either.) Bluesky basically looks like Twitter used to look. And that success laid the groundwork for similar projects. Just days before the Supreme Courts TikTok decision, a startup called Pixelfed released mobile apps for its open, decentralized photo-sharing service. Its basically Instagram but for the fediverse. Theres also one called Flashes, which is built on top of Bluesky, that came out around the same time. The interconnected social platform ecosystem fun doesnt stop with photo-sharing. The developer behind Pixelfed, Daniel Supernaul, also built a decentralized TikTok alternative called Loops. While the app hasnt been released yet, you can see where things are going: When one major platform falls out of favor or shuts down, others rush to fill the void with a new approach, unique features, or even a completely different architecture. Its still hard to say which, if any, of these fediverse projects will become the next global sensation. After all, its notoriously difficult to create the next Facebook or Instagram or Snapchat or TikTok. Not only does the app have to work, but the right group of people have to come together to make it a sensation. And then you need something special.Catching a good point in time to be there when networks form is important, said Katrin Weller, a professor at GESIS Heinrich Heine University Dsseldorf. Sometimes very small changes in the technology can make a big difference.Theres so far little evidence that any of these fediverse projects have the novelty, momentum, or innovative touch to win a billion users in the next few years. Bluesky, for all its success, still has fewer than 30 million users, compared to 275 million Threads users. TikTok, by the way, says it has 170 million US users. Then again, who knows what tech will come up with next. TikTok started out as a lip-synching app for teens, only to evolve into an engine for internet culture and influence in the span of a few years. Facebook started out as a campus directory for college students and then evolved into a cesspool of misinformation that also sells VR headsets. Or maybe Elon Musk will buy TikTok, too, and fold it into X. That could really send people fleeing to the fediverse.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 Friday, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal law that effectively bans the social media app TikTok in the United States, unless the platforms China-based owner sells TikTok. Though Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch disagreed somewhat with the unsigned majority opinions rationale, no justice dissented.Its also worth noting that all three of the lower court judges who heard this case, known as TikTok v. Garland, agreed that the law should be upheld. That means that no judge has determined that the law is unconstitutional.Despite that, its uncertain what the decision means longterm for TikTok and its users. Congress passed a law banning the app that the Supreme Court has now upheld, but its not clear whether the government will actually enforce it, which prohibits US companies including Apple and Google, which make the TikTok app available on their app stores from providing services to TikTok. The law takes effect on Sunday, one day before President Joe Biden leaves office. Biden has said that he will not enforce the ban in his final day as president, and it would be unrealistic anyway to expect the federal government to bring an enforcement proceeding to completion in a single day. Incoming President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has made vague noises suggesting that he may not enforce the ban, but its unclear how he intends to proceed with TikTok after he takes office on Monday. Trump filed a brief in the Supreme Court claiming that he alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government.That said, the law will now take effect on Sunday, and the statute of limitations for the government to enforce the law is five years. So US companies that decide not to comply with the law even if they are shielded by an executive branch that ignores the law face extraordinary risk. Even if Trump does not enforce the law, his successor might.So why did the Court uphold the law?A short summary of the Courts holding in TikTok v. Garland is that the justices believed that the risk of China using TikTok to spy on Americans is so great that it dwarfs any free speech concerns that arise out of this law. As the Court repeatedly notes, about 170 million people in the United States use TikTok. And the app collects a vast array of information from its users that could potentially be obtained by the Chinese government. As the Court writes, TikToks Beijing-based owner, ByteDance, is subject to Chinese laws that require it to assist or cooperate with the Chinese Governments intelligence work and to ensure that the Chinese Government has the power to access and control private data the company holds.Among other things, the Court cites a congressional report that found that TikToks data collection practices extend to age, phone number, precise location, internet address, device used, phone contacts, social network connections, the content of private messages sent through the application, and videos watched. This information could potentially be used by the Chinese government to target or even blackmail federal officials or high-ranking corporate executives suppose, for example, that TikToks data revealed that a Cabinet secretary was repeatedly in the same hotel room with a woman that is not his wife.It should be noted that the government has long prohibited foreign nations and companies from owning key US communications infrastructure, so the Courts decision is consistent with that history. The Radio Act of 1912, for example, only permitted US citizens to obtain a radio operators license. And current US law includes similar prohibitions on foreign control of broadcast radio stations.RelatedTikTok should lose its big Supreme Court caseDespite this law and precedent, the Court did go out of its way to emphasize that its decision is narrow and should not be read to broadly permit the government to decide who should own media companies. As the Court says, TikToks scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment from other such companies.The Court adds that a law targeting any other speaker would by necessity entail a distinct inquiry and separate considerations.One important legal question in TikTok was what level of scrutiny should apply to the TikTok ban. In First Amendment cases, courts apply a particularly skeptical legal test (known as strict scrutiny) to any law that attempts to regulate the content of speech meaning that the law targets which message a particular speaker intends to convey. Courts give less rigorous review to laws