In the last issue of this newsletter, I wrote about what went wrong with public housing in the United States how it didnt necessarily fail, but was routinely sabotaged because of bad policy choices that contributed to neglect and mismanagement. So this week, I want to look at what successful public housing can look like. Oftentimes, when looking for models to emulate, many Americans look abroad for answers Austria, Denmark, and Singapore, for example, are frequently cited as places to learn from. But one of the problems with turning to other countries is that their politics and governments are fundamentally different, and simply copying them isnt always an option. Thats why Im particularly interested in looking at examples of public housing models that have worked quite well here in the United States. After all, if one American city or county can pull off an ambitious program, then whats stopping others from doing the same?What we can learn from the DC suburbsEarlier this year, my colleague Rachel Cohen highlighted a place where local leaders are expanding public housing: Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery County has long prioritized affordable housing. Developers, for example, are required to make at least 15 percent of units in new housing projects available for people who make less than two-thirds of the areas median income. But the county got creative with how it could provide public housing: It set aside a fund to finance and develop housing projects. And while the county partners with private developers, its investment makes it a majority owner of a given project. As the New York Times put it, the county, as an owner, becomes a kind of benevolent investor that trades profits for lower rents.For background, the countys Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) is not just a public housing authority, but a housing finance agency and public developer as well. We have these three different components that ultimately work together to help us really advance a very aggressive development strategy that we have deployed over 50 years, said Chelsea Andrews, executive director of HOC. Historically, public housing projects in the United States have only been available to people making very low incomes. Thats by design: In 1936, the federal government set income limits for eligibility. While that might seem like it makes sense shouldnt public housing units be available to those who most need them? the reality is that this rule limited housing authorities ability to raise revenue by charging closer to market-rate rents for middle- or higher-income earners. As a result, public housing projects have been overly reliant on government subsidies and constantly underfunded.But Montgomery County is addressing that problem by opening public housing up to mixed-income renters.Mixed income accomplishes so many goals, Andrews said. It allows for housing authorities to ensure that they are creating inclusive communities. It takes away the concentration of poverty. Andrews added that mixed-income housing doesnt discourage people from advancing their careers since they dont have to worry about losing their eligibility to stay housed in an HOC property. And by making the developments mixed-income, the local government can use profits from some renters to subsidize others and keep the buildings in good condition.In many ways, this model is a rebrand. They are very clear about not calling it public housing: To help differentiate these projects from the typical stigmatized, income-restricted, and underfunded model, leaders have coalesced around calling the mixed-income idea social housing produced by public developers, Cohen wrote. But in effect, the model is still publicly owned units being rented to residents at subsidized rates.Montgomery County has seen plenty of success. The Laureate, one of these types of developments in the suburbs of Washington, DC, had leased out 97 percent of its 268 units within a year of opening in 2023.Its not just Montgomery CountyAcross the country, housing advocates and local governments have taken note of Montgomery Countys example and are keen on trying it out for themselves. In Massachusetts, state Rep. Mike Connolly introduced legislation last year to create a $100 million fund to finance social housing projects. While that specific legislation hasnt passed yet, the governor recently signed a housing bond bill that includes funding for a social housing pilot program. We got a lot of enthusiasm and support around us now doing the work of mapping out what these initial projects will look like. It could result in perhaps one or two local, mixed-income social housing-type projects in the coming years, Connolly said. If we can develop something and build it, people can see it, and then we can point to it and look to expand it. And, of course, Montgomery County, Maryland, has been the contemporary national leader here.As local governments struggle to deal with soaring housing costs, this model is providing a good solution by both building more units (which is very much needed) and providing below market-rate rents. And with more and more lawmakers approving these projects, America could be on the brink of a new era of public housing and this time, it might actually be a success. 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:

On the Money is a monthly advice column. If you want advice on spending, saving, or investing or any of the complicated emotions that may come up as you prepare to make big financial decisions you can submit your question on this form. Here, we answer a question asked by Vox readers, which have been edited and condensed.Why is money so hard?Dear Letter Writer,You asked this question at the beginning of the year; now that we are coming to its end, I may have an appropriate framework through which to answer it.The literal answer is that money is difficult because it is a representation of value. Unfortunately, we are often unable to earn and spend our money according to what we actually value. Various industries are motivated to pinpoint the exact minimum amount of money were willing to accept for various jobs and the exact maximum amount of money we are willing to pay for particular items, trusting that well give them exactly what they ask for. Much of what is left over goes toward experiences we dont actually value and expenses we cant necessarily control.The metaphorical answer is a little more complicated:It is the holiday season for many of us, a time when we demonstrate our values to one another. The person who values frugality shops the sales, the person who values extravagance shops full price, the person who values their own skills handcrafts ornaments or puts calligraphed labels on jars of jam but no matter what you choose, you generally end up spending an unusual amount of time or an unusual amount of money. Most of us pick the money route, and even the people who choose the DIY route have to purchase the Mason jars and calligraphy pens. So we set budgets some of us, anyway and divide our holiday shopping lists into affordable allotments. This much money for gifts, this much money for clothing, this much money for travel, and so on.At this point, if were thinking practically, we book the travel first. Somehow it costs more than we were expecting, even if we set aside more money than we did last year. This is because the airlines, rental car companies, and hotels understand that reaching a particular destination for the holidays is a top-level value in nearly everybodys minds a value that is taught and reinforced by much of the media associated with the holiday season, as well as societal expectations and these companies can charge precisely what the market will bear.So we end up booking the flights or the rental cars or the hotel rooms, or we look at the cost of gas and estimate how much it might cost us to drive, and whether it would be possible to pack a cooler instead of stopping to eat along the way, and then we tell ourselves that we can always make our budget balance by spending a little less on the presents.Except we dont want to spend less on the presents. We want to let the people we love know how much we love them, and the amount we love them hasnt changed since we booked our flights, so why should the amount we spend on their gifts have to decrease? We dont want our families to have to bear the burden of an inadequate budget. We dont want to face disappointed children or disapproving relatives. And so because we value the people we love, and because we very much value the idea of ourselves as generous and holiday-spirited we spend more than we can afford.Should you combine finances with your partner?How to cope with inflation and lifestyle creepHow are you supposed to start investing?Do you have questions related to personal finance? Submit them here.Sometimes this overspending comes from what might be considered a necessity. This is the year to give your child a bike, for example, because next year might be too late. However, many of us quickly get into the kind of overspending that is less useful. This would be the well, were giving Nana three gifts, so I had better make sure Pop-Pop has three gifts too thing, the kind of financial imprudence that leads to comically unnecessary novelty purchases or the dregs of drugstore sales bins. Nobody wants these gifts, and yet we feel as though they ought to be given, and so we exchange money we cannot afford or have not yet earned.Theres another level of overspending that occurs when someone else tasks you with a holiday responsibility you werent expecting. This year, your team is doing Secret Santa. This year, you got invited to a themed party that requires you to buy an ugly sweater or a silly hat. This year, Nana and Pop-Pop want everyone to send in family photos so they can make a calendar. This year, your neighbor gave you a gift, and so you had better give them something too.And so we spend, and spend, and spend, and tell ourselves well sort it out later, maybe well get a raise or pick up a side hustle or apply for a 0 percent intro APR balance transfer credit card because thats what were supposed to do at this time of year. Everything in us and around us tells us to book the travel and buy the presents and attend the parties and take the pictures, and if we dont enjoy all of this as much as we ought to, or cant afford to spend as much as we want to, weve failed.That is why money is hard, dear Letter Writer: Because the way we spend the holidays is the way we spend our lives.Fortunately, New Years resolutions are just around the corner. This year, consider resolving to understand both what you value and what value you have to offer. From there, you may be able to improve the rate at which you exchange your value for money and exchange your money for what you value. Its the only way through this mess of personal finance, and it isnt easy but Ive done it, and other people I know have done it, so I hope you can too.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:

Delivery workers continued to picket Amazon facilities in New York City, Illinois, California, and Atlanta after launching a strike on Thursday, following the companys refusal to engage in bargaining for a labor contract. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has been organizing the workers, though Amazon does not recognize those efforts and claims that the workers are not Amazon employees. (A stance federal labor watchdog the National Labor Review Board, or NLRB, disagrees with.) The striking workers, who are primarily delivery drivers, are agitating for a contract that offers better pay and working conditions. The Teamsters gave Amazon until December 15 to start contract negotiations. Those did not transpire, leading to a strike timed for the week before Christmas as part of a push to bring the company to the bargaining table. Its one of the biggest strikes in Amazons history, and its not clear how long it will last. And its already having legal consequences; an Amazon delivery driver and a Teamsters organizer were arrested at a Queens facility Thursday allegedly for disrupting traffic. If your package is delayed during the holidays, you can blame Amazons insatiable greed, Teamsters president Sean OBrien said in a Thursday statement. We gave Amazon a clear deadline to come to the table and do right by our members. They ignored it.The delivery workers strike is part of a larger effort to unionize the workers, including delivery drivers and warehouse employees, who perform Amazons shipping and fulfillment services. The unionization battle has been ongoing for years. In 2022, labor organizers had their first major victory, when an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island voted to unionize and formed the Amazon Labor Union. Since then, the Amazon Labor Union joined the Teamsters, which bills itself as the largest labor union in North America and represents workers from a variety of industries, including transportation and health care. The Teamsters say the union represents 10,000 Amazon workers.There is little indication this weeks strike will result in the type of win the Staten Island workers saw in 2022; Amazon has argued the strike wont hurt its operations, and dismissed its validity. And while workers trying to organize at Amazon have notched some victories in cases before the NLRB, that body is expected to undergo major, pro-business changes in the incoming Donald Trump administration. All that puts the success of the striking workers, and how the federal government will treat labor in the years to come, in doubt. Workers are striking to make a statementIts not clear how many workers are striking, but they represent only a fraction of the approximately 800,000 people who make up Amazons delivery workforce. Amazon warehouse workers poor working conditions, including injuries and insufficient access to medical care, have been well-documented, including in a new Senate report. Thats what inspired the first unionization effort at the Staten Island warehouse.Drivers and delivery workers say they struggle, too. The pay needs to be better. The health insurance needs to be better, Thomas Hickman, a Georgia-based delivery worker, told CNN. We need better working conditions. If we do have 400-plus packages, we need someone to be a helper with us, to ride with us.This strike isnt focused on working conditions or pay and benefits exactly, although thats part of it; it is whats called an unfair labor practices strike, because Amazon refused to bargain with the workers by the deadline the Teamsters gave Amazon management. The workers are striking to get the company to negotiate a labor contract that sets out acceptable working conditions, pay, benefits, and more. The workers hope to get their rights and benefits enshrined so they cant be arbitrarily removed by the company. The Teamsters maintain that the company is violating labor law by refusing to negotiate a contract. In some ways, this isnt so unique, Eric Blanc, professor of labor relations at Rutgers Universitys school of management and labor relations, told Vox. In many cases, employers will ignore labor laws and refuse to bargain. Sometimes, striking is the way to get them to the table.Amazon, however, maintains that the striking workers arent even Amazon employees. There are a lot of nuances here but I want to be clear, the Teamsters dont represent any Amazon employees despite their claims to the contrary, Kelly Nantel, a spokesperson for Amazon, told CNN. This entire narrative is a PR play and the Teamsters conduct this past year, and this week is illegal. Vox reached out to Nantel to clarify which actions Amazon believes to be illegal but did not receive a response by publication time. According to Amazon, these drivers and delivery workers work for a third-party contractor what they call a delivery service partner (DSP). But Amazon doesnt name the DSPs and advertises for those delivery jobs on Amazon websites. Delivery workers drive Amazon-branded vans and wear Amazon uniforms; they deliver Amazon packages, and Amazon completely dictates the way the third-party company operates, Rebecca Givan, professor of labor relations at Rutgers Universitys school of management and labor relations, told Vox. Amazon sets the terms.The Teamsters filed unfair labor practice charges against Amazon and one of its California DSPs, Battle Tested Strategies, in 2023, saying that Amazon and the DSP are joint employers of dozens of delivery workers the Teamsters had organized there. In August of this year, the NLRB ruled that Amazon and Battle Tested Strategies were joint employers, and in September, an NLRB regional director lodged a formal complaint against Amazon. Amazon is not likely to back down any time soon and the stakes are highAmazon has made it very clear that they have no intention of bargaining with the workers, Seth Harris, senior fellow at the Burnes Center for Social Change and former top labor policy advisor to the Biden administration, told Vox.First of all, Amazons business model depends on low-cost labor and that is easily replaced during periods of high turnover, according to all of the labor experts Vox spoke to. Putting a contract in place that guarantees workers certain levels of pay, benefits, and workplace safety contradicts that model.Amazon hasnt recognized the original Amazon Labor Union, even though it is recognized by the NLRB. And they have also spent tens of millions of dollars over the years on illegal union-busting activities, Blanc said, including threatening employees wages and benefits if they unionized, removing information about union efforts from a digital message board, and firing workers for unionizing. There are federal laws governing how companies are meant to interact with unions and collective action efforts. But theres no real penalty for failing to negotiate with workers, Arthur Wheaton, director of labor studies at Cornell Universitys School of Industrial and Labor Relations, told Vox.The NLRB is tasked with adjudicating labor disputes, but Amazon (as well as Elon Musks SpaceX) have filed lawsuits claiming the NLRB and the current dispute resolution system is unconstitutional. If courts rule in favor of Amazon and SpaceX, that could significantly alter how the federal government handles labor disputes. Therefore, Amazon can just delay, delay, delay negotiating a contract with the striking workers, Wheaton said, hoping that they win their case, or that they will soon have a Trump administration that is much more antagonistic to labor, and an NLRB that is much more friendly to corporations. President-elect Donald Trump will get to fill at least two seats on the NRLB, and is expected to select pro-business candidates; his labor secretary pick, however, is viewed as more pro-labor than expected.Regardless of what stance the incoming administration takes, the unionization push at Amazon, which has only grown over a relatively short period of time, is likely to continue.This strike is a way of making it clear to the company and the public that [the push to unionize and negotiate a contract] is not going away, Blanc said. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

This weeks installment of the long-running saga, House Republicans cannot govern, will soon be forgotten. Elon Musks decision to blow up a bipartisan agreement to keep the government funded through the sheer power of posting (and the latent threat posed by his immense wealth), Donald Trump suddenly calling for the abolition of the debt limit, House Republican Chip Roy telling his colleagues that they lack an ounce of self-respect all these dramas will surely give way to even more ridiculous ones in the new year.But this weeks government funding fight also revealed something that could have profound implications for the next four years of governance: Trumps power over the congressional GOP is quite limited.This did not appear to be the case just days ago. On Wednesday, Trump joined Elon Musk in calling on House Republicans to scrap a bipartisan spending deal that would have kept the government funded through March, increased disaster relief, and funded pediatric cancer research, among many other things. Despite the fact that the GOP needs buy-in from the Senates Democratic majority in order to pass any legislation and failure to pass a spending bill by Saturday would mean a government shutdown House Republicans heeded Trumps call to nix the carefully negotiated compromise.If Trump had little difficulty persuading his co-partisans to block one spending bill, however, he proved less adept at getting them to support a different one. On Thursday, in coordination with Trump, the House GOP unveiled a new funding bill, one shorn of all Democratic priorities. Over social media, the president-elect instructed his party to vote YES for this Bill, TONIGHT! Then, 38 House Republicans voted against the legislation, which was more than enough to sink it amid nearly unified Democratic opposition. House conservatives defiance of Trump is partly attributable to ideological differences. The president-elects objections to Wednesdays bipartisan agreement were distinct from those of his donor Elon Musk or the House GOPs hardliners. The latter disdained the spending bills page count and fiscal cost. Trump, by contrast, appeared more preoccupied with the legislations failure to increase or eliminate the debt limit.RelatedWhat the hell is going on in Congress, explainedWhich is understandable. The debt limit may be the most irrational of all the US governments institutions. It does not prevent Congress from authorizing spending far in excess of federal revenue. Rather, it authorizes the government to finance the spending that Congress has already ordered through borrowing. The alternative to raising the debt limit is for the government to default on its obligations to American citizens, or to its lenders, or both. In practice, breaching the debt limit could trigger global financial tumult, as the worlds most widely trusted safe asset US treasury debt suddenly becomes a risky investment.Although refusing to raise the debt limit would be economically disastrous, many lawmakers are inclined to do so anyway. After all, increasing the limit on how much debt the government can accrue when the federal debt already sits at $36 trillion can sound bad to voters when highlighted out of context in a campaign ad. And some conservatives see threatening to sabotage the global financial system as a potential means of forcing through unpopular spending cuts. So getting Congress to raise the debt limit is inevitably a bit of a headache. And Trump does not want that high-stakes formality getting in the way of his plans to enact large tax cuts that if history is any guide will substantially increase the debt and deficit. Trump therefore implored House Republicans to suspend the debt limit for at least two years or else, eliminate it entirely so it wouldnt interfere with his honeymoon period (as is, Congress will likely need to raise the debt ceiling at some point next year, after narrowly averting a crisis in 2023). House Speaker Mike Johnson honored this request, adding a two-year debt limit hike to Thursdays bill.For dozens of House conservatives, the idea of voting for a spending bill devoid of any major funding cuts that also suspended the debt limit was more odious than the prospect of defying Trump.It is not surprising that some House Republicans would prize conservative purity above fealty to Trump. That nearly 40 of them would harbor such priorities is a revelation, however. During the 2024 campaign, Trump demonstrated a remarkable capacity to dictate ideological terms to his party, officially forswearing a national abortion ban without provoking any sustained attacks from his right. Combined with his apparent success in revising conservative orthodoxy on trade, entitlement spending, and US-Russia policy, Trumps pivot on abortion raised the possibility that the modern right was a personality cult first and an ideological movement second. Its now clear that for a substantial portion of House Republicans, this is not the case. And that is going to raise serious challenges to Trumps agenda next year.Republicans will control both chambers of Congress in 2025, but their majority in the House will be razor-thin: They will have at most a five-vote majority by years end, assuming they sweep all impending special elections in deep-red districts. The party will need to reach something approaching unanimity in order to advance legislation without Democratic help. This might not seem like such a difficult feat when it comes to passing the cornerstone of Trumps legislative agenda, an extension and expansion of his 2017 tax cuts: If Republicans agree on anything, after all, it is that taxes should be lower.Yet some conservatives evince genuine concern about deficits and insist on paying for the tax cuts by slashing spending. Others hail from swing districts and may be nervous about signing off on unpopular cuts to social welfare programs. At least a few Republicans are even reluctant to roll back all of the Inflation Reduction Acts pro-clean energy tax credits, which have disproportionately benefited Republican areas. Appeasing all relevant constituencies will be difficult. Theoretically, Trump could make this task easier by cowing intransigent Republicans with charges of disloyalty and threats of primary challenges. But after Thursday, it appears less certain that the president-elect actually boasts such power over the House GOPs backbenchers.It is worth recalling that Trump is a 78-year-old lame duck. If you are an up-and-coming conservative House member with aspirations to run for higher office a decade from now, a reputation for conservative ideological purity might eventually prove more useful than a record of perfect fealty to an elderly man whose interest in the Republican Party is liable to evaporate the moment he forfeits the presidency.Whatever happens, Trump is poised to wield a disconcerting amount of personal power over the executive branch come next year. But he may find that his capacity to dictate terms to Congress is as frustratingly limited as our governments authority to issue new debt. 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.President-elect Donald Trump didnt even wait to start his second term before throwing Congress into chaos, sinking a bipartisan spending deal and making his own demands as a government shutdown looms at midnight.In one sense, this is just the latest installment of a very familiar story involving House Republican dysfunction over spending battles, and Trumps willingness to embrace chaos and throw things into disarray.The surprising aspect to the current showdown, though, is just what, exactly, Trump has chosen to pick this fight over: He wants to suspend, or even eliminate, the debt ceiling. Congress must get rid of, or extend out to, perhaps, 2029, the ridiculous Debt Ceiling, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social early Friday morning. Without this, we should never make a deal.The debt ceiling is the limit set in law of how much new debt the US government can issue. If it is not raised or suspended in time, the country would default on its debt; it is widely believed economic turmoil would then ensue. Republicans have used the threat of a debt default to try to force Democratic presidents into policy concessions, and Trump fears Democrats will try something similar against him in 2025. So he wants the debt ceiling suspended right now or even abolished entirely.This was an unexpected turn of events because the initial bipartisan deal just didnt address the debt ceiling at all: It merely funded the government for three more months, as well as included several other provisions that had won bipartisan backing.When, on Wednesday, billionaire Elon Musk started publicly attacking the deal, he complained about the bills overspending and also made sometimes-inaccurate claims about those add-on provisions. But he said nothing about the debt ceiling which would, if suspended, allow Trump and Republicans to spend more freely.Then, in a Wednesday afternoon statement denouncing the deal, Trump suddenly put the debt ceiling on the agenda. Increasing the debt ceiling is not great but wed rather do it on Bidens watch, he posted on Truth Social, calling Republicans foolish and inept for not dealing with this issue earlier and complaining that the Debt Ceiling guillotine was coming up in June.On Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson scrapped the bipartisan deal, dropping several of the add-on provisions and, in accordance with Trumps wishes, adding a debt ceiling increase. Some conservatives who had cheered on Musks criticism of the initial deals big spending are now horrified at this turn of events, believing the debt ceiling is a crucial tool to help restrain spending. More than three dozen House Republicans broke with Trump to vote against the new bill Thursday evening, and since nearly every House Democrat also opposed it, it failed.But Democrats are still weighing how they should handle this unexpected turn of events. Democratic wonks have long hated the debt ceiling, believing irresponsible Republicans used it to take the economy hostage to extort Presidents Obama and Biden, and many would happily see it abolished. However, the partys congressional leaders may hope to preserve it as leverage against Trump and are ill-inclined to give in to Trumpian demands issued from on high if theres a deal, they want to be part of that deal.This situation is still in flux and we dont yet know how it will end. But already there are a few telling aspects to whats happened.First: Though some claim Musk killed the initial bipartisan deal and Trump and Republicans are simply puppets dancing on the strings of the worlds richest man, that does not seem like what is actually happening.It is not clear why exactly Musk went so hard against the bill, or whether he was freelancing or working in coordination with Trump. In addition to making complaints about too much government spending, Musk made various false claims about what was in the bill, including that the bill included a 40 percent pay increase for members of Congress (it was a 4 percent increase), and that it included $3 billion for a Washington, DC, NFL stadium (not at all true). Some have pointed out that the bill also included restrictions on tech investments in China, where Musk has business interests, wondering whether that was his true motive in coming out against it. (That provision was then dropped from Johnsons revised bill.)Whatever Musk wanted, once Trump got involved, he turned out to want something entirely different: a debt ceiling increase. And Musk fell behind his strategy.Second: Congressional Republicans are not in lockstep behind Trump on matters of policy, and the internal tensions that have made the party dysfunctional on spending issues still exist. Trump praised Johnsons revised bill as a very good Deal, but 38 House Republicans then voted against it. Trump angrily threatened to support a primary challenger to one such Republican, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), but Roy was unmoved.Roy is part of a group of several dozen House Republicans that has long been hostile to any bipartisan spending deal with Democrats and that has long made absurdly unrealistic demands for spending cuts. Their unwillingness to back Republican leaderships proposals means that, in practice, GOP leaders have to rely on Democratic votes to pass government funding bills. Trump has not yet figured out a way around this dynamic.Third: Trumps willingness to defy conservative dogma presents opportunity and peril for Democrats.Democratic wonks believe abolishing the debt ceiling would be a great thing for the country and would ultimately benefit future Democratic presidents by removing this tool for GOP hostage-taking. However, the party is wary that doing Trump a favor like this will make it easier for him to enact an agenda they fear and oppose.The path of political least resistance would be for Democrats to simply oppose everything Republicans do and maximize the squirming in the fractious GOP coalition. However, it is also possible that, if they negotiate effectively and think about the long term, theres an opportunity for serious policy wins. Imagine a world with no more debt ceiling no more phony crises, no more risk of default, no more hostage-taking. It would be nice! Can they make it a reality?Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