that do not target the content of speech, even if that law has some incidental effect on free speech.Though the TikTok opinion does not fully resolve this question, it does conclude that the TikTok ban is facially content neutral and is not subject to strict scrutiny. As the Court writes, the law is justified by the governments desire to prevent China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170 million U.S. TikTok users. It is not motivated by a desire to suppress any particular idea or viewpoint. If TikTok sells itself to an American company tomorrow, the law will permit any speaker to convey any message they want on TikTok.In any event, the upshot of Fridays opinion is that the courts will not intervene in this dispute over whether TikTok should be allowed to operate in the United States so long as it is subject to Chinese control. That does not mean that the law will be fully enforced. And it does not mean that incoming President Trump will not find some way to neutralize the law, if he wants to.But, for now, the TikTok ban is set to go into effect on Sunday.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:

Three days before leaving office, President Joe Biden has made a surprising announcement: He declared that a decades-old proposed Constitutional amendment enshrining equal rights on the basis of sex is now the law of the land.Except it isnt.A senior administration official told CNN that Biden was not taking executive action but merely stating an opinion that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was in effect. The National Archives the federal government agency that is the official keeper of the Constitution has stated for years that they cannot legally publish the amendment, because theyre bound by a Department of Justice holding that says they cant. Plus, Donald Trump is about to take office and will likely express a different opinion.Whats going on?The Equal Rights Amendment, which states that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, was overwhelmingly approved by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. Congress originally set a deadline of 1979 for ratification; it was later extended to 1982.That deadline came and went without enough states voting to ratify, and the understanding from the political and legal establishment has generally been that the ERA was dead.But progressive advocates have for years been trying to use some creative but dubious legal arguments to claim that enough states actually have ratified the ERA and it should go into effect.Some states voted to ratify the ERA after the deadline passed, and advocates claim that the deadline as well as the fact that some states also rescinded their ratification should simply be ignored. An existing DOJ opinion (issued during Trumps first term) held that the deadline has legal force, but advocates have argued that Biden should simply reject that opinion and just make it law.With his new announcement, Biden is in a sense giving advocates what they want sort of. Advocates had urged him to instruct the National Archives to publish the amendment and make it officially part of the Constitution, a move that would provoke a legal battle. But Biden is not going that far. Hes just, his aides claim, stating his opinion. So its unclear whether this will lead to anything at all.Everyone knows the deadline for approving the Equal Rights Amendment expired decades ago. What this legal argument presupposes is, maybe it didnt.For a proposed amendment to go into effect and officially become part of the Constitution, three-quarters of state legislatures 38 of 50 states need to ratify it. And, in 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to do so for the ERA.But there are two problems. First, only 35 not 38 states had ratified the ERA by the time the deadline set by Congress hit in 1982.Second, five of those states who ratified had subsequently voted (before the deadline) to rescind their ratifications which, if respected, would cut the number of ratifying states down to 30. (Initially, the amendment had broad bipartisan support, but a backlash from conservatives brewed as the 1970s went on and turned Republicans against it.)It has long been taken for granted that the deadline killed the ERA. But progressive advocates and legal experts came up with an idea: what if we simply ignore the deadline? (The technical argument is that Congress did not make the deadline part of the amendments text, so therefore, it is extraneous and should be ignored despite Congresss extremely clear intent.) These experts also say states lack the power to un-ratify an amendment theyve approved.So in the past few years, two more Democratic state legislatures gradually approved the amendment. And in 2020, Virginia became the 38th to do so, bringing it to the magic number if, again, you ignore the deadline and the five states that rescinded approval.But that year, Trumps Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that Virginias approval didnt matter, because the congressional deadline was real and binding. (They did not resolve whether states can rescind ratification.) The battle to make Biden and his appointees declare the ERA in effectOnce Biden took office, however, progressive womens rights advocates urged Biden to override that DOJ opinion; but for years, neither Biden nor his DOJ did so. And Bidens appointee to head the National Archives, Colleen Shogan, said that given the DOJs opinion, it would be illegal for her to publish the amendment and make it law.Kamala Harriss defeat and Bidens imminent departure from office spurred a renewed push from activists, who hoped Biden would see this as a legacy-making opportunity and would feel newly emboldened to defy political and legal caution.Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) took up the charge, arguing that Biden should cement his legacy as a defender of womens rights by instructing Shogan to disregard DOJs guidance and publish the amendment. Advocates have also argued that Shogan should simply do it herself, but last month, Shogan again asserted that it would be illegal for her to do so. Now, three days before leaving office and five full years after Virginia became the 38th state to approve the ERA by advocates optimistic math Biden has in one way acceded to progressives demands by asserting the ERA is the law of the land. However, importantly, Biden is not directly instructing Shogan to publish the amendment, which is what the advocates were actually asking him to do.If Biden had actually been serious about fighting and trying to win a legal battle to make this amendment go into effect, he surely would have begun that battle long before the imminent end of his term. Still, with the announcement, Biden did succeed in passing the hot potato to make Shogan look like the bad guy for trying to follow the law. The pressure is on; already, in December, Kate Kelly of the Center for American Progress told the New York Times that Shogan was an unelected appointee who is making it her job to keep women and queer people out of the Constitution. One way or another, this push seems headed for defeat. Even if Shogan has an about-face and the National Archives made the amendment official before Trump came in, a legal fight would soon ensue to determine whether that could stand a fight that would ultimately be decided by a very conservative Supreme Court. And even if the Court surprisingly let the amendment stand, that same Court would be in charge of interpreting what its broad principle means and theyd likely define it quite narrowly.So all this seems like something between an empty stunt and a doomed last stand. There will be many important and meaningful battles ahead to protect womens rights under the Trump administration but this isnt one of 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: Politics

Wildfires are on the mind here in California. Its still not clear exactly to what degree the devastating Los Angeles fires were the product of gross mismanagement by the city and state governments, with lots of new details still emerging about the steps they could have taken and didnt. Its abundantly clear that the city and state screwed up. State insurance price controls forced homeowners off good private insurance and onto the last-resort state insurance program, which is about to go catastrophically bankrupt, passing on its liabilities to every homeowner in the state. Reservoirs that should have been full were empty. The city government had plenty of reason to believe that risk was catastrophically elevated this week, but the mayor took an international trip and the fire department seems to have been caught flat-footed. But what has truly been infuriating, at least in the California policy circles I run in, has been not the mistakes in the lead-up to the disaster, but the response in the aftermath. The governor and mayor have not responded by reconsidering any of Californias bad forest management policy. They dont have a plan to secure fire insurance for homeowners in other at-risk areas, and they definitely dont have a plan to manage the cascading problems that will be caused by the bankruptcy of the state insurance program.Instead, theyve mostly responded to a problem that was substantially caused by price controls with more price controls banning insurance companies from not renewing policies and banning all offers to buy the destroyed homes for one cent less than theyd have sold for before they burned down. Newsom passed an executive order waiving some environmental review and permit requirements for the homes to be rebuilt exactly as they were.That prompted a few questions, such as wait, he can do that? and if he has that power, why is he using it to rebuild in wildfire-prone, at-risk areas and not to expedite building in safe parts of a state buckling under a housing scarcity crisis? And with all of those, theres a deeper question that feels existential for the state of California: Is there any leadership at all? Is anyone thinking about the big picture in Americas biggest state, and do they have a plan to avoid making tragedies like this one an annual ritual?There are no grown-upsOne thing that catastrophe often makes clear is that there isnt anyone behind the scenes who steps in once things get really bad. Its just the people who were there all along, with the foibles they had all along. Covid was a stark illustration of this. I think many people had I certainly did a romantic view of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the hero pandemic scientists who would swoop in with advanced tools and pull out their meticulously planned pandemic roadmaps as soon as things looked tough. America was rated the highest readiness in the world for pandemic preparedness, after all. And then the CDC whiffed. Its tests didnt work; it put in place unhelpful barriers to using the tests that did. Its messaging was confusing masks were bad, but also we needed to save them for healthcare workers. No, wait, never mind, masks were mandatory. There were plenty of individuals who did plenty of heroics to try to see what was coming and do something about it, but there werent any institutions waiting behind the scenes to save the day. When we got vaccines, it was a bunch of well-meaning private actors organized on Discord who did much of the legwork to make them accessible to the public, often by systematically calling every pharmacy to put in a spreadsheet whether they had availability. A lot of the disillusionment Ive been seeing from Californians in the last few days has this specific flavor of disillusionment the realization that no, no matter how bad things get, the real grown-ups cant be called in to save the day because they dont exist. There is no crisis severe enough to make Newsom serious about systematic statewide efforts to get caught up on forest management, let private insurers offer insurance at prices that wont bankrupt them, fireproof our communities, or encourage building in safe parts of the state instead of the urban fringes where wildfire risk is often at its worst. And there is no one to step in when Newsom fails to do that, though Ive seen a lot of people wistfully wishing that the federal government would condition aid on the state government stepping up.Californias real state of emergencyThe reason Newsom has the authority for an executive order waiving environmental review and permits so that people can quickly rebuild homes that burned down is that he declared a state of emergency surrounding the fires, and in a state of emergency the governor has expanded powers. (How expanded? Its mostly a question of whether anyone wants to challenge this executive order in court.) Theres no question, of course, that the catastrophic LA fires are an emergency. But it was predictable that wed face exactly such an emergency. Across California, its often all but illegal to build housing in the parts of the state that are safest from disaster risk. That pushes housing to the fringes, where its likelier to burn. This isnt a secret. It was widely discussed after the catastrophic fires that destroyed the city of Paradise and other exurban California communities in 2019. It is our choice, as a society, that we govern reactively rather than proactively, that we treat the awful policies that encourage building in fire-prone areas as not an emergency and only the resultant fires as one, that we do not treat the states huge homelessness crisis as an emergency.But if we dont like living in a perpetual state of emergency, its the wrong choice.California is in a state of emergency, and not from the Los Angeles fires. One of the most prosperous, populous, beautiful corners of the world has been mismanaged and misgoverned into a state of extreme fragility that is damaging the hopes and aspirations of its people and burning trillions of dollars of its potential. Its not too late to fix it, and many of the fixes are maddeningly straightforward. But I hope its clear by now that there are no responsible adults waiting behind the scenes to get them done.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!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: Future Perfect