This week, were getting a potent reminder of what legislating looked like under President Donald Trump and the turmoil we can soon expect in his new term. Trump, along with his ally, Tesla CEO and Elon Musk, upended a bipartisan spending deal on Wednesday, just days before government funding is set to expire. That agreement would have kept the government open until March 14, bundling $100 billion in disaster aid with $10 billion to assist farmers, and a slew of other measures. Following grumbling from Musk about the size of the legislation, Trump called for Republicans to negotiate a new agreement that both addresses the debt ceiling and strips the deal of so-called Democrat giveaways. House GOP leaders tried to do so, presenting a new bill Thursday. Unsurprisingly, that version of the bill hasnt been able to garner the votes that it needs to pass leaving lawmakers once again scrambling with a shutdown deadline looming Friday night.RelatedTrumps 11th-hour decision to get involved in negotiations, weighing in via social media (and seemingly without coordinating with congressional allies), is reminiscent of his first-term approach to Capitol Hill, when he regularly blew up funding talks and directly caused the longest government shutdown in US history. As such, this weeks chaos is both a callback and preview of the tumult thats yet to come. Trumps history of blowing up deals, briefly explained During Trumps first term, he repeatedly called for Republicans to shut the government down in order to put pressure on Democrats to back his priorities, and also proved to be a mercurial negotiator. In his first year as president, Trump began urging a shutdown as early as August, attacking members of his own party and emphasizing his willingness to endure a stoppage if it meant securing funding for a border wall. He went out of his way, too, to needle Democrats on Twitter ahead of a funding negotiation meeting that November, prompting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to not attend. And as a shutdown loomed in January 2018, Trump further helped to scuttle a potential spending deal by throwing in extraneous border security demands. That month, Trump and Schumer famously met for cheeseburgers and appeared to reach an agreement, according to the Democratic lawmaker. That agreement would have included Democratic backing for increased military spending and potential funding for a wall, in exchange for legislation that created a path to legal status for DACA recipients (a category of undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children). After the meeting, however, Trump reportedly pushed for more hardline immigration measures including policies to enforce illegal immigration across the country ultimately killing the deal. In the week that followed, Democrats withheld their votes on a funding bill in an attempt to force the inclusion of DACA protections, leading to a brief shutdown. That didnt wind up working, however. The shutdown ended when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Democrats a vote on an immigration bill, which later failed to pass. Perhaps most notably, Trump went on to cause a 35-day government shutdown from December 2018 to January 2019, after he panned a bipartisan funding deal that lawmakers had already agreed to. His statements prompted House Republicans to pass a different version of the spending bill that included more than $5 billion in funding for construction of a border wall, which Democrats balked at supporting. Because the House and Senate couldnt find a version of the bill they could both pass, the funding deadline came and went, and the government entered a shutdown.After more than a month, Trump caved on his demands when it was apparent that he and his Republicans allies didnt have the votes for the border wall funding and the effects of the shutdown on government services were becoming untenable (his approval rating also suffered noticeably as the shutdown wore on). He ended up signing a short-term funding bill that reopened the government but did not include his requested border wall funds, though he later declared a national emergency in a second, more successful, attempt to secure wall funding.Even after leaving the White House in January 2021, Trump has continued to meddle with funding bills. Just this past fall, he again called for Republicans to reject funding legislation and shut down the government if Congress didnt pass a bill to curb noncitizen voting, which is already illegal. A return to the chaos of Trumps first termThis weeks developments are yet another indication that Trumps disruptive style hasnt changed particularly with the vocal backing of new allies like Musk. Trump and Musks shared approach to governance by tweet (or Truth Social post) could well amp up the chaos and pressure that Republicans lawmakers will face in the president-elects second term. Neither has been shy about making threats in order to bully people into acquiescing. Musk, for example, has said hell financially back primary challengers against senators who dont support Trumps Cabinet picks. And Trump has his own history of pushing for primaries against lawmakers who dont do his bidding, a tactic he reprised this week. While Republicans will again control both chambers of Congress next year, as they did during the first two years of Trumps first term, they will hold narrow majorities that pose their own challenges. House Speaker Mike Johnson will need to keep a fractious coalition fully unified or rely on Democrats to get anything done. Already this year, Johnson has had to rely on Democrats to help pass multiple funding bills, a dynamic thats garnered ire from his right flank and could fuel challenges of his leadership in the new term. Even after lawmakers resolve this funding fight, Johnson wont have long to rest; the likely next deadline, in mid-March, will be an early test for the return of unified Republican governance. If this week is any measure, GOP leaders will have their work cut out for them and its likely Trump and Musk will throw a few more grenades into the process along the way.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Politics

Generative AI can be a powerful tool in the hands of a creator. It can expand creativity by working as a partner in brainstorming, ideation, and execution, and it has the ability to help creators produce their best work quicker.But since the technology climbed into public consciousness, creators have, understandably, had their guard up. Uncertainty abounds about its potential impact on creators livelihoods. Theres been little transparency around how companies are training their AI and whose content theyre using.Adobe has set out to solve for this uncertainty with Adobe Firefly, its family of creative generative AI models built to bring out the best in human creativity while granting creators the transparency and choice they deserve. Designed to be safe for commercial use, Adobe aims to make Firefly the most creator-friendly generative AI solution on the market, delivering on the promise of generative AI responsibly.Generative AI that creators can trustA creative identity is an amalgamation of many things the creators vision, their experiences, their personality, the content theyve consumed, and so much more. Its a unique style and expression thats honed over years of practice.A concern with generative AI is whether it will make it easier for bad actors to mimic a creators style without credit. So, Adobe is taking seriously its commitment to constructing a better environment for creators. The company only trains Firefly on content it has the permission and rights to use, such as licensed material from Adobe Stock and public domain content never customer content. Unlike many other companies, Adobe doesnt train Firefly with content mined from the web without permission. In addition, Firefly is designed so that it does not generate content that infringes on copyright or intellectual property rights. Adobe deploys safeguards at each step prior to training, during generation, when the engine is prompted, and when the engine creates an output.When contributors add their work to Stock, they do so with transparency that it may be used to train Firefly. And Adobe has provided bonus payments to Stock Contributors whose work was used in training Firefly.Putting human creativity on super driveCreators know that their boundless imagination sometimes outpaces the time available to bring their ideas to life. Integrated seamlessly in popular Adobe apps that creators know and love like Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, Premier Pro, and Adobe Express, Firefly aims to close that gap with generative AI features that speed up and expand the creative process.For instance, creators can make quick edits or create variations of their existing content while maintaining brand standards. In Photoshop, the Firefly-powered Generative Expand feature helps creators broaden the frame of a photograph, while Generative Extend in Premiere Pro can add frames to videos for a smoother overall edit. In Lightroom, Generative Remove allows photographers from hobbyists to pros to easily and quickly remove unwanted objects and distractions even on complex backgrounds. In Adobe Express, creators can use Firefly-powered Generate Image and Text Effects to generate unique videos or create standout social posts and stories. These tools all help maintain the integrity of the creative process while freeing creators from tedious and time-consuming tasks so that they can efficiently summon their best work. Firefly generative AI models are powerful and, critically in the age of AI, developed responsibly.Protecting creators and driving trustAdobes efforts, however, dont stop at the level of its own AI. The company is an advocate for responsible innovation and creator rights across industries, even within legislation.Adobe is a founding member of the Content Authenticity Initiative, a massive collaboration of some of the most recognizable names in media, technology, and civil society that aims to restore trust and transparency in the digital ecosystem. In an age in which deepfakes can deceive even the trained eye, the Initiatives Content Credentials which act as a nutrition label for digital content have emerged as the global standard for content provenance, providing a peek into the contents origin and creation process. The tamper-evident metadata can be attached to digital content to show information like who made it and how it was created including whether AI played a role. This information not only gives creators recognition for their work, but also protects them from anyone looking to repurpose their work without giving proper credit.Content Credentials are already supported in Adobe apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, and Adobe Express. Theyre also gaining significant momentum across the industry, with implementation spreading to, among other companies, Google, Meta, LinkedIn, TikTok, and OpenAI.Beyond technical solutions, Adobe believes that theres also work to do at the policy level. With some generative AI, it takes just a few clicks for a bad actor to impersonate a specific creator in the marketplace. Its crucial that we institute regulations and protections to help guard creators rights. Adobe is advocating for a federal anti-impersonation right that can help protect creators style and work in the age of AI.By putting creators at the center, Adobe is setting an example that the entire industry can follow. To learn more about Adobes approach to generative AI with Firefly, visit Adobes website.

Its likely that no social issue has cost Democrats more votes in recent years than immigration. The Biden-Harris administration presided over Americas largest surge of new arrivals since 1850 according to data from the Census Bureau and Congressional Budget Office. A Goldman Sachs analysis obtained by the New York Times suggests that unauthorized immigrants account for a majority of that spike. The American electorate did not welcome these huddled masses with open arms. Between 2021 and 2024, the share of Americans who wanted a reduction in immigration surged from 31 percent to 55 percent, according to Gallup. This restrictionist mood redounded to Donald Trumps benefit. Among swing voters, the most commonly cited reason for backing Trump in 2024 was that he would secure the border and fight illegal immigration, according to Navigator, a Democratic polling firm. Another Democratic pollster, Blueprint, found that swing voters second-most important reason for opposing Kamala Harris was that too many immigrants illegally crossed the border under the Biden-Harris administration (the most important reason concerned inflation). And Democrats perceived softness on illegal immigration was also integral to Trumps first election in 2016, when white Obama voters with right-of-center views on that issue defected from the Democratic coalition in large numbers.In the face of this data, there is a growing consensus among Democrats that the party veered too far left on immigration policy from 2016 through 2023 (after which, the party mounted an abrupt effort to regain credibility on border enforcement before the 2024 election). Some liberals have gone so far as to question the desirability of high immigration levels on the merits, suggesting that mass migration exacerbates inequality and saps the prosperity of Americas working class. In this analysis, Democrats shouldnt merely crack down on unauthorized inflows or border chaos, but also admissions of lower-skill legal immigrants and not merely for politics sake, but for the countrys.This is wrong. In truth, of all the progressive movements causes, its plausible that increasing legal immigration is the most vital. Few things do more to increase humanitys aggregate prosperity than allowing people to migrate from less wealthy nations to the United States. And the immense benefits that immigrants derive from moving to the US do not come at the expense of native-born Americans. To the contrary, in the long term, immigration makes Americans more prosperous, while rendering the countrys retirement programs more secure. Precisely because immigration is so beneficial, however, its imperative for Democrats to forge a politically tenable approach to the issue. The party should neither embrace full-bore restrictionism nor project complacency about chaos at the border.Instead, Democrats must make American politics safe for mass immigration. Maintaining the partys recent pivot toward more aggressive border enforcement and less lenient asylum policies is likely necessary for achieving that goal. Immigration is extremely goodFew ideas are more central to progressivism than the notion that accidents of fate should not determine a persons life chances. Every social insurance program and civil rights bill aims to mitigate unearned disadvantage: the high health care costs of the chronically ill, the lost wages of those injured on the job, the discrimination suffered by marginalized social groups, and the economic precarity of all who werent born into wealth. One measure of a progressive policys value is, therefore, the degree to which it erodes inequities rooted in sheer luck. A separate measure is whether, in mitigating the misfortune of discrete groups, the policy also improves the well-being of the public as a whole. For example, increasing unemployment benefits amid a recession not only reduces the deprivation of the jobless but also promotes economic recovery by generating consumer demand.By these metrics, increasing immigration to the United States is plausibly the most valuable policy on the progressive agenda. After all, inequality is far greater at the global scale than the national one. The median worker in Haiti is far less prosperous than a low-income worker in the United States. Simply allowing the former to come to America will increase their material well-being by more than any politically plausible policy could increase the prosperity of a low-income American: In Haiti, the typical worker earns less than $1,800 a year. Let that laborer come to New York City, work full-time at the 2025 minimum wage, and they will earn more than $34,000, while also enjoying the benefits of far greater public safety and political stability than their home country presently affords.Haiti is an especially economically and politically troubled nation at the moment. But the vast majority of humanity lives in countries that are much poorer than the United States. Allowing most people from most foreign nations to become US citizens will make them dramatically more prosperous.And the immense benefits of immigration for the immigrant do not come at a commensurate cost to native-born Americans. If a Haitian worker comes to the US and sees their annual income increase by upward of $30,000 this does not cause any American to earn $30,000 less. No transfer of income has occurred. Although some mistakenly believe that immigration marginally reduces employment for native-born workers (more on this in a minute), no serious analyst argues that this trade-off is one-to-one, such that every newly hired immigrant means one newly unemployed native-born American.In reality, the Haitian immigrants income gain derives from the fact that their labor is more productive in the United States than it was back home, thanks to the nations technologically advanced and relatively efficient economic institutions. The Haitian immigrants arrival in the US therefore not only increases their prosperity but also the sum total of humanitys, as an hour of their labor now produces more economic value.Few deny that immigration is beneficial to both the vast majority of immigrants and economic growth. Some liberals, though, such as New York Times columnist David Leonhardt and author John Judis, insist that these facts dont settle the question of whether high levels of legal immigration are desirable. In their view, the American nation-state is primarily accountable to the interests of its citizenry, not to those of humanity writ large. And although low-skill immigration increases American economic growth, they insist that it also erodes the wages and bargaining power of the native-born working class.Leonhardt and Judis are undoubtedly right that, in practice, the US government cannot prioritize the interests of poor people abroad over American citizens and retain democratic legitimacy. But their account of the economics of immigration is simply wrong. To be sure, the notion that immigration aids employers at workers expense is intuitive. After all, American workers benefit from tight labor markets, in which businesses must bid against each other for a scarce pool of potential employees. Large inflows of foreign workers would seem to tilt the balance of power back toward business owners, especially if those immigrants hail from poor nations and, thus, have relatively low wage expectations. But there is a problem with this reasoning: The tightness of labor markets is not determined solely by the supply of workers. Demand for labor also matters. Immigrants expand the size of the labor force. But they are not automata who shut off the minute they clock out of their shifts; they are human beings who want and need to purchase goods and services. As a result, they both fill jobs and create them. Whats more, immigrants also make native-born workers more productive by complementing their skills and filling gaps in local labor markets.For these reasons, subtracting immigrants from an areas labor force does not reliably increase the bargaining power or prosperity of the remaining, native-born workers. Between 2008 and 2014, the US deported roughly 500,000 undocumented immigrants through the Secure Communities program. The policy reached different parts of the country at different times, and this provided economists with a natural experiment: By comparing counties subject to Secure Communities at a given time with counties that were as yet unaffected, they could gauge the labor market impacts of mass deportation. They found that when the government expelled undocumented immigrants from a country, native-born workers there tended to see lower wages and employment, likely due to falling consumer demand and job creation. This finding is not anomalous. Myriad other studies and meta-analyses have similarly found that immigrants do not generally reduce wages or job opportunities for native-born workers. They do, however, make Medicare and Social Security benefits easier to finance. Expanding legal immigration is therefore the progressive reform par excellence: It radically mitigates the disadvantages suffered by those born into poor or unstable countries, while making Americans more prosperous. Democrats must inevitably forswear some worthwhile policies, for the sake of political expediency. The party needs to pick its battles, and the fight for more legal immigration should be one of them. Why Democrats must stand for order at the borderWhile the substantive case for expanding legal immigration is strong, the political outlook for that project is less than bright at present, as the Gallup data cited above makes clear. Changing this reality will require Democrats to both win back power and cultivate a more permissive public mood toward immigration. Achieving either of those goals will likely require a commitment to combating irregular flows of unauthorized migrants across the southern border.This is not a novel proposition, of course. Conventional wisdom long held that progress on expanding legal admissions or securing legal status for longtime, undocumented residents of the US was contingent on establishing order at the border. This was the foundational premise of the push for comprehensive immigration reform under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In those years, immigration advocates rallied behind bipartisan bills that would have increased opportunities for legal admissions, provided legal status to millions of undocumented Americans, and ramped up border enforcement. This approach nearly delivered landmark change, with versions of comprehensive reform clearing the Senate but not the House in 2006 and 2013.Nevertheless, the effort failed. As the GOP took a hard right turn on immigration and prospects for bipartisan reform dimmed, progressive activists embraced more uncompromising stances on the issue. Through protest and lobbying the latter abetted by dubious opinion polling these advocates succeeded in pushing Democrats to the left on virtually all aspects of immigration policy. In 2016, Hillary Clinton pledged not to deport anyone but violent criminals and terrorists, while centering her campaign on a celebration of immigration and diversity. In 2019, at a Democratic primary debate, eight of the 10 presidential hopefuls onstage, including future nominee Kamala Harris, said they would favor decriminalizing illegal border crossings, a stance that put them at odds with two-thirds of US voters, according to a Marist poll taken at the time. When Joe Biden took office in 2021, he rolled back some of Trumps border enforcement policies, paused deportations, and expanded eligibility for asylum.In my view, these stances and the tolerant attitude toward disorderly migration they reflect are morally sound. Precisely because most workers in Latin America can greatly improve their living standards by coming to the United States, deterring them from crossing the nearly 2,000-mile southern US border requires acts of callousness and cruelty. Many have celebrated the Biden administrations remarkable success at reducing migrant inflows since June 2024, when his administration took a series of actions to limit eligibility for asylum and abet rapid deportations. But much of this success is attributable to a draconian change in Mexican policy. In recent months, at Americas encouragement, Mexico has taken to keeping migrants on a nightmarish carousel: Police forces intercept migrants in the north of the country and then bus them to middle-of-nowhere towns in Mexicos south. This enables the government to escape the financial and legal burdens of deporting migrants back to their home countries, while still preventing them from reaching the US southern border. Yet the policy also entails serially depositing desperate and often undernourished people in southern Mexican towns that have few resources with which to care for them. It isnt hard to see why someone would look at the suffering of these migrants and then at the economic benefits of immigration and conclude that there are worse things than disorder at the border.If this is a reasonable moral calculus, however, it is not a politically tenable one. The Biden-era surge in unauthorized border crossing erased two decades of leftward drift in the American publics attitudes toward immigration in Gallups data, while helping to propel an authoritarian nativist back into the White House. Some on the left argue that Democrats could have prevented this backlash through a more vigorous and forthright defense of immigration. In their view, by ceding any ground to restrictionist sentiment, Democrats validate the rights basic narrative about the danger posed by undocumented immigrants, thereby tilting the entire terrain of American politics rightward.The ideological convenience of this analysis renders it suspect on its face, and it does not hold up under scrutiny. At the national level, Democrats messaging on immigration may not be uniformly progressive. But in recent years, Democratic officials in blue cities have zealously defended vanguardist positions on immigration policy. In 2021, New York City provided payments of up to $15,600 to undocumented residents impacted by the pandemic. Meanwhile, throughout Trumps presidency, New York loudly refused to hand over undocumented immigrants arrested on suspicion of a criminal offense to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats in other blue states have similarly fought in word and deed for a vision of immigration policy that gives priority to humanitarian concerns. This did not stop voters in blue states from turning against immigration amid the Biden-era surge in asylum seekers. One 2023 poll found 58 percent of voters in the Empire State agreeing with the statement, New Yorkers have already done enough for new migrants and should now work to slow the flow of migrants to New York. By a 46 to 32 percent margin, meanwhile, respondents said that migrants had been a burden not a benefit to New York in recent decades. Polls have shown similar spikes in restrictionist sentiment in Illinois and California. And all three states swung hard against the Democratic Party in 2024. These backlashes could be mitigated through better economic policy. Resentment against migrants in New York City derives in part from the strain their arrival has put on social services and shelter space, in a city that was already struggling to care for its homeless. If the federal government provided more financial assistance to municipalities tasked with resettling large numbers of asylum seekers, such migrants would impose less of a fiscal burden. If New York had not engineered a housing shortage through restrictive zoning policy, it would be easier and cheaper for the city to house new arrivals. In general, combating all forms of artificial scarcity in housing, energy, medicine, and beyond is indispensable to creating a favorable environment for mass immigration.But so is preventing large surges of unauthorized immigration. This entails maintaining support for the various measures that Democrats already embraced over the past year: expediting the asylum process, increasing the legal standard for advancing a claim for protection, and increasing funding for border management agencies, among other things. Critically, the policies that enabled Biden to reduce unauthorized immigration in recent months werent uniformly restrictionist. The president did not merely deter migration, he also diverted it toward legal channels. Using his so-called parole authority, Biden expanded opportunities for immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the US on humanitarian visas. This led to a 99 percent decline in illegal border crossings by people from those nations. And although such legal immigration can also inspire backlash, it is significantly less fiscally burdensome and socially disruptive than irregular surges of asylum seekers, as immigrants who come to the US through the parole system generally have a legal right to work (which renders them less dependent on state aid) and American sponsors (who help integrate them into established communities). Getting tough on border enforcement makes progress possible, not certainBidens success in curbing unauthorized immigration during the final months of the 2024 campaign did not save Kamala Harriss candidacy. It does not follow, however, that Democrats could not have mitigated the public backlash against immigration and their party had the Biden administration done more to avert the surge in unauthorized migration before its terms 11th hour. There is no surefire way of overcoming the political obstacles to dramatically expanding legal immigration or securing legal status for longtime, undocumented Americans. Trump has turned the bulk of the GOP against these goals while nullifying the partys political incentives for pursuing them: Republicans now know that they can win a record share of the Hispanic vote without moderating on immigration.Projecting a commitment to border security and delivering a modicum of it once in office are not sufficient conditions for Democrats to progressively reform the American immigration system. But the Biden era indicates that they are necessary ones.Progressives are right to abhor the suffering of migrants who make long and perilous journeys in pursuit of material and physical security and whose presence in the US would, in the long run, make the nation more prosperous. But ignoring public opinion and acquiescing to chaotic surges in unauthorized migration is not a viable strategy for aiding immigrants. Rather, it is a recipe for nativist rule. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Its winter, which means its humidifier season. If you struggle with dry skin, allergies, or youre currently dealing with a cold, you might be leaving yours on all the time or youre scrolling through yet another humidifier review roundup to choose a model to purchase. Should you buy an ultrasonic or evaporative? Warm mist or cool? Should it be a top-fill design? Are all the parts dishwasher safe? How big of a tank should you look for?In a marketplace full of new-fangled, hyperspecific home gadgets, the humidifier is a classic appliance with modern(ish) incarnations available since the 1960s. Over 20 million were sold in the US in 2019, according to Statista, but theyve only grown more popular and sleeker in the last few years, as people have become more concerned with the quality of the air in their homes. According to Amazon, over 100,000 units of this popular humidifier were purchased in the past month.But while most of the sleek gizmos we love to buy during Black Friday sales exist to, in theory, optimize our lives, the humidifier adds a bunch of hassle taking care of it becomes another irritating chore in the never-ending wrangling of your household, requiring a thorough scouring every few days to ensure no mold or bacteria is growing. Theres no shortage of humidifier models on the market, but you might be hard-pressed to find one you genuinely love rather than merely tolerate. Those looking for buying advice online often qualify their query: How do I not only wade through the options to find a humidifier that works well for my space, but also one that isnt a complete pain to clean?The short answer is that there isnt a magical way to avoid humidifier maintenance. A humidifier is supposed to be full of liquid, and where theres moisture, mold and bacteria will grow.RelatedThe homebody economy, explainedWhats more, there are real dangers to misusing a humidifier. More research is needed on the long-term health impacts of using them, which is a little disturbing considering how commonplace it is as a household object. The worst mishap that might occur with a robot vacuum is that it runs over an unpleasant surprise your dog left on the floor. With humidifiers, you could be breathing in particulate matter that causes more serious health issues than the device purports to solve. Yet for how risky and frustrating they are, consumers remain obsessed with looking for, testing out, and debating what the least worst humidifiers on the market. Why we love to hate humidifiersThe humidifier, in its basic form, is extremely simple you can increase humidity simply by setting out a bowl of water near a radiator. (Whether this will make a meaningful difference is another matter.) Dry air can worsen any congestion youre dealing with, sap moisture from your skin, exacerbate your asthma, and even hurt your house plants. Humidity falls in the winter because the colder the air, the less water vapor it can hold. But its not just the frigid conditions outside that contribute to unbearably dry air in the winter. Its the heat that youre using in your domicile that ends up often reducing the humidity, says Allen St. John, senior tech editor at Consumer Reports, noting that he sometimes turns down the heat to bump up the humidity rather than using a separate machine to do so. (If you dont control your own heat, this may not be an option.)Older humidifiers often looked like terrifying contraptions and were used mostly in hospital settings to help people with respiratory conditions. In the latter half of the 20th century, they started being advertised as consumer-grade products to use at home. Today there are three types available: the ultrasonic, which uses vibrations to turn water into mist; evaporative, which uses a fan to help evaporate water into the air; and the warm mist humidifier, which boils water to produce steam. Most of the stuff thats on the market tends to be ultrasonic at this point, St. John says. Theyre generally easier to use, and typically quieter.But all kinds of humidifiers come with trade-offs. Ultrasonics appear to emit a lot more particulate matter than evaporatives do (more on that later); evaporatives can not only be louder, but might also require you to buy and replace a filter or wick. With warm mist models, you run the risk of scalding yourself (or a pet or child in the house) if you knock over the humidifier. None are particularly easy to maintain: The Environmental Protection Agency advises cleaning a humidifier every three days, which requires taking it apart and getting into every little crevice to remove grime, and emptying the tank daily to reduce the growth of microorganisms.You dont want to leave a humidifier around thats just kind of wet, St. John says. The area around the machine should be wiped down if theres moisture around it. Its also important, though, to be careful about what cleaning agents you use and how well you rinse the humidifier before turning it on again you dont want to inhale any harmful chemicals. In South Korea, humidifier disinfectants that were widely available until 2011 have been linked to the deaths of over 1,800 people.Given how frustrating they can be to own, people often have impassioned opinions on humidifiers, according to Thom Dunn, who writes Wirecutters humidifier guide. Its a perennial thing Im always hearing reader feedback about it, he tells Vox. A few years ago, there was a considerable amount of reader complaints and discourse around the fact that Wirecutter had named the Honeywell HCM-350 humidifier, currently $67.99 on Amazon at time of publication, their top pick for several years. The humidifier guide is easily one of the most volatile reader comment sections, Dunn says. The team eventually removed the HCM-350 from their recommendations. The top pick now is the $109.99 Levoit LV600S. Unsurprisingly, several recent comments disagree with the choice. One of the latest comment reads: I think its crazy the Honeywell HCM 350 is no longer the top pick. (McSweeneys even lampooned how even the most recommended humidifier will inevitably disappoint.)This constant debate about the least-annoying humidifier may also be fueled by the fact that its a product some replace every few years. Many models are relatively inexpensive, and its easy to get to the point of, I didnt really clean it, now this thing looks like a science experiment, St. John says.In the introvert economy, humidifiers are becoming more popular (and slightly less ugly)Theres another obvious reason humidifiers cause so much consumer disdain: Many of them are big, clunky, and frankly, ugly. The good news is that the age of marginally more attractive design may be upon us. Weve already seen the premiumization of kitchen gadgets, from toaster ovens to espresso machines, and a few years back, window air conditioners started getting the minimalist edit too. Now, more brands are giving the humidifier the millennial-sleek update thanks to a broader air care wellness trend which includes not just humidifiers, but candles, diffusers, air purifiers thats turning anything that treats your indoor air into a premium product that should also blend into your home decor.It does go along with a certain influencer wellness aesthetic. Thom Dunn, Wirecutter writerSome consumers are shelling out a lot of money for these prettier, more expensive models that can cost upward of $150 while not holding as much water or humidifying as well as experts recommended picks. It does go along with a certain influencer wellness aesthetic, Dunn says.Consumers with discretionary income are investing more money into creature comforts for the home in general. One of the things weve seen that sort of started with the pandemic and that I dont think has completely disappeared is something we refer to as the introvert economy, says Amy Eisinger, head of content at the wellness digital publication Well+Good. People are investing in really making their space feel like a sanctuary. Some are even installing infrared saunas in their homes, Eisinger notes. Even if youre not quite bed rotting, chances are youre spending more time at home these days than, say, a decade ago and what we spend money on may be shifting alongside that fact. Theres a whole TikTok genre advertisements featuring a woman coming home from work and embarking on a convoluted ritual using niche smart home gadgets: She sanitizes her clothes with a UV light wand in the foyer, runs her earrings through a jewelry cleaner, washes vegetables for dinner with some kind of ultrasonic device, gives herself a foot bath while watching a show on her phone, and pours herself a glass of something stiff from a rotating decanter. Everything is clean and nothing hurts. Presumably, in such a world of ultra-modern optimization, your indoor air is always the perfect humidity, too.The potential danger of humidifiers may not outweigh its benefitsThe real issue with humidifiers isnt just the annoyance of taking care of them, though, its that they can be a serious health hazard.What most people dont know about ultrasonic humidifiers is that they will create a lot of small particulate matter, says Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator at McGill Universitys Office for Science and Society. They aerosolize minerals that are present in the water, which means the purity of the water youre using in a humidifier can drastically impact your homes air quality.A few years ago, University of Alberta scientists published research showing that ultrasonic humidifiers using both filtered and unfiltered tap water released high concentrations of particulate matter seen during extreme air pollution events in major metropolises. A 2023 paper published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found that safe-to-drink tap water used in ultrasonic humidifiers could spew out dangerous levels of metals that are more harmful inhaled than when ingested, such as manganese. In short, using anything but distilled water in your humidifier means you could be inhaling a lot of stuff you probably dont want in your lungs. (Evaporative humidifiers can also emit particulate matter, but to a lesser extent.)The EPA recommends using only distilled water in humidifiers, but acquiring large enough quantities of it cheaply is easier said than done. To be clear, boiling water is not the same as distilling it, and bottled drinking water isnt usually distilled either. Distillation requires boiling water into a vapor and leaving behind any impurities, and then taking that vapor and recondensing it back into a liquid, Jarry says.How much distilled water youll need depends on how dry the air currently is and the size of the room youre humidifying: A small space under 400 square feet might need a machine with a 1.5 gallon tank, according to CNET, while a bigger space over 1,000 square feet could require a 3-gallon one. Two five-gallon barrels of distilled water sell for $42.99 on Amazon at time of publication; a much cheaper option might be to buy a water distiller for your home, or signing up for a distilled water delivery service, but that still adds another step and expense to using your humidifier.Its unclear how much public awareness there is about the harm of particulates released by humidifiers. According to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, many Americans have misperceptions about the purity of tap water. A third of respondents to a survey thought that tap water was sterile, and a quarter said they used it for humidifiers. (An unscientific Reddit poll on r/NewParents a few years ago shows the majority of 228 respondents saying they used tap water in humidifiers as well.)The big question mark around the safety of these popular products adds yet another hurdle for consumers half-heartedly trawling the market for a humidifier that wont make them miserable. The perfect all-in-one portable humidifier that distills water for you, cleans itself, and sings a lullaby for you at night does not yet exist. (The Dyson air purifier and humidifier combo does, but its regular price is $999.) If youre not prepared for the commitment of bringing a humidifier into your home, the healthiest option for both your lungs and your sanity might just be to opt out.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:

Is a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas coming soon? It depends who you ask. Since last week, multiple news reports have indicated there has been a breakthrough in negotiations between the two sides. But other reports indicate there are still large gaps to overcome, and the exact nature of the conditions necessary to get to a ceasefire and hostage deal remains murky.If one does emerge, however, one person will try to take credit for it: Donald J. Trump.On Monday, the president-elect held a press conference where he echoed remarks his account posted on Truth Social threatening all hell to pay if hostages held in Gaza were not released by the time he took office.Ill be very available on January 20th, he said. And well see. As you know, I gave a warning that if these hostages arent back home by that date, all hells gonna break out.Since the conflict erupted on October 7, 2023, a comprehensive hostage deal and ceasefire has remained elusive (though a pause in the Israeli offensive in November 2023 allowed for the release of 50 hostages taken on October 7 in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners and more aid to Gaza). This week, however, a senior Palestinian negotiator told the BBC that talks are in a decisive and final phase and both Israeli and American officials were reportedly traveling to participate in ceasefire talks in Doha, Qatar. Reporting by the Wall Street Journal and NBC suggests that Trumps decision to insert himself into negotiations has helped to push Hamas toward a deal. To understand what effect a looming Trump presidency might be having on the talks and the future of the conflict, Today, Explained sat down with Steven A. Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Cook spoke with Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the prospects for a ceasefire, Trumps track record on Israel, and how Trump might approach Israel and the ongoing conflict during his second term. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. Theres much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.Noel KingHow did Trump approach Israel in his first term?Steven CookWell, Trump was a very pro-Israel president, which is saying something because most presidents actually are very pro-Israel. He moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, [a change] that had been law since the late 1990s but no president had ever acted on it. He recognized Israels sovereignty over the Golan Heights and turned a blind eye to the worst excesses of the Israeli government when it came to settlements in the West Bank. Noel KingDonald Trump is always being buffeted by two competing narratives. One of them is that things in the Middle East are very hard to get done, to the degree that, often, nothing gets done. And the other is Donald Trump just gets things done. Was it hard for Trump to get done on Israel what he did in his first term?Steven CookWell, no, because he basically did it by presidential fiat. First, as I said, the move of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was something that was a law that Congress passed, I believe, in 1998. So it just was a matter of the president saying, Im going to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Previous presidents had said, for national security reasons, we dont want to prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Therefore, were going to keep things as they are, even though we have the right to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump said, No, Im going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He didnt get anything from the Israelis for it, which was likely a diplomatic mistake, but it was really something that he was doing to placate his evangelical base, which [wants] very, very strong US support for Israel and maximalist Israeli policies. Noel KingThe world has arguably gotten more complex since Donald Trumps last term. Russia, Ukraine, October 7th, every nation that was pulled in after October 7th. Do you think Trump and his foreign policy team recognize things may be more complicated this time around?Steven CookYoud like to think that they do, that theyre in touch with reality. Some of the statements that Trump has made about the region would suggest that he thinks hes just going to pick up where he left off when he reluctantly left office in January 2021. Hes been talking about expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. That has been greatly complicated as a result of the war in the Gaza Strip. The Saudi price for normalization has gone up steeply since the war began. And now the Saudis are demanding an actual two-state solution, something that the Israelis are not prepared to even entertain at this moment.The president also seems to think that he can just say there needs to be a hostage deal and there will be a ceasefire and hostage deal in the Gaza Strip. I think he, at least in his statements, doesnt recognize how dramatically different the region is from when he left office.Noel KingDo any of his appointments reflect the major changes the region has undergone?Steven CookThe national security adviser-designate, Congressman Mike Walz, is someone who is a very pro-Israel personality. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), whos been designated to be the secretary of state, also has very strong pro-Israel credentials. And of course, his [designate for] UN permanent representative is Elise Stefanik, the congresswoman from New York, who made a name for herself for being pugnaciously pro-Israel, as well as taking on elite college presidents in those famous hearings after the October 7 attacks. And then there is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, whos been named US ambassador to Israel, who is a very, very pro-Israel figure. He doesnt recognize the Palestinian people as a nation. And he doesnt regard Israels settlement in the West Bank as illegal. This is an administration that is very pro-Israel. But of course, these people may end up just being implementers, bit players in what President Trump decides to do. And based on his first term, what he decides to do is what his gut tells him. He sees himself as a great negotiator, and I think at least on the two-state solution and on Irans nuclear program, that self-perception as a great negotiator and dealmaker may cause tension with an Israeli government that has other views on these two issues.Noel KingWhat do we know of the truth about what Trump and Netanyahu think of each other?Steven CookWell, I read Jared Kushners memoir of his time in the White House so that no one else had to. It was truly a dreadful read. But one of the things I learned was that with Netanyahu and Trump, there was a very significant trust deficit between the two leaders. Trump was always concerned that Netanyahu was going to double-cross him and in those series of elections that the Israelis had while Trump was in office, Trump was actually rooting for Benny Gantz, who was the former IDF chief of staff who leads in an opposition party. Netanyahu was always worried that Trump would run afoul of Israels interests, like sit down and negotiate with the Iranians over a new nuclear deal. Add to that the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu relatively quickly called President Joe Biden when his election was confirmed in November 2020, [which] angered President Trump. So ever since Trumps reelection, Netanyahu has made a real effort to call Trump, placate Trump, what have you. But I still think that that trust deficit remains because Trump has a different view of things like the two-state solution and the Iran nuclear program than the Israelis do.Noel KingIt is Tuesday afternoon as we speak and were hearing a ceasefire may be near. When do you think well get a ceasefire? Steven CookIve been listening to columnists and others telling me that a ceasefire is imminent since at least February 2024. And what I know is that Hamas, and the person of [former Hamas leader] Yahya Sinwar, who the Israelis killed a number of months ago, was not interested in a ceasefire, believing that Hamas was winning the conflict because theres a total war, and even though the Israelis were doing a lot of damage to Hamass cadres in the Gaza Strip, Israels international legitimacy was suffering greatly as a result of the conflict. And for Yahya Sinwar and others within Hamas, this was one of the goals, to undermine Israels legitimacy in the international order. And then, of course, on the Israeli side, the settlers did not want a ceasefire. They want the quote-unquote total destruction of Hamas to clear the way for the Israelis to resettle the Gaza Strip. So there was no real incentive for a ceasefire. Things have changed significantly since then, however. The Israelis have done a tremendous amount of damage to Hezbollah, Irans primary proxy in Lebanon, to the point that Hezbollah has been forced to cut a deal with Israel and theres now a ceasefire in Lebanon. That leaves Hamas standing alone, which means Hamas now needs to make a decision: Will it save the remnants of itself by cutting a deal with the Israelis, or will it fight on believing that the continued fight will damage Israel internationally and that theyre going to play the long game? Some of the indications coming from Israeli ministers and others, the Egyptians and others, are that Hamas has dropped a major sticking point, which is that they demanded that all Israeli forces leave the Gaza Strip. So that may pave the way towards a ceasefire and a hostage exchange. Noel KingThere are a million reasons to want a ceasefire here, not least of which is the humanitarian catastrophe, which has unfolded for more than a year. But in the blunt calculus of politics, if we do get a ceasefire before Donald Trump is inaugurated, who gets the win? Trump? Biden? Will they fight over it?Steven CookCertainly Trump will claim it. The Biden team will also claim it. Theyve been working at this since the very beginning. I would say that the credit goes to the IDF the IDF smashed Hezbollah, something that no Western analysts believe that they could do without utter destruction of Israeli population centers. And so once Hezbollah sued for a ceasefire, Hamas really was alone and without any recourse whatsoever. Of course Donald Trump will claim it. Thats why hes been posting on Truth Social and said in his first press conference that there would be hell to pay if the hostages werent returned by the time hes inaugurated. Hes essentially setting it up so he takes the credit for 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:

A French man who admitted to drugging and raping his wife repeatedly over a period of 10 years, and inviting other men to join him in the assaults, was found guilty of aggravated rape and other crimes Thursday in a case that has sparked a furious reckoning over the culture of sexual violence in the European country and around the world.The man, 72-year-old Dominique Pelicot, was given the maximum sentence of 20 years for his crimes, which included filming the sexual assaults, and distributing sexual images of both his wife and daughter without their consent.Fifty other men were also found guilty of crimes in connection with the case.The case has shocked and captivated the French public, in part because of the horrific details and because of the refusal on the part of the primary victim, Pelicots wife, Gisle Pelicot, to keep the awful details of what happened to her in the shadows. The case is sparking a greater debate about marital rape and consent in France. But its also reflective of similar policy issues in the US, where activists have only just recently been able to reform laws that made it difficult to prosecute marital rape. Until recently, most US states had exemptions that made it hard to charge people accused of marital rape with a crime. An American woman with an eerily similar experience to Pelicots helped change all of that.What happened to Gisle Pelicot?In 2020, Dominique Pelicot was arrested after being caught filming up a womans skirt at a grocery store. Police confiscated his phone and laptop and found an extensive collection of videos featuring Pelicot and several other men sexually assaulting his wife while she appeared unconscious. Gisle Pelicot had health problems related to the druggings and assaults, but was unaware of what was happening to her until the police showed her videos of the assaults.Gisle waived the anonymity that is customarily granted to sexual violence victims in France, arguing from the start that she had nothing to be ashamed of. As she told the court during her trial: I wanted all woman victims of rape not just when they have been drugged, rape exists at all levels I want those women to say: Mrs. Pelicot did it, we can do it too. When youre raped there is shame, and its not for us to have shame, its for them.By refusing the closed door, Gisle Pelicot gave a historical dimension to the trial, showing the existence of marital rape, the banality of the rapists, and the extent of chemical submission, Fondation des Femmes, a prominent womens rights organization, said in a statement sent to Vox in French. At the same time, the group also criticized the court for giving shorter sentences to Dominique Pelicots co-defendants. The fight against impunity is far from over.By refusing to stay hidden, Gisle Pelicot held up a mirror to some of the darkest corners of society, and in particular rape culture: Here was an ordinary woman, a grandmother, who suffered unbearable sexual violence at the hands of the person she loved and trusted. Here were a number of seemingly ordinary men a nurse, an IT guy, a journalist, and truck drivers who participated in the crime. What did it say that so many of them had been willing to participate in such a horrific act? RelatedA Me Too moment in FranceBy allowing her story to be told, Gisle has become an icon in Europe. A group of protesters began gathering at the court each day and cheering her as she entered the trial. Shes appeared on the digital cover of Vogue Germany and been depicted as a larger-than-life mural in several cities. Thousands of protesters have also taken to the streets to demand the government take sexual violence more seriously, with some protesters arguing that French law, which forbids rape by violence, constraint, threats or surprise but does not mention consent, needs to be updated to include that rape is also sexual conduct that isnt necessarily violent but is done without permission. (Not all French feminists agree, with some arguing that the term puts the onus on the victim to prove she didnt consent.)In late November, just days after the protests across France, Equality Minister Salima Saa introduced a series of proposals meant to raise awareness and improve support services to victims of both sexual and domestic violence. They include expanding the number of hospitals where women could report incidents of sexual violence. She also announced a new hotline meant to help victims navigate the medical and legal processes when reporting an assault.In an interview, Saa said there would be a before and after the Pelicot case, just as there was a before and after the Me Too movement. French survivors of sexual violence have argued that the Me Too movement never impacted French culture the way it did in the United States. As Voxs Li Zhou wrote in September: The Pelicot case is just the latest to raise awareness of sexual abuses in France this year, after multiple cases of sexual misconduct by prominent actors and directors came to light.Now, France seems to be in the midst of a revolution of its own. French director Christophe Ruggia is currently on trial for allegations that he groomed and sexually assaulted actor Adle Haenel, a star of the 2019 film Portrait of a Lady on Fire, when she was a child. The trial started in December. Another sexual assault trial against Grard Depardieu, one of the countrys most celebrated actors, is set to begin in March after being postponed over the fall. Depardieu has been accused of assault by more than a dozen women.A reckoning on marital rape in the USThough the Pelicot trial is sparking a cultural reckoning over sexual assault years after Me Too, the case in some ways echoes a reform movement thats been quietly happening in the United States in recent years. French feminists have argued that the countrys proudly libertine culture made people less open to the Me Too movement than in the US, whose culture is comparatively more conservative. But in fact, the US has had to reckon with marital rape, too. In the United States, marital rape has been explicitly illegal in every state since 1993, the product of a feminist activist movement that successfully pressed each state legislature to update their laws. But until recently, a number of states had exemptions which made it difficult to prosecute marital rape. In some cases, people could not be charged if the person accusing them of rape was their spouse. In other cases, they were exempt if the person was incapacitated if, for example, theyd been drugged.In a case with haunting similarities to Pelicots, in 2017, a Minnesota woman named Jenny Teeson discovered videos during a divorce from her then-husband that portrayed him raping her while drugged and unconscious. When Teeson brought the evidence to the police, she was shocked to discover that they couldnt arrest him because even though marital rape was illegal, a different state law included a voluntary relationship defense that forbid prosecution of someone for rape if the complainant was their spouse at the time. With the help of state lawmakers, Teeson began advocating for the Minnesota law to be reformed, and in 2019, Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill eliminating the voluntary relationship defense and explicitly making marital rape illegal. At the time, according to the New York Times, the majority of states had similar loopholes that effectively legalized some forms of marital rape. Since Teeson raised awareness about the issue, other states have moved to reform their laws: Ohio closed its marital rape loophole earlier this year. Today, most states have closed loopholes, but a few remain in states like Michigan, where spouses cannot be prosecuted if their partner is mentally incapable or under the age of 16. Lawyers who work with victims of sexual violence say that removing exemptions that allow people to get away with marital rape are critical. A defense should never exist solely based on a relationship, Jennifer Long, the CEO of AEquitas, a nonprofit organization that helps develop strategies for prosecuting crimes of gender-based violence, told Vox in an email. The questions raised by the Pelicot trial arent just relevant to France and the US, either and that may be why the trial has become a major news story around the world. Its time that the macho, patriarchal society that trivializes rape changes, Gisle Pelicot said at the trial. Her words have reverberated far beyond her home country, implicating all a culture of violence that persists around the world. 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:

Editors note, December 19, 12 pm ET: Dominique Pelicot, the ex-husband of Gisle Pelicot, has been found guilty of aggravated rape by a French judge. Dominique had previously confessed to drugging and raping his ex-wife and inviting strangers into their home to rape her. Fifty other men were also found guilty of related crimes.Read Voxs Marin Cogan for more on the verdict, and the implications it has for a reckoning over marital rape in France and the US.A horrifying sexual assault case playing out in France is adding to a larger French reckoning over abuse toward women. The case centers on 71-year-old Dominique Pelicot, who is accused of drugging and raping his wife, Gisle Pelicot, and inviting dozens of other men to sexually assault her while she was unconscious. Dominique Pelicot who has confessed to raping his wife repeatedly over the course of a decade is now on trial, along with 50 other defendants, who are also accused of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Some of these defendants have admitted guilt, while others have denied it. During his testimony, Dominique Pelicot said he and all the men involved are guilty. I maintain that I am a rapist, like those in this room, Dominique Pelicot said. They all knew her condition before they came; they knew everything. They cannot say otherwise.Although she had the option of a private trial, Gisle Pelicot decided to make the proceedings public in order to support and raise awareness for other victims of similar crimes. I speak for all women who are drugged and dont know about it, I do it on behalf of all women who will perhaps never know, Gisle Pelicot said of her case. In total, police have used roughly 20,000 images her husband took of the assaults to determine that 72 men had been involved in raping her from 2011 to 2020. The Pelicot case is roiling France and comes as the country continues to grapple with accountability regarding sexual misconduct toward women. As the New York Times reported this spring, the Me Too movement had previously stalled in Frances film industry, and has found new momentum this year after prominent actor and director Judith Godrche spoke out. French writers and actors have also previously noted that the countrys attitudes toward sexual freedom have distinguished it from the US in how condemning sexual misconduct is treated. French attitudes toward morality and sex have historically always been different to the US, journalist Agns Poirier previously told the BBC. But its been brewing for years and it feels that 2024 is different.What the case isDominique Pelicots assaults on his wife were first discovered by police in November 2020, after he was initially investigated for taking photos up womens skirts at a supermarket in southeastern France, where the couple lived. After he was caught taking the photos, police searched Pelicots computer and found a folder titled Abuses on a related USB drive. In it, they discovered thousands of photos and videos of Pelicot and other men raping his wife while she was unconscious. My world fell apart, Gisle Pelicot said after police informed her of their discovery. The officers findings followed years of Gisle Pelicot experiencing memory lapses, hair loss, and weight loss, so much so she feared that she might be developing Alzheimers or another serious illness. During that time, her husband had been drugging her regularly with a combination of medications, including the anti-anxiety drug Temesta, which can act like a sedative. While Gisle Pelicot was unconscious, Dominique Pelicot invited a number of men to their home so that they could rape her. Gisle Pelicot has emphasized that she did not have any knowledge of these attacks, and did not feign unconsciousness as some of the defendants have suggested. Dominique Pelicot found the men via a messaging board called Without their knowledge on the now-shuttered website Coco, which was known for postings that involved illegal activities. On the site, Dominique Pelicot solicited men to assault his wife, giving them specific instructions, including not wearing perfume or smoking, to avoid detection. According to Dominique Pelicot, the men were active participants in the crime: They came looking for me. I was asked, I said yes. They accepted, they came. I did not handcuff anybody to make them come to my place.The identities of these defendants havent been revealed, though authorities note that they range from the ages of 26 to 74, that many have partners, and that they come from a wide spectrum of backgrounds, including firefighters, journalists, and soldiers. In their search of his computer, police also found naked photos of Dominique and Gisle Pelicots daughter, Caroline Darian; Dominique Pelicot claimed during his testimony that the photos werent his and that he believed they were of someone else. Whats happened so farGisle and Dominique Pelicot, as well as Darian, all took the stand in recent weeks, and offered harrowing testimony about the assaults. Frankly, these are scenes of horror for me, Gisle Pelicot said of the videos and photos her husband took to document the rapes. They treat me like a rag doll.Prior to learning of the attacks, Gisle Pelicot had said that she had believed that she and her husband of roughly 50 years had been a close couple. Dominique Pelicot has admitted the abuse and also told a psychologist that he did it because Gisle Pelicot had rejected swinging, or sleeping with other people outside their marriage. He added during the trial that he believes a sexual assault he says he experienced as a child also contributed to his perversion.Gisle Pelicot says the decision to release her identity and to speak publicly about the case was intended to show that survivors shouldnt be ashamed of the abuse theyve suffered. Handling the case anonymously is what her attackers would have wanted, her lawyers said. Darian also described the horror she felt upon learning what her father had done, calling him the worst sexual predator of the last 20 years. Both emphasized fears that they wouldnt be able to regain any sense of stability or safety in relationships. I no longer have an identity. I dont know if Ill ever rebuild myself, Gisle Pelicot said. The defendants have been charged with aggravated rape or attempted rape, with many facing 20 years in prison if convicted. The trial is set to continue until December as the defendants make their testimony in groups. How the case factors into larger movements in FranceThe Pelicot case is just the latest to raise awareness of sexual abuses in France this year, after multiple cases of sexual misconduct by prominent actors and directors came to light. Since February, several high-profile French actresses, including Godrche, have spoken about being sexually assaulted in their teens by film directors. Notably, Godrche was invited to make remarks about this problem at the Cesar Awards, the French equivalent of the Oscars, and was received with a standing ovation. After years in which the American #MeToo movement gained traction while in France it languished, Rokhaya Diallo, a French journalist, wrote of Godrche for the Washington Post, this reception signaled that perhaps the larger culture here is finally ready to push back.Such shifts come as France has been more resistant to confronting sexual abuses in the same way the US has, with some French commentators dubbing the #MeToo movement the latest extension of puritanical American culture. But Godrches speech and the Pelicot case, as well multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against famous French actor Grard Depardieu, have put a new spotlight on the subject. Womens rights advocates have also urged lawmakers to add the term consent into the legal definition of rape, a move that French President Emmanuel Macron has said he supports. Currently, French law defines rape as an act of sexual penetration committed on a person, with violence, coercion, threat, or surprise.While there is still perhaps more skepticism in France than in the US about the legitimacy of sexual assault and sexual harassment, these attitudes are changing fast, especially as a younger generation of women and French feminists and their male allies are willing to confront these issues head-on, Laura Frader, a professor of history emerita at Northeastern University who studies gender attitudes in Europe, told Vox. The Pelicot case is certain to contribute to this trend.Update, September 17, 5:15 pm ET: This story, originally published on September 9, has been update with the details of Dominique Pelicots testimony. 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:

Over the summer, a story circulated across news outlets claiming that eating plant-based burgers led to heart disease. New research, the Washington Post reported in June, found eating plant-derived foods that are ultra-processed such as meat substitutes, fruit juices, and pastries increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease, early death, the New York Post declared. There was just one problem: The narrative was totally fake. The claim emerged from a study on plant-based ultra-processed foods by a team of nutrition researchers at the University of So Paulo and Imperial College London. Using data from a sample of 118,397 people in the UK who had reported what they ate over at least two days, the paper found that increased consumption of ultra-processed plant foods was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular disease and premature death, while eating non-ultra-processed plants like fruits and vegetables was linked to better health outcomes. But plant-based meats were virtually absent from the study: Just 0.2 percent of calories across the sample came from meat alternatives. The bulk of the plant-based ultra-processed calories instead came from what the authors describe as industrialised packaged breads, pastries, buns, and cakes, and biscuits, better known in the US as cookies foods that have little to do with plant-based meats or other specialty vegan products. The new generation of vegan burgers, including Impossible and Beyond burgers, did not yet exist when the data was collected between 2009 and 2012. With such a small contribution, we cant draw any meaningful conclusions about plant-based meat alternatives specifically, University of So Paulo researcher Fernanda Rauber, lead author of the study, told me in an email. That makes sense. Not many people, after all, regularly eat vegan meat alternatives. So why did the media focus on plant-based meats? The answer is bigger than just one misreported study. It connects to deeper tensions within the science of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), a relatively recent category in nutrition research used to describe packaged foods with dubious-sounding ingredients not typically used in household kitchens. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trumps pick to lead US health policy, promises to crack down on ultra-processed foods and has called plant-based meats instruments of corporate control over our food system and humanity. And its not just RFK Jr. and his MAHA supporters. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), too, has recently called for regulating UPFs. Last week, however, the scientific panel that advises the creation of the federal dietary guidelines concluded that there was limited evidence on UPFs health effects and that few studies were designed and conducted well. The supposed danger of ultra-processed foods has resonated among the general public in the last several years, tapping into anxieties about industrial modernity and a sense that were being poisoned by big food companies. It really responds to this feeling that a lot of consumers have, which is that the food industry is not protecting their health, Aviva Musicus, science director for the health policy advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, told me. Consumers are right about that: The American food environment is unhealthy and disease-promoting, and the food industry bears much of the blame. But ultra-processed foods a framework so broad that it borders on useless, as Oxford nutrition researcher Nicola Guess argued in the New York Times this week does little to clarify the reasons why. Taken at face value, it could even steer consumers away from healthier, more planet-friendly plant-based foods. What happened with that study and why the ultra-processed concept is so confusingJournalists have a responsibility to verify the facts of any research they cover. But the framing of that University of So PauloImperial College study, and the promotional materials associated with it, might have made it easy for reporters to misunderstand what the research really found.A news release from Imperial College London led with a photo of plant-based burgers, sausages, and meatballs, as one nutrition researcher not associated with the study pointed out at the time, and the first example the release mentions of ultra-processed plant foods is plant-based meat. Many plant-based foods, including meat-free alternatives such as some sausages, burgers and nuggets, can be classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs), despite often being marketed as healthy options, the release reads. Thats neither a fair representation of the research nor of plant-based meats relatively small role in most diets. The use of these examples, Rauber told me, are technically correct because they do fall into the ultra-processed plant-based group. That said, these foods contributed very little to the overall calories in our study, she acknowledged. I probably wouldnt have chosen that specific photo to illustrate the findings, since our study examined broader dietary patterns comparing ultra-processed plant-based foods with their non-ultra-processed counterparts not specific food categories. But press teams often need concrete examples for clarity, and we understand the medias role in shaping how findings are presented.Things get weirder when you dig into how the study defined ultra-processed meat alternatives. Included on that list are tofu and tempeh, soybean-based foods that have been used in East and Southeast Asian cuisines for centuries. They bear little to no resemblance to products like Impossible and Beyond burgers.This fact, more than anything else about the study, set off my BS detector. Ultra-processed foods researchers categorize foods according to the Nova classification, which consists of four tiers, going from least to most processed: Group one, which includes unprocessed or minimally processed foods, like whole fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans and legumes, nuts, milk, and cuts of meat.Group two, or processed culinary ingredients, including cooking oils, butter, lard, sugar, and salt. Group three, or processed foods, often made by combining group one and group two ingredients into things like homemade breads, desserts, sauts, and other dishes. Group four, or ultra-processed foods, defined as formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes, including dyes, flavors, emulsifiers, certain sugars like fructose, and other ingredients rarely or never found in home kitchens. Depending on how you interpret these categories, tofu probably belongs in group three, and tempeh, which is just fermented soybeans, may belong in group one. Neither of them fit the ultra-processed category. Foods with added gluten, too, have been arbitrarily slotted into category four by the creators of the Nova classification, although gluten has a long history as a meat alternative (known as seitan) in East Asian cuisines. Not only can you use it in your home kitchen, but you can make it yourself from flour.If youre confused, dont feel bad some of the worlds top nutrition experts are, too. You look at these papers, and its still very hard to pin down what the definition [of ultra-processed] really is, Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard, told me. Its a concept prone to illogical free association, lumping together Cheetos with ultra-healthy fermented beans. Asked why tofu and tempeh were classified this way, Rauber said the dietary questionnaire filled out by people in the dataset grouped together tofu, tempeh, and soya mince, also known as textured vegetable protein (a UPF, but one thats a perfectly reasonable source of protein and fiber made after the fat has been removed from soybeans in the production of soybean oil). While plain tofu itself might not be considered ultra-processed, we observed that many options available on the market at the time of data collection contained natural flavourings, thickeners like guar gum, and other ingredients that align with the Nova definition of UPF, she wrote. Thats true of some flavored tofus though the addition of an ingredient like guar gum wouldnt much impact their nutritional properties. Added sugar, however, definitely would but sugar is not an ultra-processed ingredient, according to the Nova classification, unless it comes in the form of something like high-fructose corn syrup, which is.This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletterSign up here for Future Perfects biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more.Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com!For the most part, the UPF category targets ingredients that have only come into use with modern food science and industrial technology. Without a doubt, many foods that meet the ultra-processed criteria are bad for us, and were better off eating mostly unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Processed meat is classified as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization because of the specific harms of that type of processing. UPFs like Twinkies and Oreos are unhealthy because theyve been processed in a way that strips important nutrients and adds super tasty, health-damaging components like sugar things that are well-established in nutrition science, without reference to the concept of ultra-processing.The relevant question about a novel scientific concept is not whether it happens to correlate with stuff we already know is true, but whether it adds something genuinely new to our knowledge, without also being wrong about a bunch of other things, as New York University environmental scientist Matthew Hayek pointed out to me. UPF, at least so far, doesnt seem to clear that bar it casts a net that manages to be overbroad while excluding some unhealthy forms of processing that have been around longer. Meanwhile, the ultra-processed framework has needlessly cast aspersions on foods that are perfectly fine (like store-brought 100 percent whole-grain bread with some added gluten generally still a better choice than less processed white bread) and that can make it easier to enjoy unprocessed whole foods (like MSG, another ingredient I use at home). On the Nova scale, homemade soup is a 1 unless you use a bouillon cube, in which case it catapults to a 4, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel wrote earlier this year.These arbitrary categorizations can make it harder to make informed comparisons between foods. Some of the plant-based alternatives to meat are quite a bit healthier, it looks like, than the actual beef or pork that people are consuming. Its a big step in a healthier direction, a huge step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Willett said, citing meats high carbon footprint.Beyond Meat, which has recently switched the fat source in many of its products from coconut and canola oils to avocado oil, fares particularly well against beef, with much lower saturated fat, lots of protein, iron, and even a bit of fiber. Would it be better to eat an unprocessed source of plant protein, like beans? Sure. Minimally processed foods are almost always the optimal choice, Willett said.I wouldnt eat Beyond burgers every day, much like it would not be a good idea to eat a beef burger every day. But theres no reason to be afraid of them. What this means in the real worldHaving said all that: I get it. It feels intuitive to think there is something fundamentally not right about ultra-processed foods. I can understand why people would be freaked out by a vegan burger that looks and tastes like meat. I shudder at the junk that was normal for kids to eat when I was growing up Gushers, Fruit Rollups, Coke and think: That is not food. (Though someone might have said the same thing the first time sugarcane was processed into granulated sugar, and theyd have a point.) It makes sense to have humility about how much we have yet to learn about the impacts of the sweeping changes to our diets that have taken place over the last century. We do need more research into how specific food additives might contribute to specific health outcomes, like impacts to our microbiomes, an area not yet well understood. Emerging evidence suggests some of them might harm health, particularly through gut microbiome disruption, inflammation, and even DNA damage, Rauber said. If UPF were a more intellectually modest concept, it might have more analytic value. But much of the UPF literature has committed itself to the untenable position that whatever it classifies as ultra-processed is automatically an inferior choice, even a dangerous one. Meanwhile, people in the real world are making real food choices under all sorts of constraints, and it would make no sense to tell them that they should avoid unsweetened soy milk just because it contains a thickener. Yet thats what another, more recent UPF study, with some of the same authors as the University of So PauloImperial College paper, suggests doing. Pescatarians, vegetarians, and vegans were more likely to include plant-based milk and meat alternatives in their diet, the study concludes, a finding that the authors find concerning. They argue that it is, therefore, important that urgently needed policies that address food system sustainability like encouraging a transition to more plant-forward diets also promote rebalancing diets towards minimally processed foods away from UPFs.Getty ImagesThis kind of rigidity only makes it harder to make healthier, more sustainable, more humane food choices free of animal products. Soy milk is almost for sure, in the long run, going to be healthier than cow milk, Willett said. The breadth and ambiguity of the campaign against ultra-processed foods make it vulnerable to sloppy thinking and manipulation by pseudoscience purveyors like RFK Jr. Combine that with a political climate in which multiple red states have banned cell-cultivated meat and meat producers seize every opportunity to thwart plant-based competitors, and you can imagine how plant-based meats could be targeted by an unprincipled, politicized application of ultra-processed food research.Vegans and the products associated with them make an easy punching bag for everyone from RFK Jr. to universities chasing media coverage to news outlets seeking reader eyeballs because they make people feel bad about eating meat. Its easier to write off meat alternatives as weird and synthetic than it is to reckon with the environmental and ethical degradation of animal agriculture. But the vilification of these foods, as ever, is not based in well-founded fears about their health effects. Its really just about the vibes.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:

Just like you cant control the bus schedule, you cant control your pay schedule which leaves you stuck on someone elses clock, even though youve already worked hard for that money. But have you ever wondered why do we get paid every two weeks? We teamed up with rapper Vince Staples and Chime to get to the bottom of this bi-weekly mystery, and why our outdated system isnt keeping up with the needs of todays workers.The good news? MyPay from Chime can help. MyPay lets you get up to $500* of your pay before payday, giving you the freedom to jump on last-minute deals, handle unexpected expenses, and gain more control over your finances, without waiting on someone elses schedule.Join Vince as he embarks on a journey of epic proportions through the history of pay cycles, and discover how MyPay offers a new route to getting money when you need it.Visit chime.com/mypay to find out how you can take control of your pay today.MyPay line of credit provided by The Bancorp Bank, N.A. or Stride Bank, N.A. MyPay services provided by Chime Capital, LLC (NMLS 2316451).*To be eligible for MyPay, you must receive qualifying direct deposits to your Chime Checking Account as set forth in the MyPay Agreement. A qualifying direct deposit is a deposit from an employer, payroll provider, gig economy payer, government benefits payer, or other permitted source of income by Automated Clearing House (ACH) or Original Credit Transaction (OCT). Your MyPay Credit Limit and Maximum Available Advance may change at any time. MyPay is a line of credit and available limits are based on estimated income and risk-based criteria. Eligible members may be offered a $20 - $500 Credit Limit per pay period. Your Credit Limit and Maximum Available Advance will be displayed to you within the Chime app. MyPay is currently only available to eligible Chime members in certain states. Other restrictions may apply. See Bancorp MyPay Agreement or Stride MyPay Agreement for details.