Donald Trump did not win the 2024 election the Democratic Party lost it.So argues Michael Podhorzer, a former political director of the AFL-CIO and author of the highly influential Substack, Weekend Reading.Podhorzers recently published newsletter on how Trump won he insists on those quotation marks garnered lots of attention among Democratic insiders. In it, he explains that America didnt shift rightward in 2024 but couchward. American voters basic values or priorities did not become more conservative. Democrats lost merely because turnout among anti-MAGA voters collapsed.Podhorzer does not pair his diagnosis of the Democrats woes with any detailed prescription for remedying them. But he suggests that the party does not need to move right: Its task isnt to win over swing voters who sympathize with the Republican message on immigration, crime, inflation, or any other issue. Rather, it is to mobilize young, disaffected anti-Trump voters by alerting them to the dangers of Republican rule and addressing their desire for systemic change.The demobilization of such voters in 2024 had two primary causes, in Podhorzers account: First, the media, the Biden administration, and Democrats in Congress all failed to convey the existential dangers that a second Trump administration posed. And second, justifiable disaffection and anger with a billionaire-captured system left many anti-MAGA voters too cynical to bother with the electoral process.Some aspects of Podhorzers analysis are both correct and salutary. He is right to insist that the 2024 election did not reveal a broad mandate for the conservative movements agenda. Trumps national margin was exceptionally narrow and Republicans just barely managed to eke out a House majority. This said, I think Podhorzers big-picture take is wrong. Democrats problem in 2024 was not merely that it failed to mobilize cynical, anti-Trump voters. The party also lost the arguments over inflation, immigration, and crime to the Republican Party. Trump did not convert a supermajority of Americans to conservatism. But he did convince a critical slice of voters that he was the better option on at least some of the issues that they cared about most.There are (at least) three problems with Podhorzers analysis:1) Voters who backed Biden in 2020 and then stayed home in 2024 are not necessarily resolutely anti-Trump.Podhorzers argument assumes that Biden voters who stayed home in 2024 could not have done so out of sympathy for any of Trumps messages. But theres little basis for that assumption. Low-propensity voters are less ideological than reliable ones, and voters often choose to sit out elections because they are conflicted, agreeing with some of what each party has to say. Theres reason to think that this dynamic drove part of the Democrats turnout problem in 2024: Both polling and geographical voting patterns indicate that low-propensity voters became more Republican-leaning during the Biden era. 2) Young, first-time voters turned against the Democratic Party.The electorates youngest voters appear to have been far more right-wing in 2024 than in 2020. This is not a problem that can be attributed to mobilization. Republicans seem to have simply had greater success in appealing to first-time voters last year than they have for a long time. 3) In the Biden era, American voters did become more conservative in some of their values and priorities.Contrary to Podhorzers suggestion, there is considerable evidence that voters grew more right-wing in their attitudes toward immigration and criminal justice and more likely to prioritize those issues. Meanwhile, the electorate also grew more confident in the GOPs economic judgement.Given these realities, if Democrats accept Podhorzers thesis and conclude that they do not need to win over Republican-curious voters, but can win solely by mobilizing staunch anti-Trumpers desperate for systemic change they will likely have a more difficult time winning White House in 2028.Perhaps more importantly, unless Democrats manage to win over some Trump voters, they will have little hope of winning back Senate control. It is worth remembering that Joe Bidens 2020 coalition only delivered a bare majority in Congress upper chamber and that majority hinged on the fluke that was Joe Manchin. Thus, to regain the power to pass legislation and appoint judges without Republican permission, Democrats must not only mobilize their coalition, but broaden it.RelatedThe lefts comforting myth about why Harris lostIf youre losing voters to the couch, youre probably losing arguments to the other party.The foundation of Podhorzers analysis is one incontrovertible fact: The Democratic Partys presidential vote tally fell by far more between 2020 and 2024 than the GOPs increased. Kamala Harris received 6.26 million fewer votes than Biden had in 2020, while Trump improved on his own tally from four years ago by just 3 million.When interpreting this drop in Democratic turnout, Podhorzer puts enormous weight on one survey question from AP VoteCast (which is like an exit poll, but more reliable). Each election, VoteCast asks Americans whether they voted primarily for their candidate or against the other one. Between 2020 and 2024, the percentage of Americans who said they were voting against Trump declined considerably. In raw vote terms, the survey implies that 41 million Americans cast a ballot primarily against Trump in 2020, while just 26 million did so in 2024.From these data points, Podhorzer concludes that 1) Democrats didnt lose because the American electorate moved right, but rather because their partys turnout collapsed and 2) that turnout collapse was driven more or less entirely by the demobilization of resolutely anti-Trump voters.But Podhorzers interpretation of this data is dubious. The fact that more voters said they were casting a ballot against Trump in 2020 than in 2024 does not necessarily mean that disaffected anti-Trump voters sat out the latter election en masse. For one thing, VoteCasts question forces Democrats to choose between saying they are primarily for their partys nominee or against Trump. Thus, a Democratic voter who wasnt that inspired by Biden in 2020 but was excited to elect the first Black woman president last year might have told pollsters she was primarily anti-Trump in 2020 but mainly pro-Harris in 2024. In Podhorzers framing, such a person would count as a missing anti-MAGA voter, since they contributed to the anti-Trump total in 2020 but not in 2024. But this hypothetical Democratic voter didnt go anywhere, they just became more passionate about the Democratic nominee.And Podhorzers own data suggests that a lot of Democratic voters fall into this exact bucket. According to the figures he presents from VoteCast, only 25 percent of all voters in 2020 said they were primarily pro-Biden. Four years later, 32 percent said they were mainly pro-Harris. Thus, part of the decline in the primarily anti-Trump vote is attributable to an increase in Democrats enthusiasm for their partys standard-bearer.More critically, just because a given voter cast a ballot against Trump in 2020 does not mean that they still strongly opposed him in 2024. And this seems like an especially unsafe assumption to make about a voter who chose to sit out the latter election. To be clear, it is surely true that many Biden 2020, Living Room Couch 2024 voters were staunchly anti-Trump. But its likely that some within this bloc chose to abstain last year because they had grown more sympathetic to aspects of Trumps message.As Ive previously noted, the forces that lead a partys voters to switch sides and the forces that lead them to drop out of the electorate are often largely the same. According to a study by the Ohio State University political scientist Jon Green, Obama voters who exhibited high levels of sexism or agreed with Trump on immigration, gun control, climate change, or another major issue were more likely than other Obama voters to defect to the GOP in 2016. That isnt terribly surprising. More interesting, however, is that these very same qualities made an Obama voter more likely to sit out the 2016 election. Thus, Trumps advocacy for conservative culture war positions, and exploitation of sexist resentment against Hillary Clinton, simultaneously won over some Democratic voters while demobilizing others. Greens basic finding that when voters feel more torn about the choice facing them in an election, they become less likely to turn out is buttressed by a larger body of political science research. The distinction between persuasion and mobilization is therefore a flawed one: Attempts to persuade swing voters through direct mail or television ads often have the effect of demobilizing the other partys base, likely by increasing its ambivalence.All this provides us with theoretical reasons to suspect that many missing anti-MAGA voters became more sympathetic to Republican messaging between 2020 and 2024. And empirical data reinforces this impression.Polling in 2024 consistently showed Trump gaining ground with disengaged, low-propensity Democratic voters. In May, the New York Times/Siena poll showed Biden (then, the presumptive Democratic nominee) winning only 75 percent of Democratic voters who had sat out the 2022 midterms, even as he won virtually all high-turnout Democrats.Meanwhile, last years election results showed that Democrats gained vote-share in neighborhoods that had high turnout rates in 2022 and 2020, but lost ground in neighborhoods that have chronically low turnout rates. Combined with the available polling, this seems indicative of a broad shift toward Trump among constituencies with a low propensity to vote and a history of supporting Democrats.The most intuitive explanation for this shift is inflation. Low propensity voters tend to be less partisan than reliable voters (and so, more likely to evaluate incumbents on the basis of economic conditions) and less affluent (and so, more likely to resent rapid changes in consumer prices). And a YouGov poll of disengaged voters from July 2024 found that prices and inflation were their top concern, and that they had more negative views of both the economy and Biden than engaged voters did. The kids are all right (or, more of them are than in the past)Podhorzers analysis focuses on the behavior of Biden 2020 voters. He notes that, according to VoteCast, only 4 percent of such voters backed Trump in 2024. From this, he concludes that any movement toward the GOP was negligible.But this leaves first-time voters out of the picture. And several data points indicate that such voters were sharply more conservative in 2024 than they had been in the recent past.In NBC Newss exit poll, Trump won first-time voters by 55 to 44 percent. This was a massive reversal from 2020, when Biden won them by 32 points in the same survey. And a large part of Democrats woes with first-time voters seems attributable to the declining liberalism of young Americans. In 2020, Biden won voters under 25 by 34 points, according to NBCs exit poll. Four years later, Harris won them by just 11.Exit polls are highly flawed. But Democrats performance with young voters looks even worse in more reliable data sources. For example, AP VoteCast shows Harris winning voters under 30 by just 4 points in 2024 after Biden had won them by 25 a development that suggests the youngest, newly registered voters were unusually rightwing last year.Meanwhile, election returns show that Democrats lost more ground between 2020 and 2024 in younger parts of the country than in older ones. Finally, the fact that the youngest zoomers are aberrantly conservative is also apparent in some states voter registration data. Voters 18 to 25 in North Carolina were more likely to register as Republicans than Democrats over the past four years, a break with that purple states historical pattern. It is odd that Podhorzer does not grapple more with this development, since his pre-election analysis presumed that younger voters were so reliably and overwhelmingly anti-MAGA, Democrats didnt need to worry about winning over swing voters so long as they energized Americas youth. In June 2023, he explained theres no reason to listen to those who still think Democrats need to focus on winning back Trump-leaning voters instead of simply doing everything necessary to maintain the support of those who have already rejected Trump/MAGA and continue to turn them out, along with mobilizing those voters aging into the electorate. (In the same piece, Podhorzer also argued that there was no reason to listen to those who panic at any survey which shows Biden substantially behind, as the midterm and special election results consistently show that the voters in the key Purple states reject MAGA/Trump when the choice is clear.)One could try to reconcile Gen Zs right turn with Podhorzers thesis by attributing it entirely to depressed youth turnout among young Democrats. Yet as noted above, polling suggests that politically disengaged