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which the Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it would hear, is not a difficult case.The question in Kerr is whether a federal law, which requires state Medicaid programs to guarantee that any individual eligible for medical assistance may obtain that care from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required, does in fact allow Medicaid patients to choose any doctor qualified to perform the services they seek.After reading this statutory language, youre probably wondering why this legal dispute triggered a lawsuit in the first place the law, after all, is perfectly clear that any Medicaid patient is allowed to choose any person qualified to provide them with care. But there are two reasons, one legal and one political, that explain why Kerr is contentious enough to make it to the Supreme Court.The first reason is that the Supreme Courts rules governing when someone can sue to enforce a provision of federal Medicaid law are somewhat complicated, although not nearly complicated enough to justify denying Medicaid patients their right to choose a health provider. The second, more salient, reason is that this case involves Planned Parenthood, and so a handful of outlier judges have allowed anti-abortion politics to trump a clearly written federal law.South Carolina is one of several states that attempted to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, effectively preventing Medicaid patients from seeking care at the venerable reproductive health care institution. In 2018, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order prohibiting abortion clinics from being paid to provide care to Medicaid patients. (Although the Supreme Court permitted states to ban abortion in 2022, South Carolina still allows some abortions up to the sixth week of pregnancy.)Shortly after McMaster issued this order, both Planned Parenthoods South Carolina affiliate and an individual Planned Parenthood patient sued, pointing to the federal law giving Medicaid patients a right to choose their health provider. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the federal appeals court that oversees North Carolina, has repeatedly ruled that these plaintiffs are correct the federal law does exactly what its plain text says that it does.Most federal appeals courts ruled similarly when other states announced rules similar to McMasters. But two outlier circuits, the Fifth and the Eighth, did not. Notably, both the Fifth and the Eighth Circuits decisions were handed down before the Supreme Court decided Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), a significant decision clarifying the rights of Medicaid patients to bring federal lawsuits, which cuts against the Fifth and Eighth Circuits reasoning.In any event, its hard to imagine that such a straightforward legal dispute would produce such a circuit split if it didnt involve the contentious question of abortion. Its also possible that the Supreme Court took the Kerr case simply to reaffirm its decision in Talevski and reverse the two courts that created this split.The whole point of having one Supreme Court at the top of the federal judiciary is to maintain uniformity in federal law an act of Congress should mean the same thing in South Carolina as it does in Texas so the justices often step in to resolve legal questions that divide federal appeals courts.Still, this case does involve abortion. Republicans have a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court. And five members of that majority have a history of reading the law in absurd ways to diminish abortion rights. So theres at least some risk that the Court may lash out at Medicaid patients right to choose their own health provider.What is the specific legal issue at the heart of Kerr?Arguably the most important federal civil rights law is a provision known as Section 1983, which permits state officials to be sued in federal court if they deprive someone of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. Without this law, people whose constitutional or federal statutory rights are violated would often have no recourse, because they would be unable to bring a lawsuit seeking to vindicate those rights.Notably, however, Section 1983 does not permit anyone to file a lawsuit challenging any violation of any federal statute whatsoever. As the Supreme Court said in Blessing v. Freestone (1997), a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law. And the Court has developed a framework governing which federal laws create individual rights that can be enforced through private lawsuits.Yet, while this framework sometimes creates uncertainty about which federal laws can trigger such suits, the issue in Kerr is straightforward. As the Court recently reaffirmed in Talevski, the key question is whether a federal law is phrased in terms of the persons benefited, and whether it contains rights-creating, individual-centric language with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.Thus, for example, a hypothetical federal statute that provides that no state may deny someone who owns golf clubs the ability to play golf could be enforced by federal lawsuits, because this statutes language focuses on the people who benefit from it (people who own golf clubs). A statute that says that states shall not impede enjoyment of the game of golf, by contrast, would not permit individual lawsuits because this statutory language does not even mention which individuals are supposed to benefit from the law.With this framework in mind, consider the statutory language at the heart of the Kerr case:A State plan for medical assistance must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services.This language is full of the kind of individual-centric language with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class that the Court spoke of in Talevski. It provides a right to any individual eligible for medical benefits. It states that these individuals may obtain medical care from the provider of their choice. And it concludes with a pronoun (him), which refers back to the individuals who benefit from the law.All of which is a long way of saying that, if the Court follows existing law, including the rule it recently announced in Talevski, then it will rule in favor of the plaintiffs in Kerr. But it is unlikely the case would have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place or that any appeals court would have read this particular provision of Medicaid law to deny similar plaintiffs their right to sue if this case did not involve a politically contentious issue like abortion.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 Supreme Court issued an unusual order on Wednesday morning, announcing it will hear a case deciding the fate of TikTok on a fast-tracked schedule. The case, known as TikTok v. Garland, asks whether a federal law potentially banning TikTok, which President Joe Biden signed in April, violates the First Amendment. The law would ban the short-form video app, which is owned by Chinese tech company ByteDance, within the United States unless ByteDance sells the platform to a different owner before January 19. The law was upheld by a lower federal court earlier this month, and so a ban may be imminent unless the Supreme Court intervenes.The Supreme Courts order announcing it will hear TikTok v. Garland departs from the Courts ordinary procedures in several ways, compressing both the briefing schedule for this case, and the amount of time the justices will have to consider the case after briefing is completed.The Courts order instructs TikTok and the Justice Department, as well as other parties challenging the law, including a number of content creators who use the platform, to all file their briefs simultaneously on December 27, two days after Christmas. The justices will hear oral arguments on January 10.It is likely that the Court is following this unusually fast schedule typically, a case waits months for an oral argument before the justices, even after the Court announces it will hear that case because the justices want to issue their final decision before the ban takes effect on January 19.Although TikTok raised several constitutional challenges to the law, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the Supreme Courts review will focus on a single question: Whether this law, which could shut down one of the most popular online platforms in the country, violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.TikTok pits national security concerns against free speech protectionsThe law targeting TikTok passed both houses of Congress with broad support from both political parties. The laws supporters justify such an unusual encroachment on traditional free speech protections because they fear the Chinese government will either use TikTok to gather data on Americans, or they will manipulate the content that appears on TikTok to shape US opinion.The question of just how much control China can and does exercise over TikTok is hotly contested. TikToks parent company, ByteDance, is based in Beijing. Like many Chinese companies, it is legally required to host an in-house Communist Party committee composed of TikTok employees who are also party members.The law at issue in the case bans internet hosting services and other tech companies including Apple and Google, whose app stores make TikTok available to download from serving foreign adversary controlled applications. While other apps can potentially qualify as such an application, the law specifically states that TikTok, as well as any other application operated by ByteDance, qualifies. TikTok can potentially escape this ban if it is sold to another company that is not controlled by a foreign adversary, but no sale appears imminent.A federal appeals court upheld this law earlier in December, essentially arguing that national security concerns trump free speech concerns. While that opinion includes many details about the sheer volume of data controlled by TikTok, it included far less evidence than courts normally provide when upholding laws burdening free speech that the governments stated interest in protecting national security justifies this particular law.The appeals court justified this approach by arguing that judgments of the Congress and the Executive regarding the national security threat posed by the TikTok platform is entitled to significant weight.The lower court is correct that courts often defer to the other branches in matters of national security, and it cites Supreme Court precedents establishing that general proposition. But the amount of deference shown by the lower court in this case is unusual. All three appeals court judges who heard this case agreed that the TikTok ban should receive heightened scrutiny from the judiciary because it threatens free speech. Laws that are subject to such scrutiny are presumptively unconstitutional, and the government bears the burden of proving that such a law can be justified.As the Supreme Court said in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), when there are substantial factual disputes regarding whether a law burdening free speech can be justified by some other compelling national need, the Government must shoulder its full constitutional burden of proof.Which isnt to say that the Justice Department cannot overcome that burden in this case, if it can produce sufficient evidence that China will use TikTok to undermine US national security. But, under existing precedent, the government must provide that evidence if it wants this law to survive.In any event, we will likely know more about what sort of evidence the Justice Department plans to muster in defense of this law after it files its brief on December 27 although its worth noting that the government could potentially file some of this information under seal if it would require them to disclose classified information, as seems possible given the national security concerns alleged by the government.For now, the only thing that appears certain about this case is that the justices are moving very quickly and one way or another, the future of TikTok will likely be resolved before the federal ban takes effect in January.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 contempt for the media is well-known, but two lawsuits filed against news organizations offer a worrying look at the next four years for outlets and reporters covering his administration.Disney, the parent company of ABC News, settled a suit with Trump for $15 million; Trump sued the company because anchor George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said Trump was found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll, when he was actually found liable for sexual abuse. Trump also sued the Des Moines Register, an Iowa newspaper, this week because they published a poll showing Vice President Kamala Harris would win the state; he also sued the person who produced the poll. Trump is alleging this is election interference. These developments come amid ongoing lawsuits Trump has against CBS and publisher Simon & Schuster.These kinds of lawsuits arent new. Theyre meant to be expensive and time-consuming for news companies, even if the outlets win the case. They are also meant to make all news organizations question whether its worth publishing critical reporting about public figures in this case, Trump given the financial, legal, and public relations risk.The US has strong protections for the press, so news groups can fulfill their obligation to inform the public, particularly about powerful people and organizations. But Trumps lawsuits could interfere with their ability to do so.Lawsuits such as Trumps against ABC, the Des Moines Register, and the Iowa pollster Ann Selzer are commonly called strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) suits. The first such suit Trump filed was a defamation case against ABC News. Trumps team initially filed the suit in Florida in the spring, after Stephanopoulos said in a March interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) on This Week that Trump was found to have raped Carroll in 1996. In fact, the jury in Carrolls case found in 2023 that Trumps actions qualified as sexual abuse, and not rape under the law in New York, where the Carroll case was filed. However, the judge in the case did note that Trumps abuse did align with commonly held definitions of rape, even if they didnt meet the specific legal standard.Defamation cases against the press must meet a very high standard in the US; reporters make mistakes, but thats not enough to warrant a lawsuit against a reporter or news organization. Defamation cases must prove a reporter acted with actual malice, writing or saying something they knew or had good reason to believe was false. In July, Disney asked to have the suit dropped, on the grounds that Stephanopouloss statements were essentially true, if imprecise, and his reporting was protected by Florida law. The judge argued that a jury could potentially find Stephanopoulos guilty. Then on Friday, she ordered Stephanopoulos and Trump into depositions and for Disney to hand over documents related to the case. Disney reportedly pushed to settle the case in part because the company worried it could lose a jury trial in heavily Republican Florida.In Iowa, Trump is suing the Des Moines Register, its parent company Gannett, Selzer, and her polling company on the grounds that they perpetrated consumer fraud for producing and publishing a pre-election poll that had Vice President Kamala Harris winning the state. (Trump won Iowa by over 10 percentage points.) The lawsuit accuses Selzer of brazen election interference, according to the New York Times. Trump filed a similar suit against CBS News in October, alleging that an interview with Harris on its program 60 Minutes violated consumer protection laws due to its editing.SLAPP suits are meant to have a chilling effectThe sort of lawsuits Trump is filing against media companies are the latest workaround that wealthy and powerful people who want to bully the press have found to attempt to circumvent the well-established safeguards for the press under the First Amendment against defamation and similar claims, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Vox. Trump may not win these suits, but thats not really the point. What really marks a SLAPP suit, aside from it being legally baseless, is that the intent is not so much to win, but to send a message to bully and punish critics through forcing them to incur legal fees, and not only legal fees, but time costs spent defending against litigation, which can be quite devastating for smaller outlets, Stern said. Trump has made clear in the past he knows the purpose of these suits to induce these costs, and to establish fear of speaking out against him. As Trump infamously said about a lawsuit he brought against the author of a book he did not like, I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which Im happy about.SLAPP suits have a long history in the US, according to Samantha Barbas, a legal historian at the University of Iowa School of Law.Historically, politicians and other public figures have tried to shut down their critics in the press using defamation law in particular, she told Vox. Back in the early 20th century, it was really common for public officials to basically try to sue the press out of existence over comments they didnt like.Now, the US has robust press freedom protections, established in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, which codified those protections. Many states also have anti-SLAPP legislation, and a federal anti-SLAPP law was proposed in 2022. But Trump has said he wants to undo some of those safeguards. That those protections exist largely because of Supreme Court precedent rather than due to federal law is reportedly also part of why Disneys lawyers chose to settle so the case couldnt go to the Supreme Court and potentially result in a rollback of Sullivan. At least one Supreme Court justice, Justice Thomas has expressed skepticism about the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, and would like the Supreme Court to revisit it, Stern said, although theres no indication the other justices share Thomas opinion. For not, there is nothing stopping Trump from continuing to file SLAPP suits and he may even inspire copycat cases, Barbas said.When someone wins a libel suit against the press, it will just inspire others to bring claims, and it becomes very dangerous, Barbas said.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump is soon to be back in office and grandiose commitments from CEOs sure look poised to return, too. In a Monday briefing alongside SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, Trump announced the companys commitment to invest $100 billion in US projects during his second term, with the promise of creating 100,000 new jobs. According to Trump, the new investments by SoftBank, a Japanese tech and telecom company, will focus on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. If that vow sounds familiar, its because Son offered a similar commitment after Trumps first presidential win in 2016, when Son pledged a $50 billion investment and the creation of 50,000 new jobs. But while SoftBank does seem to have followed through on its investment promise, its unclear that the jobs followed a reminder that splashy announcements like Sons latest should not necessarily be taken as iron-clad guarantees. While CNNs Allison Morrow and David Goldman found that SoftBank did invest roughly $75 billion in US companies after its first pledge, it never made clear how many of those jobs it actually created and how many were actually a result of a new investment, they write.Related:Vox reached out to SoftBank for clarity on its previous investments and how many jobs they generated but did not receive a response prior to publication.Other corporate investments that Trump touted in his first term had underwhelming returns as well. In the case of Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer, for example, the company promised a $10 billion Wisconsin plant and 13,000 jobs, and fell short on both counts. An updated version of the deal eventually saw Foxconn reduce that figure to roughly 1,500 jobs.According to a 2019 ProPublica investigation, multiple other corporations, including Alibaba and Broadcom, were also cited by the Trump administration as sources for new jobs, though many of these gains never materialized. Such pledges, though, still have value to a president who once vowed to run the country like a business, regardless of their eventual success. They provide a good headline for Trump, and a chance to burnish his self-created image as a dealmaker. Now that Trump is returning to power, business leaders are once more looking for ways to build influence with the administration, often with the goal of shaping favorable regulatory outcomes or government contracts. The SoftBank announcement suggests touting prominent job commitments, including those the company might not be able to deliver on, will continue to be one of those avenues. How SoftBanks last commitment panned outSoftBank, which previously owned a large share in the telecom giant Sprint, is known for investing in tech companies via its venture capital fund, the Vision Fund, which is backed in part by the Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates sovereign wealth funds. The fund has poured billions into US tech behemoths, including Uber, WeWork, and Slack, including during the first Trump administration. As the New York Times reported in 2019, though, many of these investments were already in the works ahead of Trumps election, and not the result of Sons pledge. And in December 2019, Forbes reporters Biz Carson and Angel Au-Yeung published an investigation into whether those investments created the jobs Son advertised, and were unable to find evidence corroborating job creation on the promised scale. SoftBank would not provide an estimate of how many jobs it has created in the U.S. since Sons pledge, they wrote. Because the majority of the Vision Funds investments have gone to private companies, public data is not available, making it hard to hold Son accountable for his promise. Carson and Au-Yeung also contacted 50 SoftBank-backed companies to inquire about new jobs they had added, with many declining to comment, while others reported only marginal gains. The 2019 ProPublica report reached a similar conclusion, noting that SoftBanks investments had resulted in roughly 10,200 new or saved jobs at that point in time, meaning it wasnt on pace to generate 50,000 jobs by the end of Trumps term. Publicly available information about some of the companies in which SoftBank invested also suggests that it may have struggled to reach the job creation benchmark it set. Some of the larger firms it backed, like Uber and WeWork, for example, oversaw wide-ranging layoffs which affected thousands of employees in 2019 and 2020. And a number of other startups that SoftBank funded were much smaller, so there was less potential for establishing new jobs at a large scale. During Trumps first term, SoftBanks investment and jobs announcement came as the administration was poised to oversee a possible T-Mobile merger with Sprint, which the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission ultimately approved. This year, it comes as Trump weighs tariffs on goods from a number of US trading partners including Japan, where SoftBank is headquartered. SoftBanks example, as well as the slew of CEOs including Apples Tim Cook and Amazons Jeff Bezos recently traveling to meet with Trump, suggest the president-elects hold over big business is as strong as ever. But while announcements about new factories, billion-dollar investments, and spectacular job creation sound impressive, the results from Trumps first term suggest the reality likely wont match the promises that are made. 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

One of the Supreme Courts very first actions after Republicans gained a 6-3 supermajority on its bench was a revolutionary decision expanding religious institutions right to seek exemptions from state laws. Since then, the Court has fairly consistently favored Christian litigants who seek such exemptions, or who raise other religious liberty-related claims (though it has not always shown the same sympathy to Muslims with similar claims).That history means its hard to think of a litigant thats more likely to win the sympathy of most of the justices than Catholic Charities, the party at the center of Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. Catholic Charities seeks an exemption from Wisconsins law requiring employers to pay taxes that fund unemployment benefits. The Court announced Friday it will hear Catholic Charities.It is likely that the Court will side with Catholic Charities. The more important question is how the Court might write an opinion ruling in Catholic Charities favor, as a too broad opinion could potentially have dire consequences giving at least some companies legal grounds to mistreat workers, and to pick and choose which laws apply to them, and which dont. Whats the legal issue in Catholic Charities?Like every other state, Wisconsin taxes employers to fund unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs. Wisconsin, however, exempts employers that are controlled by a church, and that are operated primarily for religious purposes, from these taxes. Wisconsins state supreme court recently ruled that this religious purposes exemption applies only to employers that primarily engage in religious activities, such as holding worship services or providing religious education. The court found it does not apply to organizations, like Catholic Charities, that provide secular services like job training or feeding the poor even if the organization is motivated by religion to provide these secular services.Notably, Catholic Charities has paid these unemployment taxes since 1972. Catholic Charities lawyers claim that this distinction between religious and secular services violates the First Amendments religious liberties protections in various ways. Among other things, they claim that Wisconsin discriminates against religions, like the Catholic Church, that believe in an obligation to serv[e] those in need without proselytizing, and that Wisconsins law interferes with the churchs right to manage its own affairs.Are these good arguments? Not really. Wisconsin isnt discriminating against the Catholic Church. Wisconsin will allow any religious institution, be it Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Satanic, to be exempt from unemployment tax if it hosts worship services or if it teaches lessons about a holy text. It similarly will not give this exemption to one, regardless of its faith, that performs secular charity work. Nor is Wisconsin interfering with the churchs religious freedoms. The state is not trying to influence the churchs internal affairs in any significant way. The Supreme Court has held that the government should stay out of strictly ecclesiastical matters, such as a fight over which of two religious leaders was properly appointed as an archbishop. But Catholic Charities does not involve such a matter of internal church governance, it involves the states decision to tax both secular and many religious employers, in order to pay unemployment benefits.And, again, its notable that Catholic Charities has complied with Wisconsins tax law since 1972. The fact that it now seeks an exemption after decades of compliance suggests that preexisting law does not favor the churchs position and that the churchs lawyers now think they can win cases that would have lost before less sympathetic panels of justices.Two ways that the Supreme Court can rule in favor of Catholic CharitiesIn the likely event that the Supreme Court does rule in Catholic Charities favor, there are two ways it can get there. One would be a narrow decision that applies to a small subset of employers. The other could potentially overrule a pair of decades-old precedents, and risks severely disrupting the balance of power between workers and employers.If the Court wants to issue a narrow opinion favoring Catholic Charities, it could rule that its decision applies only to organizations engaged in charitable work, and make it clear the ruling does not apply to any group engaged in commercial activity. Failing to do so could create a situation like the one the Court tried to avoid in Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985).In that case, a religious foundation operated a long list of commercial businesses, including service stations, retail clothing and grocery outlets, hog farms, roofing and electrical construction companies, a recordkeeping company, a motel, and companies engaged in the production and distribution of candy. These businesses were staffed with associates who were not paid cash wages or a salary, but instead were only provided with in-kind benefits like food, clothing, and shelter. The federal government sued this foundation, alleging that it was in violation of federal minimum wage, overtime, and workplace recordkeeping laws.A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the foundations claim that it was exempt from these laws because it objected to them on religious grounds. Among other things, the Court warned that the foundations business competed with other, secular businesses in the marketplace, and that permitting the foundation to pay substandard wages would undoubtedly give [the foundation] and similar organizations an advantage over their competitors.In United States v. Lee (1982), the Supreme Court expressed similar concerns about a religious employer who sought an exemption from paying Social Security taxes. Indeed, Lee announced a blanket rule establishing that when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.The Catholic Charities case is distinguishable from both Alamo Foundation and Lee because it does not involve a religious organization engaged in commercial activity. Catholic Charities is a legitimate charity which does a great deal of beneficial work for the needy. It is not a business that operates hog farms or sells candy. So a win for Catholic Charities could just be a win for religious organizations without commercial interests that want to avoid unemployment taxation. To get to that result, the Court just needs to follow the line these older cases draw between institutions engaged in commercial activity, which could not claim religious exemptions from laws governing that activity, and institutions engaged in more traditional charitable work.However, there is a chance the Court ignores this line in favor of the legal reasoning that drove a more recent decision: In 2014, the Supreme Court held that private, for-profit businesses may, in some instances, seek religious exemptions from federal business regulations. That case was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), in which the Court decided that private businesses, whose owners object to some forms of birth control on religious grounds, are exempt from federal rules requiring employers to cover contraception in their employees health plans. The Court has only grown more conservative, and more friendly to Christian litigants seeking religious exemptions, since Hobby Lobby. So it is far from clear that this Court will hew to the rule against permitting business to seek exemptions that can distort the market that was announced in Lee.It is possible to distinguish Hobby Lobby from Catholic Charities, because Hobby Lobby arose under a federal statute that gives particularly strong religious liberty protections to people impacted by a federal law. Catholic Charities, by contrast, asks whether the Constitution allows a religious employer to seek an exemption from a state law. In any event, if the Court winds up handing down a narrow decision holding that legitimate charities like Catholic Charities, which are directly affiliated with a church, are entitled to certain religious exemptions, then thats hardly the end of the world. Such a decision would likely only impact a relatively small number of workers, and it would only impact workers who voluntarily chose to do charitable work.Still, the shadow of Hobby Lobby looms large over this case. And this Supreme Court often hands down haphazardly reasoned opinions that cause needless disruption to settled areas of law. So theres at least some risk that the Court will hand down a decision that fundamentally undermines much of American labor and employment law by allowing commercial businesses to exempt themselves from a wide range of laws intended to protect their workers.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:

Canadas government is in trouble.The government currently in charge of the country led by longtime Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took its latest hit on Monday, when Trudeaus right-hand official (and former staunch ally), Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, surprised Canadians by offering her resignation in a spectacular fashion, issuing a letter that sharply criticized her old boss. Freeland specifically cited her disagreements over how to manage Canadas economy in the face of looming US tariffs as the breaking point in her relationship with Trudeau. President-elect Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on Canada shortly after his election; that threat has put a strain on Trudeaus government, but they are only part of a larger problem. Trudeau and his party have been steadily losing public and parliamentary confidence for years. Deals meant to keep Trudeaus party in power crumbled this year, and pressure on Trudeau to resign has begun to build, especially given his party is expected to suffer in national elections next year. All that means that, even before Freeland resigned, Trudeaus administration was inching closer to the brink of collapse. And now, with Freelands resignation, Canadas government is on even shakier ground as it prepares to confront an incoming, adversarial, Trump administration.Trudeau is unpopular in his party and in CanadaBefore the Freeland debacle, Trudeau had two problems: The public was unhappy with him and his partys policies, and many in his party were unhappy with his management.Trudeau has been the leader of Canada, for nearly 10 years now, and of his Liberal Party for nearly 12. Thats quite a long time to be in power in the Canadian context. In that time, Trudeaus popularity has taken a beating; although he started out with a 63 percent approval rating, that has dropped to 28 percent in recent polls.In some ways, its not surprising that Canadians are just kind of fed up with the government, because you get to a certain point in your tenure where youve been in there for so long that its easy to look around and blame everything thats wrong on the guy whos been in charge for 10 years, Elizabeth McCallion, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, told Vox. Were reaching that limit where many Canadians dont want Trudeau around anymore.Canada does have some major problems at the moment. The country is struggling with cost-of-living and housing crises, and debate over the wisdom of the Liberal Partys immigration and environmental strategies has escalated ahead of the 2025 elections. The Liberal Partys chief rival, the Conservative Party, has been quick to make connections between Trudeaus policy choices and these issues.Related:Canadas polite TrumpismConservatives are expected to make major gains in next years elections, and rival parties political attacks on Liberals and their record have already proved potent, with Trudeaus party losing what should have been some safe seats in recent special elections. Those losses have helped spur a crisis of confidence for Trudeau within his party. Hes been going through sort of a string of setbacks over the last couple of months, including by-election losses quite significant ones, Andrew McDougall, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, told Vox. He lost a [district] in Toronto called St. Pauls, which was really the core of the Liberal support, and that alone had triggered speculation he might have to go. [Liberals lost] in Montreal as well, which is really where the party has its strongest base if you cant win there, you really cant win anywhere, was the suggestion.Freelands resignation only renewed and intensified calls for Trudeau to resign and some of those calls came from members of his own party. Theres almost no way to eject him from party leadership if he doesnt resign, and no one has stepped forward as a strong candidate for the job. However, the House of Commons could vote to trigger early elections through a no-confidence vote after late January, when they meet again after the holidays. Elections would only be called early if that vote succeeds, and its unclear if it will. Trudeau survived previous no-confidence votes thanks to the support of former coalition partner, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) and the pro-Quebec party Bloc Qubcois. But the NDP pulled out of its partnership agreement with the Liberals earlier this year, and Bloc Qubcoiss leader said he would work to end Trudeaus tenure after the Liberal Party failed to meet some of his demands. However, it may not be in the NDPs interest to dissolve the government now, and if they choose to save Trudeau, the Liberals will keep their hold on power for now. The Conservatives and the Bloc Qubcois both want to trigger elections but the New Democratic Party is much less eager to do so because the polls look bad for them. They have propped up the Liberals for years and they could continue to do this when theres another confidence vote, Daniel Bland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, told Vox. Trump dropped a new factor into all of this domestic turmoil.In late November, Trump threatened to slap 25 percent tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!The realities of fentanyl trafficking and migrant flows are far more complicated than Trump suggests, and there is little Canada or Mexico could do to quickly alter either. If he were to follow through on his threat, those tariffs would be extremely damaging to both countries; in Canadas case, the US is far and away its largest and most important trading partner. Those tariffs would make the affordability crisis that has so hampered Trudeau of late even worse.Freeland was expected to lead Canadas response to those tariffs, and her resignation letter suggested she and Trudeau disagreed on how to approach the problem they posed.The incoming administration in the United States is pursuing a policy of aggressive economic nationalism, including a threat of 25 percent tariffs, Freeland wrote. We need to take that threat extremely seriously.In the letter Freeland also accused Trudeau of using expensive economic gimmicks including a pause on certain taxes and stimulus checks for households making below a certain threshold to retain support, putting Canada in a precarious financial position as it faces a grave challenge. Its atypical for members of parliament and government ministers to speak out against their party leadership, McCallion and McDougall explained, and Freelands departure showed just how unstable Trudeaus party unity actually is. Trudeau hasnt made any public statements since Freelands resignation; its not clear what his next move is, or how he and his new finance minister, Dominic LeBlanc, plan to deal with either the potential tariffs or internal party discord. Trudeau and Freeland did negotiate a trade deal with the previous Trump administration, and that combined experience could have served Trudeau well.Trudeau may not get the chance to fully reprise those negotiations, however. Even if he survives a potential no-confidence vote early next year, elections are scheduled for October, and, again, the Conservatives are projected to win. 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:

Multiple states on the East Coast and beyond have fielded reports of mysterious drone sightings in the last few weeks, spurring questions and conspiracy theories about what they are, their purpose, and who might be operating them. Details, so far, suggest many cases of misidentification and no signs of risk. In a statement Thursday responding to sightings in New Jersey, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) emphasized that theres no evidence the drones pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus, matching an earlier Pentagon statement. In a statement Monday, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby reiterated the point, noting that the sightings included commercial drones, hobbyist vehicles, law enforcement drones, planes, helicopters, and stars mistaken for drones. As federal authorities previously stated, their investigations revealed that many sightings were actually manned aircraft, operating lawfully.Cases of mistaken identity have been widespread, particularly on social media. Following an investigation into drone sightings in his home state, New Jersey Sen.-elect Andy Kim concluded that many of the sightings he spotted were almost certainly planes. Its also unsurprising that more people are seeing drones, a Pentagon official noted Monday, citing the thousands of drones flown around the US on a daily basis.Related:State leaders and congressional lawmakers have nonetheless expressed concerns about the lack of available information about the drone sightings and requested that the federal government learn and share more. President-elect Donald Trump has chimed in as well, alleging that the federal government has more information it hasnt disclosed. These gaps in information are largely responsible for fueling the anxiety around the sightings: Although many have been found to be legitimate aircraft, the lack of clear explanation has left residents rattled. And while the federal government has tamped down worries that these aircraft are a security threat, officials also havent provided much explanation for whos responsible for them and what theyve been doing.Theres still information we dont know about the drone sightings and what exactly is behind them. Heres what we do know, however.Whats going on and where are the sightings?Reports of drone sightings first began in New Jersey in mid-November, and were initially concentrated in Morris County, in the northern part of the state. In recent weeks, theyve come from other New Jersey towns as well, including Bedminster, where Trump has a golf course, and Colts Neck, where the Naval Weapons Station Earle is located. Since then, there have been sightings reported in at least five other states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. On Friday night, drones were spotted near the New York Stewart International Airport in Hudson Valley, prompting state transportation authorities to shut its runways down for one hour. Drones were reportedly also seen flying over a home in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on Thursday night, in a cluster of 10 to 15 vehicles, and near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, on Friday, forcing the facility to close its airspace for four hours. Photos and videos of the sightings have shown a variety of different events, including multiple bright aircraft hovering over a neighborhood or a single aerial object traveling at night. Its not yet clear if these sightings are linked or if theyre all separate from one another.Are these actually drones?The sightings appear to feature a mix of different aircraft, according to federal authorities, including both drones and passenger planes. Many of the reports theyve evaluated have been manned aircraft operating as usual, officials say.DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas noted in an interview with ABC News on Sunday that a fraction of these sightings were drones, while the rest were likely planes or other aircraft that were misidentified. Some of those drone sightings are, in fact, drones, Mayorkas said. Some are manned aircraft that are commonly mistaken for drones. Pentagon Press Secretary Major Gen. Pat Ryder said Monday that the presence of drones including near military bases was also not uncommon as more of these aircraft now populate the skies. As a result, its not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat, he told reporters.Of more than 5,000 tips theyve received about such aircrafts, officials have deemed around 100 worthy of follow-up investigation, federal authorities said in a press briefing on Saturday. Whos behind them?Theres no evidence these drones are from a foreign adversary or from the US military, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters in remarks last Wednesday. Singhs statement comes after some Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Chris Smith, have suggested that the drones could have been sent by foreign governments such as China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia.That wouldnt exactly be unprecedented though not a drone, a Chinese surveillance balloon was shot down in US airspace in 2023, sparking a brief diplomatic crisis. China described the balloon as mainly civilian in purpose, but its flight path took it over a number of sensitive sites, according to the Pentagon.Federal authorities have emphasized that the 2024 drone sightings arent a similar phenomenon, with Kirby noting they come from an array of commercial, law enforcement, and civilian sources. One explanation for some of the increased activity could be new regulations, announced in 2023, that allow drones to fly at night, Mayorkas also told ABC News. Have they caused any problems?Some drones, like those near the Stewart International Airport and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, have prompted officials to close down these facilities respective runways and airspace for a brief period. The FAA has also announced temporary flight restrictions over Trumps Bedminster golf course and the Picatinny Arsenal Military Base in Morris County, New Jersey, after drones were seen flying over both. Officials have emphasized, however, that there isnt any indication that these drones pose a danger to the public.Drone operations have also prompted a number of arrests. In Boston, two men were arrested on Saturday for operating a drone dangerously close to Logan International Airport. And in California, a Chinese citizen and legal US resident was arrested on December 10 for operating a drone and taking photos over Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County on November 30. Federal authorities have said they are closely monitoring the reports and sending specialized drone detection systems to New Jersey and New York to assist in state efforts. State leaders, however, including New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, had previously expressed frustration at the pace and opaqueness of the federal response. Murphy and Hochul have both pressed President Joe Biden, with the former emphasizing that residents deserve more concrete information beyond what federal authorities had provided. While I am sincerely grateful for your administrations leadership in addressing this concerning issue, it has become apparent that more resources are needed to fully understand what is behind this activity, Murphy wrote. Trump has also accused the military and federal government of not want[ing] to comment, while alleging that they know more about whats happening than has been disclosed to date. How should people respond if theyre concerned? The FAA encourages people to contact local law enforcement if they believe a drone is flying unsafely or poses a threat. Law enforcement officials have discouraged drone-spotters from taking matters into their own hands, however, warning that shooting at drones, or what people believe to be drones, is both dangerous and illegal. A drone could, for example, create a safety hazard if it falls on people or property after being felled by gunfire, in addition to the danger of shooting at a misidentified manned aircraft.Those warnings come after Trump previously stated that the solution to these drone sightings was to shoot them down!!! if the government failed to provide more information about their purpose and origin.Whats next?The House Intelligence Committee is expected to receive a classified briefing about the issue on Tuesday, and members of Congress have called for the federal government to share as much information as it can with the public about these sightings. For now, however, theres little to do but wait and hope we learn more soon.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

Victory cologne and perfume. Crypto President watches. Limited-edition American Eagle guitars. T-branded golf shoes and Fight Fight Fight high-top sneakers. These are just a sample of the many products licensed to bear President-elect Donald Trumps brand, including some that he has promoted on his social media site Truth Social just weeks before his inauguration. If he continues to hawk his merchandise after returning to the White House, that could raise ethical concerns. Consumer goods may be the least of Trumps issues, however. He has a number of business ventures including his social media platform, a nascent crypto firm, and the Trump Organizations partnerships in the Middle East that could present conflicts of interest, make the presidency vulnerable to foreign influence, and violate federal law. That includes the Constitutions foreign emoluments clause, which prevents the president from receiving gifts from foreign governments. Enforcement of the clause against a sitting president has been rare, in part because previous presidents upheld a norm of divesting from holdings that could present a conflict of interest while in office. Trump, however, broke with that tradition during his first term.While President Jimmy Carter famously put his peanut farm in a blind trust, Trump had his sons take over the Trump Organization when he became president in 2016. His global business empire reaped $2.4 billion in revenue, including from foreign governments, in the four years that followed. Government ethics organizations consequently sued him, claiming that he had violated the foreign emoluments clause, but the litigation was never resolved before he left office. Now, that litigation may be reprised, potentially providing harder limits on presidents ability to benefit financially from their time in office. A representative for the Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.We saw rampant conflicts of interest, abuses of power, profiting from serving in government during his first administration, said Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a left-leaning watchdog group focused on ethics in government. This next administration, we expect to see more of the same, and unfortunately, it seems like a fairly complicit Congress.Trumps conflicts of interest in his first term, explainedAt the start of his first term, Trump suggested that he would take steps to separate himself from his properties. However, he never divested from his properties, remaining in close contact with his sons about Trump Organization dealings. As president, he made a total of at least 500 visits to his own hotel and golf properties, calling his Florida club Mar-a-Lago the Winter White House. This brought an influx of taxpayer money to those properties.It also sent a message that patronizing his properties might win lobbyists, foreign actors, and others influence in the Trump administration. For instance, diplomats from Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Georgia, and other countries either hosted events at Trump properties or stayed at Trump hotels, including his now-sold Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. Overall, the government oversight group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) estimated that Trump benefited from about $13.6 million in payments from foreign governments during his first term as a result.CREW has argued that Trumps actions were not just slimy but illegal. In a lawsuit filed shortly after his inauguration in 2017, the organization argued that he had violated the foreign emoluments clause. Attorneys general from Washington, DC, and Maryland made a similar argument in a separate case. Two appeals courts the Second Circuit and the Fourth Circuit allowed those cases to move forward over Trumps objections. The president appealed to the US Supreme Court just before the 2020 election. When he lost the election to Joe Biden, his lawyers argued that the justices should just wait to rule in the cases until after the inauguration, which would make them moot and allow them to be dismissed without creating a precedent. Thats exactly what the justices eventually did. As a result, any future litigation would essentially have to start from scratch in challenging any emoluments clause violations by Trump. Having never suffered adverse legal consequences for his conflicts of interest, Trump upended ethical expectations of the president, as well as those of officials around him, said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, a left-leaning consumer rights advocacy group. Former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, for instance, promoted products marketed by Trumps daughter, Ivanka Trump, potentially violating federal ethics rules preventing executive branch employees from boosting products on behalf of their friends or associates.The fish rots from the head, Gilbert said. Seeing that he was very limited in the constraints he placed on himself absolutely emboldened those around him.How Trump could profit off the presidency this time aroundTrump made an ethics pledge for a second term, but it doesnt make any commitments in terms of how he might resolve his persistent conflicts of interest stemming from his now even more sprawling businesses. This time, there are many more ways that he could use the presidency for his own personal gain and potentially be vulnerable to the influence of foreign actors. Hes essentially flouting ethics rules and conflicts of interest laws much more blatantly, much more obviously than last time, Scherb said. Hes not even trying to hide what hes doing at all this time.Chief among these conflicts of interest is his stake in the publicly traded parent company of Truth Social, the president-elects social media platform. Just after he won the election, that stake was worth $3.5 billion. The value of the companys stock has oscillated in the month since, but Trumps stake still makes up a large portion of his estimated $6.8 billion net worth. Never before has a president had such a significant stake in a publicly traded company, and for good reason: Foreign actors could easily and entirely legally buy up its stock, inflating its value and Trumps net worth. Not only that, they could also threaten to just dump all their shares at once, which would crater his net worth, giving them potentially a huge amount of leverage over the president, said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for CREW.The Trump Organization has also recently struck a series of deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars to construct luxury hotels and properties in Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as established a partnership with the Saudi-funded LIV Golf. That has drawn Trump into an even closer relationship with the Saudis, which dates back to 2017 when he made the country stop number one on his first overseas trip as president.Thats an easy way for the Saudis to pump money into the Trump org, Libowitz said. In September, Trump also launched a crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, alongside his sons and his new Middle East envoy, billionaire real estate tycoon Steve Witkoff.Libowitz raised concerns about a $30 million investment in the company from Chinese crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun, who is currently fighting fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Trump and his family are expected to net roughly $20 million thanks to that deal, according to the BBC. Notably, Trump has recently nominated crypto advocate Paul Atkins to head the SEC.Scherb said he isnt expecting robust oversight of these conflicts of interest from the incoming Republican-controlled Congress. But if Trump again faces lawsuits challenging his conflicts of interest, he may employ a familiar legal strategy: delay, delay, delay. Thats what allowed him to run out the clock at the Supreme Court during the first round of emoluments cases. Team Trump is expert at delaying litigation, as has been shown through his criminal cases over the last four years, Gilbert said. That said, there are going to be a plethora of violations and ways for us to act, so I wouldnt assume they can avoid them all.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to halt refugees from coming to the US in his second term a promise that will largely be within his power as president to keep.Trump has said he plans to suspend refugee admission, stop the resettlement, and keep the terrorists the hell out of our country on his first day back in office. The rules for refugee admissions were established by Congress, including in the 1980 Refugee Act, but also via legislation directly following World War II. Therefore, any effort to formally end the refugee program would take an act of Congress. However, the president has lots of authority over refugee admissions and Trump exercised that authority during his first term.It is up to the president to decide how many refugees will be allowed to enter the US in any given year, and Trump significantly lowered the cap on refugee admissions during his first term. Presidents can also pause admissions, as President George W. Bush did in the wake of 9/11.Every president has used their powers to either expand or contract as circumstances might fit, Eric Welsh of Reeves Immigration Law Group told Vox. Its something that is very, very susceptible to his influence.Given how significantly Trump eroded the US refugee program during his first term, its not unreasonable to fear that he would do even more damage this time around. While there are technically legal limits to how much Trump can do to dismantle the refugee program, there is plenty the administration could do practically to gut it.How does the US refugee system work?Refugees are migrants hoping to escape threats and extreme conditions in their home country to settle in a safe country, in this case the US.To be classified as a refugee, migrants must go through a vetting process while they are outside the US. Potential refugees are typically first screened by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and then by the US government. After they pass the vetting process, they then receive visas to come to the US, where they are assisted with basics like finding housing, getting children enrolled in school, and signing up for government benefits by the US Refugee Admissions Program.Refugees can work once theyre in the US, and can apply for US citizenship when they have legal status in the US.What did Trump do in his first term?The first time he took office in 2017, Trump paused the refugee admissions for three months. The justification was to determine if [the US refugee program] was safe and secure because of alleged security risks, Welsh said. Trump also barred Syrians from the refugee resettlement program indefinitely; Syrians were not accepted again until 2018.And then he kicked that a step further with the Muslim ban, by specifically banning [refugee] applicants from certain countries Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, Welsh said. The Supreme Court allowed a version of that ban to stand following more than a year of litigation. Trump also greatly reduced the overall number of refugees allowed into the US over the course of his first term. For example, Trump set a ceiling of only 15,000 refugees for 2021; under Biden, that number has grown to 125,000 for this past year. What else can Trump do to the refugee program in a second term?Given his first-term actions to limit refugees, refugee advocates are concerned Trump will go further this next term and there are several things he could do to increase pressure on the refugee program.First, he has promised to freeze the program as he did his first term, but its not clear for how long the process would be paused or what the justification would be. He could also institute something similar to the 2017 travel ban, Welsh said. The concern is, this time around with four years to think about it Trump would try and do [a travel ban] again and do it better, because he has so much authority in this arena, Welsh told Vox. Of course, Trump could also simply lower the ceiling for how many refugees are permitted into the US on a yearly basis, as he did during his first term.There are administrative ways Trump and his government could hollow out the program, too, Chris Opila, staff attorney at the American Immigration Council, told Vox. The Trump administration could elect to reallocate refugee officers to different tasks, such as asylum within the United States, or credible fear proceedings at the border and sort of pull adjudicative resources away, Opila said. Under the previous Trump administration, with the [federal] resettlement agencies, some of the changes caused them to close some of their offices. And I think that some of what we can anticipate would be similar in terms of measures that slow processing and limit the number of people who can come in, Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney with the Migration Policy Institute, told Vox. Ultimately, Welsh said, Trump is unpredictable, and its impossible to say what he will or wont do come January. But if his first term is any indication, refugees hoping to come to the US could face an increasing number of obstacles to a safe future. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

President-elect Donald Trump has been talking for years about pardoning the people who took part in the January 6, 2021, insurrection, and he could do so on day one of his second term.In a March post on his social media network Truth Social, he said he would Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned! In 2022, Trump promised full pardons and apologies, and claimed he was financially supporting people associated with the insurrection. All that culminated last weekend when, in an interview with NBC Newss Kristen Welker, Trump again said he may pardon people who had been convicted of crimes related to the insurrection.Those pardons would be well within the presidents powers. And they would be a remarkable victory for a collection of groups that have spent the last few years agitating for them. They would also provide Trump with a political win, allowing him to simultaneously reward some of his most fervent supporters while also undermining a legal system he has long claimed is unjust. Who are the insurrectionists? What charges do they face?There are roughly 1,500 arrested, charged, or imprisoned January 6 insurrectionists, and among their number are all sorts of people.The January 6 defendants arent just hard-boiled leaders of militant groups; the insurrectionists included an actor, small-business owners, and even a self-proclaimed shaman, many of whom voiced a belief in conspiracy theories. However, some of the January 6 insurrectionists were affiliated with a variety of radical anti-government movements, most notably the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, right-wing paramilitary groups recognized as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those convicted have been found guilty of a range of crimes, from low-level offenses like trespassing or property damage to grave offenses like seditious conspiracy. How did pardoning the insurrectionists become a cause for those on the far right?The push for freeing insurrectionists has its roots in the false assertion, popularized by Trump, that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. That false claim, based on a variety of conspiracy theories, asserts that the 2020 election was improper; thus the insurrectionists were justified in taking action. Furthermore, the insurrectionists supporters claim, Justice Department investigations into Trump show that it is weaponized against those on the right, and that makes the prosecution against insurrectionists improper and invalid. Trump has encouraged this line of thinking, repeatedly claiming that the DOJ is being weaponized against him and his supporters, often saying, as he did following an indictment, Theyre coming after you and Im just standing in their way.As the trials of insurrectionists unfolded, several groups began to work to draw attention to the trials and recast them as persecution. One leader of these efforts is Micki Witthoeft, the mother of Ashli Babbitt, a woman shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer during the insurrection. (The officer was investigated by the DOJ; he was cleared of any wrongdoing.) Witthoeft moved to Washington, DC, from San Diego to support January 6 defendants and hold vigils in support of the cause. Trump has supported the narrative that January 6 defendants are the victims, with Babbitt cast as a martyr and the convicted as political prisoners. To be clear, theyre in prison not for expressing political beliefs but for interfering with the political process, committing serious violence, and other crimes. Now, there is a constellation of pro-insurrectionist groups, like Justice for January 6 (J4J6), American Patriot Relief, J6 Pardon Project, and stophate.com, all of which have called for pardons. Proud Boys leadership has requested clemency, and a slew of other groups and individuals associated with the January 6 insurrectionists have asked for pardons, too. What happens if Trump does pardon the insurrectionists?A pardon would help validate two arguments that Trump has made: that the Justice Department was weaponized against him and his supporters and that the 2020 election was rigged.It would also help to fully bring the insurrectionists many of whom are aligned with the far right into the GOP fold.I think we can look at the movement behind the pardoning, the desire for those individuals to be pardoned, as part and parcel of the mainstreaming of the extremist elements that comprised the Stop the Steal movement now becoming a centralized part of a mainstream political party in the United States, Matthew Kriner, managing director of the Accelerationism Research Consortium, told Vox.January 6 insurrectionists have already started running for office themselves, and once freed, those now imprisoned could join their number. Groups like Look Ahead America are not only advocating on behalf of January 6 defendants, but also engaging in political organizing, including voter registration, turnout, and lobbying efforts all on behalf of the Republican Party.Pardoned insurrectionists could also go back to the groups that radicalized them in the first place. Some of these groups, like the Oath Keepers, have essentially collapsed following the imprisonment of their leaders, but right-wing antigovernment groups are still plenty active in the US. A pardon would mean that some of the more extreme insurrectionists could see themselves as having been given a permission structure to use politically motivated violence, Kriner said. Its a clean slate for them to come back and essentially pick right back up where they were before.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.My parents and siblings are all highly religious, living in a Southern state. My wife and I have both moved away as well as left our religion, so obviously that has led to some changes in values. Nowhere has that been more obvious in this recent election cycle than with abortion.Nearly all my relatives chose to vote for Trump this election, and limiting access to abortion is one of the major reasons why. For my wife and I, its mind-boggling how they can be fully aware of how many women are being harmed and even killed by these new restrictions and just brush it off by saying, Well, I do think there should be SOME exceptions, and then vote for people who do NOT think that, without any tension whatsoever. It almost feels like the only way they could be persuaded to care was if somebody close to them was the victim of one of these laws.Well be home to see them around Christmastime, and we are still struggling with navigating the dynamic. How do we interact like everything is fine with them while knowing that their values are so diametrically opposed to ours? That they are completely fine with dramatically increasing human suffering to check a religious box? I do love my family, and theyve never taken their beliefs out on us in the Youre going to hell! kind of way, but I still have trouble wrestling with this and trying to act like we can just gather up ethical issues in a box called politics and never talk about it. Any advice?Dear Tongue-Tied,Right now, your family members are not morally legible to you. What I mean is that youre having trouble understanding how they could possibly vote the way they did. Its mind-boggling, as you put it. But I want to suggest that its mind-boggling in part because youre making two core assumptions. The first assumption is that their values are so diametrically opposed to ours. The second is that they are completely fine with dramatically increasing human suffering. These assumptions are sticking you with a dilemma: You dont know how to talk to your relatives about their choice to vote for Trump but it also feels wrong to just hold your tongue. Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column?Feel free to email me at sigal.samuel@vox.com or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here!So consider this: Just as your tongue has taste buds, your mind has moral taste buds. Thats according to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who co-developed moral foundations theory. His research suggests that people in different political camps prioritize different moral values. Liberals are those whose moral taste buds make them especially sensitive to the values of care and fairness. Conservatives are those who are also sensitive to the values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Its not like some of these values are wrong and some are right. Theyre not actually diametrically opposed to each other. Theyre just different. And each one captures a dimension thats important in human life. So, when were trying to communicate with people across the political aisle, its best not to assume that theyre morally bankrupt or completely fine with dramatically increasing human suffering. Maybe theyre operating on the basis of moral values, just as we are, but the values that are salient for them are not the ones that are most salient for us.Haidts research suggests that we should enter into these conversations with genuine curiosity what are the moral values behind the opposing political views? and a recognition that others values have worth, too. You may not be a conservative, but I imagine you still feel that theres some value to loyalty, say, or sanctity. Its helpful to get in touch with that, because people are much more receptive when they sense that youre trying to find shared moral ground than when youre just trying to win an argument. To be clear, attuning to the underlying values of the other person does not mean you have to end up agreeing with their position on, say, abortion. Nor does it mean you slide into moral relativism, believing that every position is equally worthy. You can recognize the validity of the underlying moral value even as you dispute the particular way that the person is expressing that value in the world. The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor offers some language for thinking about this. In his book The Malaise of Modernity, he writes that we need to undertake a work of retrieval, [to] identify and articulate the higher ideal behind the more or less debased practices, and then criticize these practices from the standpoint of their own motivating ideal. In other words, instead of dismissing this culture altogether, or just endorsing it as it is, we ought to attempt to raise its practice by making more palpable to its participants what the ethic they subscribe to really involves.Taylor is in favor of trying to persuade others of your views. But he says you need to be very clear about what level your persuasion is operating on. Its a mistake to attack the underlying value, because theres nothing actually wrong with it. Instead, you should be trying to show what it would look like to honor that value properly and fully.Since you mentioned abortion is a particular sticking point in your family, lets take that as an example. As someone on the liberal end of the spectrum, Im guessing youre in favor of abortion rights in large part because you believe in a persons autonomy over their own body and you want to prevent harm to the pregnant person, whether physical or psychological (care, or preventing harm, is one of Haidts classic liberal taste buds). That makes a ton of sense! At the same time, maybe you can also see how someone else may be focused on another value, like the sanctity of life. (Sanctity, or the idea that something is so hallowed that we want to protect it, is one of Haidts classic conservative taste buds. He notes that although its often invoked by the religious right, its not exclusive to that camp. Im thinking of a sign I saw at a Black Lives Matter protest: Black lives are sacred.) Maybe the sanctity of life is not your top value, and maybe you disagree with your relatives about when life truly begins. But regardless: Attuning to the underlying value which is relatively easy to relate to, because life really is precious! makes the other position morally legible.Recognizing that doesnt mean the argument is over. Its here that the real argument, the one we should be having, actually starts. Because if your family members believe that a fetus is a life and therefore deserves moral concern, they still have to weigh that against the claims of the pregnant person, who definitely represents a sacred life and whose needs definitely carry moral weight. The beauty of framing the conversation this way is that were no longer locked in an either/or either youre right or I am but suddenly were in a both/and. We want to prevent harm and we want to protect life. Having moved beyond the fight over values, we can now discuss the real question that should be occupying us: What would it look like to give both values appropriate consideration? For example, I could argue that I should be free to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term, not because Im 100 percent certain that a fetus deserves zero moral concern, but because Im 100 percent certain that I do deserve moral concern, and I want to prevent harm to myself, and I am best placed to know what the consequences of childbearing would be for me. In other words, I can grant the possibility that theres something in their view worth weighing, but point out that its outweighed by the certainty on the other side of the scale a certainty that their own values commit them to caring about. If they vote for politicians who thoroughly oppose abortion, theyre not acting according to their stated values. A word of caution from Taylor: Dont expect that youll successfully change your relatives minds. It would be naive to assume that people are swayed by argumentation alone. He writes that human life is fundamentally dialogical, meaning that we form our identities through our conversations and relationships with others, not just through rational thinking. That means we have to consider the context your relatives are in. Since theyre in a religious community in a Southern state, the vast majority of their social circle may oppose abortion rights. If they dont have access to a community that makes a pro-abortion rights position seem praiseworthy, it may feel psychologically threatening for them to entertain that position. Your relatives are also, like the rest of us, living in a certain technological climate. News media and social media algorithms push some content at them and suppress other content. If theyre flooded with conservative content, it may be extremely hard for you to make a dent.Thats okay. Its not your job to successfully change their views on abortion you ultimately dont have much control over that, given that their views are conditioned not just by values or reasoned argumentation but also by the social and technological web theyre embedded in. Your job is to show up as your full, loving self. Being your full self means that you dont just hold your tongue. But when you feel yourself tempted to let loose some harsh or judgmental words, you might run your tongue over the roof of your mouth as a way to remind yourself: You have moral taste buds and they do, too. If you feel like youve situated yourself in that truth and, from that place, you want to open a discussion with your relatives about their votes, go for it. But its also highly possible that you, like so many of us in this highly polarized country, could use more practice with the first part. If thats the case, feel free to just practice that this holiday season and enjoy some loving time with your family. Bonus: What Im readingThe experimental philosopher Joshua Knobe has a short and sweet blog post on what actually succeeds at changing society. One approach is to try to change peoples belief or explanatory theory about something. Another is to try to change community norms. The latter takes way longer, but Knobe thinks it might be the only thing that works.The journalist Shayla Love is doing retrieval work of the kind I think Charles Taylor would like in her recent Atlantic article about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the wellness industry. The history of wellness suggests that the best way to defuse Kennedys power is not by litigating each one of his beliefs, she writes, but by understanding why the promise of being well has such lasting appeal. She argues that wellness captivates us not by empirically proving its truth but by meeting certain psychological needs.Writing this column prompted me to look at the work of Columbia Law Schools Jamal Greene this interview will give you a good taste who argues that America has a very weird way of thinking about rights. We recognize few of them, but the rights that we do recognize are considered unassailable and absolute. I think that prevents us from having both/and conversations where we talk about how to weigh competing rights or values. 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:

Every spring, millions of American married couples engage in a little-discussed administrative duty: filing joint taxes. Originating in 1948 when married women rarely worked outside the home, this seemingly innocuous tax policy has evolved into one of Americas most overlooked barriers to gender equality. The gender gap in Americas labor market is driven by more than just workplace discrimination and weak family policies. The tax code itself plays a surprisingly powerful role by subjecting the lower earner in a marriage (typically the wives) to higher rates. Research shows that this tax policy, known as joint filing, discourages wives from working exactly when their careers are taking off affecting everything from their mid-career promotions to long-term retirement savings. And with more women holding down jobs than ever before, more women face the penalties of joint filing than ever before, too.Related:Though this system can support marriages where one partner provides unpaid care or needs more flexibility, the practice is hard to justify when over 40 percent of marriages end in divorce, when research shows it holds women back from working, and when virtually every other developed nation has moved on. A complete overhaul of joint filing would hike taxes for most married couples setting up daunting and likely insurmountable politics, at least in the near term. A set of narrower reforms, however, seem possible.The joint filing trapIn the early 20th century, most states followed English common law, where a married mans income was considered solely his. However, a few states followed so-called community property laws recognizing marital income as jointly owned by both spouses. In 1930, the Supreme Court upheld the right of couples in community property states to file joint taxes, a practice which allowed them to pay the government less money overall. Then, in 1948, Congress extended this joint filing system to all married couples, standardizing the practice nationwide. In a mid-20th century world where most married women were stay-at-home wives, the main effect of this change was to provide tax relief to these more traditional families. Breadwinner husbands were able to split their incomes with their non-working spouses, and pay less tax. But the newly established system included a built-in penalty for secondary earners that would become increasingly problematic as more women sought to join the workforce.Heres how the joint filing trap works: Under our tax system, higher incomes face higher marginal rates, meaning a couples combined income can push them into a higher tax bracket than if they filed separately. A married womans earnings, assuming she earns less than her husband, is taxed at the higher rate determined by her husbands income. Joint filing essentially stacks her earnings on top of his for tax purposes.To give a more concrete, albeit simplified, example: lets say a woman, Kate, who earns $100,000, marries Jack, who earns $200,000, and they decide to file jointly. Together, their combined income of $300,000 would fall into the 24 percent tax bracket for joint filers. If Kate had filed individually, she would have been taxed in the 22 percent tax bracket, while Jacks $200,000 would push him into the 32 percent bracket. Put simply, Kates earnings are taxed more when she jointly files with Jack. Though married couples in the US have the option of filing separately, fewer than 7 percent actually do, as that almost always subjects their household to higher taxes than joint filing, in addition to causing them to lose other benefits. In this scenario, Kate and Jacks take-home pay would be roughly $5,000 more if filed jointly than if they went with married filing separately. These tax dynamics shape womens behavior. Early in their careers, married young women often decide it makes more sense to quit working or go part-time, so their family can save on child care and pay less in tax. Recent economic research has concluded that eliminating joint filing in the US would significantly increase married womens workforce participation throughout their whole life.While the effects of joint taxation are most acute in early and mid-career, their cumulative impact shapes womens lifetime economic trajectories, Mariacristina De Nardi, an economist at the University of Minnesota, told Vox. She found it striking how the effects of joint filing persisted across different age groups, and despite womens increasing educational attainment and aspirations, continue to counteract broader societal progress today.America stands increasingly alone in maintaining this system. In the decades after World War II, most countries copied Americas joint filing approach, but by the 1970s and 1980s both to advance gender equality and to boost overall employment nearly all OECD countries reverted back to individual tax filing systems. The empirical evidence from these reforms is remarkable: Sweden, which abandoned its joint filing system in 1971, saw significant increases in married womens employment, as did Canada, which shifted to individual taxation in 1988. In a telling contrast, when the Czech Republic bucked the international trend and introduced joint taxation in 2005, the number of married women in the workforce went down.Could we fix this in the US?Joint filing was meant to support men in traditional marriages, which consisted of a male breadwinner and his stay-at-home wife. Given that labor market discrimination in the 20th century kept Black mens wages low, most Black wives could not afford to stay at home.The joint return was never about helping women it was about helping white guys pay less in taxes, said Dorothy Brown, a tax law professor at Georgetown University.Defenders of joint filing argue the model supports household specialization by enabling one partner to focus on valuable unpaid work like caregiving. But this argument looks increasingly thin in an era of longer lifespans, more dual-earner households, and high divorce rates. In 2012, the US Government Accountability Office released a study showing that a divorced womans income plummets by an average of 41 percent after a divorce, almost twice the decline that men experience. Academic research published in 2020 similarly found that wives who divorce after age 50 see a 45 percent decline on average in their standard of living, compared to a 21 percent drop for husbands.Related:Lets get divorcedThe path to reforming joint filing in the US faces unique challenges. Today, any complete elimination of the practice would likely be politically dead in the water.In the 1990s, when federal lawmakers proposed an optional individual tax filing system for married couples which is not the same as the married filing separately option conservative groups rallied hard against it. Activists argued it would create a homemaker penalty while undermining the institution of marriage by disincentivizing wedlock. Filing individually would qualify individuals for benefits and tax deductions they could not access either filing jointly or married filing separately, but the proposal failed, leaving married couples with only those two options. University of Southern California Law professor Edward McCaffery, the author of a 1997 book on joint filing, said the political backlash to this proposal was revealing, as that legislation had already been a concession to social conservatives because it wasnt aiming to completely eliminate joint taxation. When Phyllis Schlafly and the Liberty Foundation came out against it, it was dead on arrival, McCaffery told Vox. It became clear it wouldnt be enough to just not hurt traditional families, youd have to give them some special goodies, too. The US system is particularly entrenched because health care and retirement systems have evolved for decades around joint family benefits. Married couples who file jointly, for example, typically qualify for lower health insurance premiums and more comprehensive coverage than those who file separately. Similarly, filing jointly gives married couples greater access to their spouses Social Security benefits.Past decisions around work and family including career gaps that erode skills and networks have also created sticky lock-in effects that would be difficult for millions of couples to reverse, even if Congress abandoned joint filing tomorrow.Still, more targeted reforms might work. During the Reagan administration, Congress briefly implemented a tax deduction for secondary earners, essentially reducing the tax penalty on wives by allowing couples to deduct 10 percent of the lower-earning spouses income, up to $3,000. Some economists have proposed bringing this idea back.Michael Graetz, a tax professor emeritus at Columbia and Yale law schools, advocates both reinstating the secondary earner deduction and expanding child care subsidies. These changes would help protect secondary earners at a crucial career juncture, when child-rearing responsibilities often force women to reduce their working hours for financial reasons. Tax policy might not be the first thing on the agenda for most feminist activists, but the case for rethinking joint filing is strong. As De Nardis research demonstrates, joint filing still poses a major barrier to womens participation in the workforce, even for younger and more educated women.Over time, political inertia and the complexity of reforming entrenched tax systems have likely contributed to its persistence, she said. Policymakers and the public may also underestimate the long-term costs.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

In a first for the reality television industry, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued on Wednesday that contestants on Netflixs dating show Love Is Blind should be classified as employees a designation that would give them significantly more on-set protections, including the ability to unionize. The filing by the NLRBs regional office in Minneapolis comes after two of the shows former contestants Renee Poche and Nick Thompson levied complaints with the Board, alleging unfair labor practices. Those complaints coincided with lawsuits filed by Poche and another former contestant, Tran Dang, both of whom raised worries about their physical safety on the program.The filing is the start of a long process, and doesnt immediately mean that Love Is Blind contestants have to be classified as employees. Depending on what happens in the new Trump administration, its also likely they may not attain that classification in the near term. Related:Thats because the NLRBs statement is only an initial complaint against the two production companies Kinetic Content and Delirium TV that run the show, and multiple things still have to happen before that statement becomes policy. First, the companies have the option to reach a settlement with the NLRB. If theyre unable to, an administrative court will review the claims of labor violations next spring. Then, any decisions that are made could be subject to a series of appeals. President-elect Donald Trumps ascent to the White House also adds uncertainty. As president, Trump will be able to name his own picks to key NLRB roles, including officials who could push for a favorable settlement for the companies, or drop the case. Kinetic Content (which oversees Delirium TV) and Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment. That the NLRB has put forth the complaint is still notable, and spotlights important questions about how reality television contestants are treated, however. Love Is Blind, which has become highly popular on Netflix since it debuted in 2000, is far from the only reality TV show thats seen contestants navigate alleged abusive working conditions and potential threats of violence. If you look at some of their individual contracts, theyre pretty shocking, Day Krolik, an adjunct law professor at New York University and former director of labor relations at NBC, told Vox, of reality show agreements broadly. Some of them say the individual can expect to not have food for a protracted period of time that you may be subject to what many would consider sexual harassment. You know, you agree to all this.This would set an industrywide precedent if it became policyA key aspect of the complaint deals with how the production companies of Love Is Blind classify the contestants on the show. Currently, theyre participants, and not employees, which means productions arent subject to an array of legal requirements around wages, paid leave, or insurance. Notably, the contestants also arent able to unionize and dont have protections under the National Labor Relations Act, which establishes the right to a union. The issue of worker classification has been contested in other industries, too, including at gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft. As independent contractors, for instance, Lyft and Uber drivers are unable to unionize and dont have workplace safety protections, both gaps that have been points of contention. If Love Is Blind contestants were considered employees, theyd be able to unionize and be able to receive crucial labor protections on multiple fronts. If they are considered employees then the employer may have to follow many other laws that cover employees: workers compensation, unemployment insurance, discrimination laws, OSHA, tax laws, says Cathy Creighton, director of Cornell Universitys Industrial and Labor Relations Buffalo Co-Lab.Notably, too, that shift in classification could set a widespread precedent for the entire reality TV industry. The NLRB would evaluate each show on a case-by-case basis, experts tell Vox, but having another show be subject to a filing like this sets a legal standard that could be applied to others as well. I think this would set a precedent that workers in similar situations should be covered employees under the National Labor Relations Act, Laura Padin, director of work structures at the National Employment Law Project, told Vox. Other parts of the NLRB filing take aim at common practices that reality shows are known to use, finding that Love Is Blinds confidentiality agreements, non-compete clauses, and pay-or-stay requirements are also unlawful. Under these agreements, contestants are muzzled about many of their experiences on the show for a certain period of time, and had previously been threatened with a fine of $50,000 if they chose to leave the show early. The filing is unlikely to translate to policy just yetThe NLRBs complaint is the beginning of a lengthy process to change how production companies treat the contestants on Love Is Blind. One of two things will happen next.The filing could be settled by the NLRB and the companies involved: This would involve negotiations between the NLRB and the production companies to try to find terms that both could agree to. If theyre unable to find such an agreement, the complaint will be evaluated by an administrative judge, who will hear arguments from both parties in April. Any decision made by that judge can then be appealed, including to the national board and then federal court. Adding uncertainty into these proceedings is the fact that Trump is widely expected to fire the current NLRB general counsel, who is integral to overseeing these cases. A Trump general counsel could decide that they want to reach a quick settlement with the production companies or even drop the case. Trump is also set to fill the two open seats on the NLRB with Republican members, giving the panel a GOP majority thats set to take a more pro-business direction and rule favorably for companies if they have to consider an appeal. As such, its not likely a reclassification of Love Is Blind contestants, or those of other reality shows, will happen in the near term. Despite this, though, the NLRB announcement brings additional awareness to issues that have plagued the reality TV industry for years and could encourage other complaints, regardless of what happens with the Love Is Blind filing.This could change the reality TV industry forever, Bryan Freedman, Poches attorney, told CNN. The practices identified by the NLRB in its complaint against Delirium are ubiquitous in this space.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Culture

Millions of Syrians around the world are celebrating the sudden fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime dictatorship and the end of 13 years of civil war.The war came to a rapid, stunning end earlier this month, after Syrian rebel forces swept through the country and into its capital of Damascus after less than two weeks of fighting.Now, those Syrian refugees displaced by years of conflict are faced with a difficult decision: whether to return home to a Syria that is free but in ruins or to remain in their host countries.For many, the decision to repatriate depends on where they now live. Millions of Syrian refugees reside in countries bordering Syria Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan and endure precarious conditions in crowded and destitute refugee camps. Others are internally displaced within Syria.Well more than a million others have been taken in by European countries, the UK, the United States, and Canada, and may want to wait and see what comes next. They may be eager to reestablish ties with family and friends, but hesitant to uproot their families, including children who may have no memory of life in Syria.Some countries arent waiting for refugees to decide for themselves, however, or for Syria to rebuild. Austria, which is home to about 100,000 Syrian migrants, has already announced deportation plans. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the UK have suspended asylum applications from Syrians, and France is considering similar action.But Syrias future is far from certain. The countrys economy is in tatters, inflation is high, and public infrastructure has been decimated. Basic amenities like clean water, electricity, and housing are difficult to find. The coalition of rebel groups that overthrew the Assad regime is led by an Islamist militant group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which has ties to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. HTS is designated by the US and the UN as a terror group, but has also broken with al-Qaeda and attempted to establish itself as a legitimate actor in Syria.Today, Explained host Noel King spoke about the plight of Syrian refugees with Amany Qaddour. She directs the humanitarian nongovernmental organization Syria Relief & Development and is an associate faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.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, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.Noel KingYou are Syrian American. Do I have that right? Can you just tell me about your ties to Syria?Amany QaddourMy heritage is Syrian. My parents are Syrian, but I grew up in the US my whole life. I grew up in the Midwest.Noel KingAnd where are we reaching you, Amany?Amany QaddourIm in Gaziantep, Turkey. So for those unfamiliar, its in the southeast of Turkey, one of the cities that was the epicenter of the earthquakes that hit last year.Noel KingI want to get a sense of the scale of movement that happened as a result of Syrias decade-plus-long civil war. There were people who left the country. There were people who moved around inside the country. What are we talking about in terms of numbers and where did people tend to end up?Amany QaddourLets talk about outflow first. This is a country that has probably 6 million to 7 million refugees outside of the country, one of the highest for those that have been following Syria for the past decade-plus. This is one of the highest numbers of refugees across the world, now probably closely tied with Afghanistan and Ukraine. But for quite some time it was Syria. A lot of these refugees ended up in surrounding countries. And then the rest ended up in many, many places: Europe, the UK, the US, Canada. But I would say the bulk of refugee-hosting countries for Syrians have been the surrounding ones, including Turkey, where I reside right now. And then in terms of inflow within the country, across the various governorates, the majority of displaced communities have been in the northwest. This is one of the highest displaced populations across the world right now. Within the country, its about 6 or so million displacements. And in the northwest, its housed about 4 million. These 4 million have come from other parts of the northwest as a result of aerial attacks to civilian infrastructure, hospitals, clinics, schools, marketplaces for those that have followed Syrias catastrophic inflection points, chemical weapons attacks, seizures on various cities so a lot of these people have come from Idlib and Aleppo, essentially just moving from place to place depending on where there have been attacks on civilians. The rest have come from some of the other governorates Damascus, Homs, Hama. A lot of these people may have been fleeing because of how dangerous it was to reside in some of these other governorates. Some were fleeing forced military conscription, particularly young men of military age. So really, a mixture of reasons. But the northwest in particular, I would say, is really housing the majority of the displaced.Noel KingFor those Syrians who were forced to flee outside of Syria, what did it mean for the countries where they ended up?Amany QaddourIts really varied. This has been a microcosm of so many other crises. Over the past 13 years, theres been a lot of really touching solidarity with the Syrian people. I think people have been so tremendously generous in hosting Syrians in different countries. But then there have also been waves of anti-refugee sentiment, where a lot of countries are also looking inward now at their own economic conditions, their own workforce, their own health systems, if theyre able to actually subsidize these health services for their own populations. A lot of this also changed post-Covid, where countries also had serious economic issues, not just developing countries, not just in fragile settings, but also in more developed countries like the US and many countries in Europe as well.Noel KingSo a mix of reactions, some of them very good, some of them not so good. What are you hearing from Syrians who were displaced outside of the country now that Bashar al-Assad is gone? Do they want to go home?Amany QaddourI think yes, but theres a caveat. I think, without getting emotional about this, you can feel the hope and you can see the resilience of the Syrian people across the world right now in scenes of people celebrating in almost every country and real solidarity. I think this is a moment in history, this is a moment in time for people and before discussing whats next, lets let Syrians have this moment. Lets let them celebrate, rejoice. Feel the joy. Feel the pain. Feel the suffering. Feel the loss and the family separation, the detainment, the persecutions. This is a bittersweet moment for a lot of people. And I think its really important to let them process all of this. On the other hand, a lot of Syrians are now either wanting to return or, at a minimum, just get permission to enter the country, to reunite with parents that they havent seen for ten years, young men and women that had to leave the country, separate from their families, out of safety or simply because of how much economic deterioration there was. Im very cautious about what this means when many say they want to return. Is the time necessarily now? No. Is there a firm timeline? I also dont know. What I would say, especially to host countries is, this is not a moment to exploit asylum policies. This is not a moment to sort of weaponize this critical point in time and immediately start discussing returns, especially if theyre not this trifecta: voluntary, safe, and dignified for people. Noel KingThis has been a contentious issue in some European countries. Have any European countries come out since Assad was forced out and said, we actually plan to do things differently now?Amany QaddourSo its been a dizzying few days. I believe Austria has. I am cautious to mention names of other countries, but even prior to this moment in time, a few countries have been looking at their migration policies. Germany has been looking at its migration policies. Holland has been looking. Denmark is really trying to understand what are the conditions in Syria so that they can also reframe or recalibrate their own migration policies and determine, is it safe for returns and can Syrians be sent back now?Noel KingIf people were to choose to go back, what are they going back to? What does Syria look like now?Amany QaddourThats really hard. A lot of people, its just home for them. Its just, Im going back home. Im going back to mom and dad or my brothers and sisters that were 5 years old before, and now theyre teenagers. So many of my colleagues, my team are going back right now and reuniting with family. And its so touching. I think a lot of people had lost hope. There was a clear disillusionment, I would say, with the international system. But I do worry that what people are going back to now, the country needs reconstruction. It needs development. Its been destroyed. So there really isnt, in certain areas, much to go back to. Thats not the case for all parts of Syria. Inflation has hit the country hard. And this is also situated within wider regional instability and also major inflation rates in the region. So generally, economic insecurity in Syria and outside, which also adds to some of the push-pull factors for some Syrians that have struggled also outside of the country, especially in neighboring countries, unable to afford basic services, basic amenities. You have decimated infrastructure. So public infrastructure, schools, and very few job prospects. And across the health system Im a public health practitioner, so this has been my area of focus for many, many years now the hospital and health care infrastructure thats almost completely collapsed in certain areas. Noel KingWe talked to a young man named Omar Alshogre earlier in the show whos 29 years old. He said his hometown is the most beautiful place in the world. But hes been in Europe since he was about 19 or 20. He has a whole life there. And so this is going to be a very, very hard call for someone like this young man. I imagine youre going to hear those types of stories again and again and again over the coming months and years.Amany QaddourYeah, definitely. I think a lot of people now are grappling with this, especially a lot of my colleagues and friends whove had children that have been born in other countries now. And theres this identity, where we hear theres something called Syria that were originally from there. What that actually means, they may be too young to process that. They may feel theyre Jordanian, they may feel theyre Turkish, they may feel theyre British. So really thinking about the identity of not only children that were born outside of the country now and that are now teens or tweens, but also some of these people that left right at the end of university or high school. And the majority of their formative years now have been lived outside of the country.Its a big decision to move back at this point in time, especially when there arent these amenities, there arent these services. Theres also a whole generation that has not been able to access education in the country. Where are you able to secure your own livelihood, your own education? Is that going to be immediately in Syria tomorrow? Absolutely not. Its going to take time. Its a tough decision then to kind of uproot them all over again, especially when some of the ones in Jordan and Lebanon, theyre on their fourth or fifth or sixth displacement. Theyve started their lives over multiple times. So some also just want stability in any form. And I think its just theres only so much a person can handle.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 may come as a surprise that theres a movie musical that currently has more awards hype than Wicked. Emilia Prez quietly landed on Netflix last month (and, a bit more loudly, film buffs on X) after making a huge splash at this years Cannes Film Festival, where it won the Jury Prize and the first Best Actress Award for an ensemble. Earlier this week, the Jacques Audiard film received 10 Golden Globes nominations, the most for a film this year, including Best Picture Musical or Comedy. For an awards race thats still up in the air, the musical seems to be among the most locked in. But is Emilia Prez a film about a cartel leader who gets gender-affirming surgery and escapes a life of crime actually good? As with many stories mining the grim realities of oppressed communities, critics and awards bodies have rushed to praise the avant garde film for exploring trans identity and Mexicos drug war. Glowing reviews have lauded the bravery and originality of French filmmaker Audiard in centering underrepresented characters and delivering provocative subject matter through a trippy, Spanish-language musical. Meanwhile, the general public, at least according to Letterboxd, is less high on the film, and many queer critics are concerned if not completely baffled by its existence. In a story for The Cut, writer Harron Walker criticized Emilia Prezs use of trans identity as an inherently redemptive tool for its criminal protagonist. An article in Autostraddle called the film the most unique cis nonsense youll ever see. Even the LGBTQ organization GLAAD has condemned the film as bad trans representation.Still, Emilia Prezs presence in the Oscars race isnt exactly a shock, given that it falls neatly into a category of movies the white Hollywood establishment loves to celebrate: mawkish stories about people on societys margins that allow viewers to feel socially aware through their consumption, without challenging of any of the stereotypes and political messaging presented in them. Could Emilia Prez become this years Crash? What exactly is Emilia Prez? Adapted from Audiards opera libretto of the same name and based on the 2019 Boris Razon novel coute, Emilia Prez is essentially a rock musical about three Mexican women whose lives are upended when one of them, Emilia (Karla Sofa Gascn), decides to transition. The film begins with Rita (Zoe Saldaa), a Dominican defense lawyer exhausted by Mexicos corrupt, misogynist legal system. After getting a prominent media figure off the hook for murdering his wife, shes kidnapped by Emilia (then known as Manitas), who enlists Rita to help her escape the cartel in exchange for a large sum of cash. This exit strategy mainly entails transitioning. Its a desire Emilias had since she was a child but is curiously employed as a way to help her avoid accountability for her crimes. Rita reluctantly agrees, arranging for Emilia to get numerous gender-affirming surgeries, which are somehow all performed at once (typically, such procedures are done over time). She also relocates Emilias wife Jessi (Selena Gomez) and their two sons. Years later, when Emilia decides she wants to be reunited with Jessi and her children, she has Rita bring them back to Mexico City to share a house with her under the guise that shes her childrens aunt chosen to look after them. Feeling guilt about her past criminal life, she recruits Rita for another venture, a nonprofit that identifies the bodies of cartel victims and notifies their families. Selena Gomez as Jessi Del Monte in Emilia Prez. Page 114/Why Not Productions/Path Films/France 2 CinmaIf that isnt enough plot, the lives of these characters become even more chaotic, violent, and ultimately tragic thanks to Emilias uncontrolled and selfish impulses. A more delicate movie would zoom in on Emilias psyche as shes navigating her desires and conflicting ethics. Instead, audiences are left to gawk at the wreckage. A progressive movie with regressive tropes Despite Gascns attempts to add some charm to the role, Emilia is written as a ridiculous if not totally loathsome character, with Audiard using her trans identity as a narrative shield for her behavior instead of engaging with her as a full human being. Perfunctory attempts to portray Emilia in an empathetic light dont really balance out with the upheaval her character causes throughout the film. A lot of these issues stem from adapting a chapter that is explicitly about a cartel leader using transition as a means of escape, says critic Juan Barquin, who reviewed Emilia Prez for Little White Lies. You realize that you might get accused of being transphobic, so you try to smooth it over by hiring a trans actress and revising certain beats without looking at how other parts of the script reflect transness negatively. In Emilia Prez, Audiard makes some effort to inform the audience of Emilias lifelong dreams of womanhood. This is a modification from the chapter of Razons novel that the film is based on, according to Barquin, where a drug trafficker solely transitions to escape the cartel, modeling herself after her first love. Even with Audiards perfunctory attempts to validate Emilias gender identity, its largely played as a disguise throughout the movie. Moments of Emilias mask slipping around her family feel like scenes ripped out of Tootsie or Mrs. Doubtfire. When she becomes angry and violent toward Jessi, her voice reverts back to a deep, gravelly tone. Theres not much separating this portrayal from harmful anti-trans rhetoric that suggests trans women are deceptive actors who pose harm to cis women. Barquin also notes that the movies engagement with transness is solely focused on the external change of medical transition, as well as presenting only two sex options, male and female. These flaws are best encapsulated in a silly, Busby Berekley-inspired number (La vaginoplastia) where a plastic surgeon lists for Rita all the gender-affirming procedures available to Emilia. In a viral moment from the sequence, he blandly sings, Man to woman, penis to vagina!Zoe Saldaa as Rita Mora Castro in Emilia Prez. Page 114/Why Not Productions/Path Films/France 2 CinmaEmilia Prezs depiction of Mexican culture feels equally regressive and lazy. Mexico is presented as an inescapably violent and miserable place. Meanwhile, references to a characters Mexican identity include smelling like tequila and guacamole. Little effort was seemingly put into ensuring that the films language was spoken properly. This has resulted in criticism of Gomez. She just sounds like she doesnt actually understand what shes saying, which arguably extends to the director who doesnt actually understand the language either, says Barquin. For a supposedly unconventional tale, the movie doesnt challenge any of the stereotypical narratives about the drug trade that are already rampant in popular Western media and politics. These narco-narratives fail to encapsulate the nuances of the drug trade, particularly the political role of the Global North, and exaggerate the authority of drug traffickers in Mexico. Instead, the film relishes in this violence, using it to portray both realism and melodrama. By the time the movie ends with a climactic shootout, audiences will have seen it coming. Emilia Prez is the most stereotypical Oscar movie If history is any predictor, all these issues make Emilia Prez a huge threat come Oscar nominations next month. If it gets the kind of nominations it received from the Globes, its particularly likely to pick up some awards at the ceremony. Its become a trope of the Oscars that, every few years, a thoughtless movie tackling important issues becomes a favorite among Academy voters, who pat themselves on the back for celebrating what they believe to be diversity and political art in an extremely whitewashed industry. Movies in this questionably political category tend to feature othered people dealing with some melodramatic version of struggle. Danny Boyles 2008 film Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars, including Best Picture, while facing intense backlash from critics in India about how it represented urban poverty in the country, as well as the Academys reluctance to celebrate movies by Indian filmmakers. Sometimes, theyre clunky messages about tolerance that inevitably focus more on the arc of the privileged characters. 2019s Best Picture winner Green Book, a reverse Driving Miss Daisy, has become recently infamous in this regard. Sometimes, theyre ham-fisted allegories about racism like Best Action Short winner Skin. The Academy has also shown adoration toward a slew of white/cis/hetero savior stories, like 2009s The Blind Side, about a white family that adopts NFL player Michael Oher, and 2011s The Help, about a white woman (Emma Stone) who publishes the stories of Black domestic workers in the Jim Crow South. 2013s Dallas Buyers Club, where an anti-gay cowboy diagnosed with HIV/AIDS illegally gets other patients access to medicine, also folds into this Academy narrative. The convoluted messaging of Emilia Prez is maybe most reminiscent of 2005s Best Picture winner Crash. The Paul Haggis movie, which controversially beat Brokeback Mountain, attempted to expose the layers of prejudice in a post-9/11 Los Angeles. The problem was, it had no idea how racism actually functions in society, flattening the countrys systemic racial division to personal pettiness. Emilia Prez is an equally reductive look at trans and Latino/Latina identity with no idea of what it wants to say about its desolate characters. Instead, it offers a lot of confusion and hardly any compassion. Under a soon-to-be president who gained power in American politics partly by attacking trans and Mexican populations, it will be interesting to see whether there will be more rigorous engagement with Emilia Prez throughout awards season. As history has shown, though, its more convenient for Hollywoods awards bodies to celebrate whatever diverse offering falls in their lap first, often leaving the most insightful stories about underrepresented people unnoticed. For now, Emilia Prez seems like an ideal pick for Best Picture: tragic, brave, and deeply out of touch. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

At the end of every year, journalists like to look back and see where our predictions held up or fell flat, what were the years biggest events, and just what the year, considered as a whole, really meant.As I started doing this for 2024 I was taken aback by just how many things happened. Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race! Donald Trump was nearly assassinated! and convicted of 34 felonies! and elected again! Elon Musk became his right-hand man. Israels war in Gaza exploded into additional fights with Hezbollah and Iran, which resolved shockingly quickly (unless I speak too soon). Out of nowhere the Syrian rebels overthrew a more than 50-year-old regime. We had a new alarming bird flu epidemic that is increasingly jumping from animals to people. (If you havent heard about it, its because people clearly never want to think about pandemics again.) Self-driving cars went from fantasy to widespread reality (at least where I live in the Bay Area). AI grew by leaps and bounds, again: You can now generate much better images, get comprehensive research reports on any topic, and talk for free to models that perform well across a wide range of tasks (while still having some glaring basic failings). One of the biggest challenges of writing any retrospective like this is figuring out, in a tide of events, which ones will really last five, 10, or even 50 years from now. Our news cycles run very fast these days. Nothing stays in the headlines or in the discourse for long we chew through events, interpret them, meme them, and move on from them. The consequences for the lives of millions of people will absolutely linger, but then discourse is off to the next topic this week, the United Healthcare shooter; next week, who knows? In the rapid churn of this environment, it can be really hard to keep in mind which events are consequential, even world-changing, and which will be swiftly forgotten.Keeping some perspective on the newsTheres little I find more humbling than reading year-in-reviews from the past. They only rarely mention what we might now identify as the most important events of that year: the founding of Google in 1998 or Amazon in 1994; the invention of the modern internet in 1983; the development of a highly effective HIV antiviral regimen in 1996. In hindsight, the most important thing that happened in 2019 by far were reports in Chinese-language media in late December of a strange new disease. Yet Voxs 2019 year in review highlighted the first Trump impeachment (remember that?) and the longest government shutdown in history (Id forgotten that one entirely).Of course, theres no way to confidently guess in advance which emerging new virus will kill millions and which, like most, will quietly and uneventfully peter out. And if you have a way to identify Amazons and Googles in advance, I presume youre using it to become fabulously wealthy rather than to write news articles. But there are some general trends here to learn from. Politics matters, having huge effects on hundreds of millions of lives. But the things we spotlight about politics often arent the things that matter most. An administrations regulatory changes that kill nuclear power, accelerate vaccine development, or fund AIDS prevention in Africa will often matter far more than whatever the highest-profile political fights of the year were. International events matter, but theyre extraordinarily difficult to predict. No one I spoke to saw the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria coming even the experts often expected there was little chance of the frozen civil war moving at all this year, let alone coming to this shocking conclusion. (The rapid collapse of the Afghan state after the US withdrawal also took many prognosticators by surprise. The lesson: Wars can spend a long time in what looks like a stalemate and then change very, very fast).The other takeaway is that technology matters. In the long run, the most world-changing events of the 20th century were often inventions: the antibiotics and vaccines that took child mortality from half of all children to virtually none; the washing machines and vacuums that changed domestic labor and the air conditioners that changed settlement patterns in the US; the transformations of our civic culture and society brought about by the radio, and then the television, and then the computer, and then the smartphone. Every technologist likes to claim theyre the next step on that journey, and most of them are wrong but someone will be right, and anyone who writes off massive technological change in our lifetimes is even more wrong. What will we remember?For that reason, theres one question I have found it particularly helpful to have in mind as I review 2024: What about my life this year would have shocked me the most if Id known about it in 2014? And the answer there, at least for me, is unambiguously artificial intelligence. When I want a highly specific piece of artwork, I type a few words and generate it; when Im trying to make sense of some bit of technical text, I ask a language model its interpretation. Self-driving cars are cool, but we knew in 2014 that people were trying to make that happen. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and tensions spiked between Israel and Gaza; the Syrian civil war was already underway. Most of the shape of what became 2024 would not have surprised me too badly. But the capabilities of modern AI systems are wildly beyond anything we could have imagined a decade ago. But that might just be me I use AI more than many of our readers. So I ask you: What about your life today would have shocked you most in 2014? That might be the real answer to what the most important thing that happened this year is.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:

From the Desk of: Ed JayFrom the Desk Of: Anousheh Ansari

Democrats will hold some of North Carolinas highest offices, including the governorship, come January. But these incoming lawmakers will be less powerful than their predecessors, after the Republican-dominated legislature stripped away several of their duties this week.It isnt the first time Republicans in North Carolinas state legislature have shifted the balance of power away from Democrats and toward members of their own party. As a result, the North Carolina governorship is a weaker office than it is in many other states and Republicans will have a remarkable degree of influence over state politics, despite Democratic victories at the ballot box in November.North Carolina is a deeply polarized state, and was considered a battleground in the 2024 elections. Now, when Gov.-elect Josh Stein and other Democrats take office in 2025, the battle will be between them and a legislature still dominated by Republicans.What powers did the governor and other officials lose?The state legislature, known as the General Assembly, didnt just target Stein, although hes the most high-profile official that the new law applies to. The incoming lieutenant governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction (who oversees the states public school system) all had authority stripped from them in the new legislation.There are two major changes to Steins authority. First, he loses the ability to make appointments to North Carolinas five-person elections board. Previously, the governor appointed two Republicans and two Democrats, and a fifth member who could belong to either political party. (Typically, the governor appointed a member of their own party for that final slot.) The State Board of Elections chooses four of the five members of each county board, with the governor appointing the fifth member again, usually a member of the governors party. Those powers will now be in the hands of the new state auditor, Republican Dave Boliek. It shifts from Democratic control to Republican control, because the auditor is now a Republican, and if they keep the same basic principle, hell appoint three Republicans and Democrats will appoint two, Michael Bitzer, a political science professor at North Carolinas Catawba College, told to Vox. Whether that will be significant in terms of what the election board does in the future, I think well just have to wait and see.Perhaps of greater significance, Stein will also have limits around who he can appoint to vacant state supreme court and Court of Appeals seats; now, rather than appointing any qualified person, the law states he must choose from a list recommended by the political party executive committee of the political party with which the vacating judge was affiliated when elected, preventing him from significantly changing the balance of power in those courts. The other significant change relates to incoming Attorney General Jeff Jackson. Under the new law, he will be required to defend the state legislatures bills when they are challenged at any level. Why did this happen?Current North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, which also included some funds for disaster relief following Hurricane Helene, but Republicans have enough of a majority in both the states House and Senate to override gubernatorial vetos. Republicans, however, will narrowly lose their veto-proof supermajority in the House next year this bill represents the partys last chance to impose strict limits on the governorship and executive power. In many ways, North Carolina is a state primed for the sort of action the legislature took this week: The states executive branch has always been weak, Bitzer said.The General Assembly is the first among co-equal branches of government, Bitzer told Vox. And this is a long history, going back to colonial rule. So the executive branch is weak in general, and they serve at the discretionary authority of what the General Assembly assigns to them.This is not the first time the North Carolina General Assembly has weakened an incoming administrations power. Before Cooper started his first term in 2016, the General Assembly then also dominated by Republicans voted to curtail Coopers power over the state board of elections and have the state senate approve the governors Cabinet selections.They took [powers] from him in 2016, [and] they continued to take more powers throughout the rest of the cycle, Democratic North Carolina state Sen. Sydney Batch told Vox.What youve seen is an attrition of powers in every single elected office that has consistently gone Democratic.A similar dynamic played out in the 1970s, when Republican Jim Holzhauser was the governor and Democrats dominated the General Assembly. Republicans have taken similar action in other states as well: For example, Wisconsins Republican-dominated legislature also adopted measures to limit Democratic Gov. Tony Everss power before he took office in 2019.Whats nextIn the immediate term, there are likely to be challenges to the new law in court; however, if those challenges make their way up to the state supreme court, they will face a Republican-dominated bench. The new General Assembly will meet on January 29. The Senate will maintain a strong Republican majority, as will the House. Again, House Republicans are just one vote shy of a veto-proof supermajority with 71 seats; theyll need to appeal to at least some of the chambers 49 Democrats if they want to stymie Steins agenda. I think Stein and Jackson will certainly attempt to use their executive authority and any discretionary power that they feel they have to pursue their own goals, Bitzer said. But I think were in institutional battle lines between the legislature and the governor and other Democratic executive officers, and well just see how trench warfare plays itself out over the next four years.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

In September 1973, the hi-fi sound equipment mogul Avery Fisher made a massive gift of $10 million (about $70 million in todays dollars) to the New York Philharmonic. In thanks, Lincoln Center renamed the venue where the orchestra performs Avery Fisher Hall. Fisher was reportedly reluctant to agree to have the hall named after him, but nonetheless, the donation specified that his name be used in perpetuity.But in 2015, Lincoln Center wanted more money, and the record company billionaire David Geffen wanted to put his name on some stuff. He wanted that very hall to be renamed in his own honor, despite the Fisher name supposedly being forever.Geffen succeeded with a gift of $100 million to Lincoln Center and perhaps more importantly Lincoln Center paid $15 million to Fishers descendants so they would not sue. What that means is that the most prominent cultural organization in New York City lit $15 million on fire so that Geffens name would be on a concert hall. That $15 million didnt even go to renovating the hall it was just a bribe for Geffens own vanity, taking $15 million away from other things Lincoln Center could have invested in. Dont worry though, the other $100 million reportedly helped with a variety of acoustical shortcomings in the concert hall. Meanwhile, about 586,000 people, most of them children under the age of 5, died of malaria in 2015, a disease that is easily treatable and preventable with inexpensive interventions that Geffen could have funded instead. But he wanted his name on a theater.A piece this week in the New York Times, however, warns that were at risk of giving too much money to malaria and not enough money to less optimized causes, like fixing acoustical shortcomings in concert halls. Author Emma Goldberg laments that effective altruism (EA), which asks us to use reason and evidence to find the charitable causes that can do the most good per dollar, has become the dominant way to think about charity, which argues, essentially, that you do not get to feel good for having done anything at all.The second claim is so bizarre its hard to know where to start: I have been part of the EA community for a decade at this point, and I have never once heard someone argue that you should not feel good for helping others. Most EAs I know have complex and nuanced feelings about how their emotions and their giving relate. In general, if you hear a group described as believing something obviously ridiculous, you should consider the possibility that youre being lied to.But the first claim, that EA has become the dominant way that charity is done in the US, is even more wrong, and more insidious. The best data Ive seen aggregating donations from major effective altruist groups like grants from the Open Philanthropy group, individual donations given through GiveWell, etc. found that a little under $900 million was donated by EA funders in 2022. Those donations were mostly, but not exclusively, made in the US.By contrast, total US charitable donations in 2022 were $499 billion. That means that even if all EA funding were in the US, it would amount to a whopping 0.18 percent of all giving. Giving to the arts alone that year totaled $24.67 billion, or over 27 times more than was allocated based on EA ideas.Put differently: US philanthropy is still much, much, much more about rich guys like David Geffen slapping their names on concert halls than it is about donating to help people dying