Americans were more Republican-leaning this cycle than engaged ones. Peoples political identities tend to be most malleable when they are young. Therefore, the fact that voters who came of age under Biden were unusually likely to become Republicans seems indicative of a rightward turn in Americas political environment and one that could potentially reverberate for years to come.RelatedHow Democratic Gen Z activists lost the Gen Z voteIn the Biden era, Americans did grow more conservative in some of their views and more trustful of Republican economic managementPodhorzer suggests that America couldnt have shifted rightward because voters values and priorities are largely stable. As he writes, A collapse in support for Democrats does not mean that most Americans, especially in Blue America, are suddenly eager to live in an illiberal theocracy.But this is a strawman. No one is claiming that the typical resident of California wants to live under an American Taliban. Rather, the question is whether marginal voters those who lack strong partisan attachments became either more conservative in their issue preferences or priorities during the Biden era. And the answer seems to be yes. This is most apparent on the issue of immigration. In May 2020, 34 percent of voters told Gallup they wanted immigration increased, while just 28 percent said they want it reduced. By June 2024, support for cutting immigration had soared to 55 percent, while that for increasing it had fallen to 16 percent. This marked the first time since 2005 that a majority of Americans had supported cutting admissions.Podhorzer notes that Democrats support dropped off most steeply in blue states, and takes this as a sign that America shifted couchward rather than rightward, since he considers it implausible that voters in blue states could have become substantially more conservative.Yet polls showed voters in New York, California, and Illinois all turning against immigration over the past two years, with 58 percent of Empire State residents agreed with the statement, New Yorkers have already done enough and should try and slow the flow of migrants. Meanwhile, California passed a ballot measure in November that lengthened prison sentences for drug and theft-related crimes, while Oakland and Los Angeles ousted their progressive prosecutors. That same day, Colorado voted to increase minimum prison time for violent offenders. This punitive turn in blue-state criminal justice policy likely reflects rising popular concern with crime during the Biden era. In Gallups polling, the percentage of Americans who considered crime in the United States an extremely or serious problem jumped from 51 percent in 2020 to 63 percent in 2023.If voters grew more conservative in their attitudes toward crime and immigration during the Biden years, they also gave those issues higher priority. Between 2020 and 2024, the percentage of voters who said that immigration was very important to their vote in the Pew Research Centers polling jumped from 52 percent to 61 percent. The share who deemed violent crime very important jumped more modestly from 59 to 61 percent.Finally, it is also clear that voters came to view Republican economic management more favorably over the course of Bidens presidency. In 2020, voters told Gallup that Democrats were better able to keep America prosperous than Republicans were by a margin of 48 to 47 percent. By 2024, the GOP led on that question by a margin of 50 to 44 percent. Nostalgia for the pre-inflation, Trump economy seems to have led many voters to reevaluate the Republicans tenure. In April 2024, a CNN poll found 55 percent of Americans saying Trumps presidency had been a success, up from 41 percent in January 2021.Thus, the America of 2024 was more hostile to immigration, more hardline on criminal justice policy, and more confident in the GOPs superior economic wisdom than the America of 2020. I think that constitutes a rightward shift.Dismissing Podhorzers diagnosis of the Democrats plight does not necessarily compel one to reject his prescriptions for the partys future. It seems entirely possible that Democrats could win the White House in 2028 without moving right on any issue, not least because Biden and Harris already moderated the partys stances on immigration and crime considerably. At present, Democrats appear more likely to moderate excessively on immigration than insufficiently, with most of the party lining up behind the reckless Laken Riley Act in recent days.And Podhorzer is surely not wrong that Democrats should seek to increase the salience of Trumpisms most extreme aspects, nor that the party should speak to voters discontent with the economic system (although, it is important not to mistake anti-institutional sentiment for lockstep backing of the entire progressive economic agenda).Nevertheless, I think its important for Democrats to be clear-eyed about the nature of their problems. The partys failure to retain credibility on economic management, immigration, and crime made some Americans see MAGA in a better light. Some of that failure is attributable to bad luck. But Democrats will still be ill-equipped to preempt similar setbacks in the future if they refuse to admit that this one occurred. Trump really did win the 2024 election. Theres no use in denying 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:

Did Donald Trump deliver the Gaza ceasefire that Joe Biden couldnt?After many long months of inconclusive talks, a ceasefire deal between the Israeli government and Hamas appears to have finally been reached just as Biden is set to leave office and Trump is set to take credit.Bidens team of course would point out that they spent many months engaged in painstaking diplomacy to deliver this outcome. The deal itself (which is still awaiting final approval from the Israeli government) resembles a proposal crafted by officials from the US, Egypt, and Qatar and announced by Biden in May. However, there indeed seems to be widespread agreement among diplomats and officials involved that Trump-related factors were quite important in finally spurring the deal to come together though there are some dueling narratives about exactly why.Trump intervened in two main ways. First, in early December, he made a public demand that the hostages be released before his inauguration and that, if they werent, there would be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East. He did not clarify what that meant, but this effectively set a deadline: Trump wanted a deal by January 20.Second, in recent days, Trumps team most notably incoming Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff became involved in the process directly, pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make concessions and agree to a deal.Left critics of Bidens Israel policy have responded by arguing that Trumps interventions prove he could have produced a ceasefire far earlier, if only he had been willing to push Israel more, and that he and his team were either too weak, too incompetent, or too in hock to Israel to do so.Yet major developments in the war in recent months likely also made both Israel and Hamas more willing to end it.Between September and November, Israeli forces not only killed Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, but also drastically escalated their war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, doing grave damage to the group and killing many of its leaders before an eventual ceasefire in Lebanon. This likely helped Israel feel like it would be ending the war from a position of greater strength, while leaving Hamas more isolated and ending any hopes theyd be helped by foreign intervention.So the context for the war had recently changed in ways that paved the way for a ceasefire. But the combination of Trumps deadline and his teams pressure on Netanyahu indeed seems to have been important in getting the deal across the finish line.Major developments in the war late last year may have paved the way for a ceasefireSince Biden endorsed this ceasefire proposal back in May, there has been endless finger-pointing about who deserves most blame for the lack of an agreement on it.Publicly, US officials have blamed Hamas as the main obstacle for the lack of the deal. This narrative was complicated somewhat by Netanyahus repeated public rejections of Bidens ceasefire proposals.Indeed, according to the Washington Posts Ishaan Tharoor, Arab interlocutors and US officials in private have also pointed the finger at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who repeatedly scuppered deals with new demands that Hamas was unwilling to accept.All along, Netanyahu faced pressure from his far-right governing partners who have the power to unmake him as prime minister to continue the war further. And he eventually responded by launching devastating attacks against Hezbollah, which had regularly been firing rockets at northern Israel since late 2023, displacing tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes. Hezbollah had claimed they would not stop the rocket attacks until the Gaza war ended. Israels escalation in Lebanon was brutal but successful in dismantling Hezbollah. And while that was going on, Sinwar was found and killed in southern Gaza, handing Israel a symbolic victory by eliminating the architect of the October 7, 2023, attacks. This put Netanyahu in more of a position of strategic and political strength, which may have made him newly open to wrap up the war. We have less insight into Hamass decision-making, but the defeat of a main ally in Hezbollah may have also made them more willing to agree to a negotiated settlement.Indeed, reports throughout December claimed that a ceasefire deal was drawing closer. But both sides haggled hard over the details, and agreement remained elusive.So Trumps December 2 demand that the hostages be released by his inauguration may have mattered mainly because it served as an action-forcing deadline for two parties who were already increasingly inclined to reach a deal.How much did Witkoffs pressure on Netanyahu matter?Steve Witkoff speaks during a Trump campaign event on October 27, 2024. Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesBut Trumps other major intervention came in recent days, when he sent Witkoff to the Middle East to join the talks and reiterated that he was quite serious about his deadline and that it applied to Israel too.Once in Israel, Witkoff reportedly told Netanyahu in blunt terms that he needed to compromise more. Multiple reports claim that this pressure, and Trumps involvement generally, made a difference:Two Arab officials told the Times of Israel that one meeting with Witkoff did more to sway Netanyahu than Biden did in the past year.An unnamed diplomat told the Washington Post that this was the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal.One US official told Axios that Trumps involvement was the 10 cents missing for the dollar in getting the deal done.Trump and Witkoffs pressure on Netanyahu may also have helped the prime minister argue to his far-right coalition partners that the deal on the table was the best he could get though it is so far unclear whether Netanyahu will keep his governing coalition together.So its a matter of dispute whether Trump deserves full credit for the deal, 10 percent, or something in between. But it does appear pretty indisputable that he played a helpful role in getting it done.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.Kids lose so much when a disaster strikes. Too many have lost family members to the wildfires that have raged across Los Angeles in recent days. Theyve lost homes. Theyve lost the sense of security and predictability that so many kids depend on. And, to add insult to injury, many of them have lost their schools.At least nine schools in the Los Angeles area have been destroyed or severely damaged by the fires. Video posted by the principal of Odyssey Charter Schools south campus in Altadena shows flames still smoldering in the buildings as smoke rises from the playground, blotting out the sky. Marquez Charter Elementary School in Pacific Palisades is dust, one parent told The Cut. Meanwhile, thousands more schools were closed last week as communities faced evacuation warnings, power outages, and smoke-filled air, leaving more than 600,000 students out of school.Unfortunately, these disruptions are part of a new normal for kids as climate disasters become more frequent. Last year, Americans experienced 27 weather-related disasters costing $1 billion or more in damage, the second-highest number ever meanwhile, the number of days American schools are closed for extreme heat has doubled in recent years.Theres often nothing officials can do to avoid a closure, especially if schools are damaged or without power. But when schools close, kids arent learning, said Melinda Morrill, an economics professor at North Carolina State University who has studied the impact of closures. Research on school closures after Hurricanes Matthew and Florence in North Carolina is sobering. Especially in the early grades, students didnt bounce back, said Cassandra R. Davis, a professor of public policy at UNC Chapel Hill who studied the closures. In some cases, the academic impact persisted for more than a year. Beyond academics, millions of students rely on their schools for mental health support or services like speech therapy; millions more need the free or reduced-price food school cafeterias provide. Schools are also a crucial source of stability in many childrens lives, a place they go five days a week to see their friends, their teachers, their favorite books, their art on the walls, the special stuffed animal in the calm-down corner. Losing all that can be a huge emotional blow.The students from Odyssey Charter School are meeting for now at a local Boys and Girls Club, where teachers and staff have been visiting them, principal Bonnie Brimecombe told me. Some kids who used to have big, vibrant personalities are just not talking, and they just sort of sit, she said. Others are just hugging you so tight and they dont let go. Experts, educators, and families are just beginning to understand what helps students recover after storms or fires devastate their schools. But one thing they agree on is that districts and policymakers need to start preparing schools and students for the next disaster today. Its going to keep happening over and over and over, said Susanna Joy Smith, a mom of two in Asheville, North Carolina, whose kids were out of school for a month last year after Hurricane Helene. We need to learn from these experiences and we need to adapt.Losing school hurts kids academically and emotionallyIn the Los Angeles Unified School District, all schools closed for at least two days last week as the fires raged. Many reopened on Monday, but as of Monday evening around 10 remained closed, some because they were in evacuation zones and three because they had been badly damaged or destroyed, the office of LAUSD deputy superintendent of business services and operations Pedro Salcido told me. Students from Marquez and another destroyed elementary school will be relocated to two nearby schools for the rest of the school year. All 23 schools in the Pasadena Unified School District, which includes Altadena and other areas devastated by the Eaton Fire, remain closed this week.Its a disruption sadly familiar to more and more kids and families around the country. In 2018, the Camp Fire destroyed eight of the nine schools in Paradise, California. The same year, Hurricane Florence raged through North Carolina, forcing some schools to close for as long as 26 days. Then, last year, Hurricane Helene hit the western part of the state, destroying at least one school and leaving others closed for weeks due to flood damage and lack of power or water.School closures after Hurricane Florence were associated with significant drops in students math and reading test scores, Morrill found, with the impact seen across demographic groups and among both higher- and lower-performing students. All students are affected, Morrill said.For Smiths older son, missing a month of the second grade is just huge, especially since the early grades are so important for building reading skills.Many school districts are shifting to remote instruction for at least some weather-related closures, like snow days. But remote school was difficult for many students during Covid lockdowns, a time when kids experienced significant learning loss. Not every kid has access to a laptop or internet connection, and neurodivergent students or those with learning differences may especially struggle with virtual learning. The students at Odyssey are scared of a return to the days of pandemic virtual learning, Brimecombe told me. Theres so much trauma from their experiences being on Zoom.The impact of missed days can also compound when disaster strikes the same kids again and again. In places like North Carolina, where we typically get hit by a tropical storm every other year, students can find their education disrupted again and again, pushing them further behind, Davis said. Its like a constant catchup.Meanwhile, students can struggle emotionally long after a disaster is over. Months after Hurricane Matthew, teachers had to stop class during rainstorms to help students who were afraid of getting washed away, Davis said.In the wake of Helene, Smiths younger son, who is 4, is very aware of the fact that the lights could go out overnight and they might not go on for weeks, she told me. Its heartbreaking, but its also the reality these kids are growing up in.Kids face a complicated recovery, tooAdults can still help kids cope with this reality, experts say. That means learning how to adjust curricula to account for lost time as well as providing mental health support to both students and teachers, Davis said. Kids also need to learn about climate change and disaster preparedness in school, Smith said. Theyre just life skills for kids today. Voxs Allie Volpe has tips for preparing kids for climate disasters; LAist has a list of resources for talking to kids about fires, specifically.Making school buildings more climate-resilient is also important, experts say, something school districts around the country are already working on. And when disaster does strike, districts need to figure out how to get kids back to school as quickly as possible and arrange makeup time for the days they missed, Morrill said. Its not enough to hold weekend classes for the bottom 10 percent, she told me. Everybody is going to experience some harm.At Odyssey, the first priority is finding classroom space kids can return to school leaders are reaching out to local churches and rental spaces, and have launched a GoFundMe to help with costs. They hope to be back in person next week.When they are together in a new space, were not going to start with learning, Brimecombe said. Were going to start with community. Were going to start with social-emotional lessons. Were going to start with joy.What Im readingFourteen-year-old Avery Colvert, whose school was destroyed by the Eaton Fire, has started a recovery fund for teens affected by the disaster. I want specific items for these girls so they can feel like themselves again and get their confidence back, she told Time.A majority of 11- and 12-year-olds have accounts on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or Snapchat even though the sites technically require users to be 13, a new study found.Evidence for the benefits of risky play like climbing and jumping keeps piling up, but kids have less access to it than ever.My younger kid and I are enjoying the perfect Days With Frog and Toad, in which other animals are weirdly mean (who hurt you, robins?) but the bond between the titular amphibians is forever.From my inboxThis week, my older kid has been concerned about the wildfires in LA. I told him I am concerned too, but that it felt good to speak with people who are working on getting kids back to school.Now Id love to hear from you how you talk to the kids in your life about disasters like storms and wildfires. What are their questions? What are your answers? How are you helping them cope with the world we live in (and how are you coping yourself)? Let me know at anna.north@vox.com.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: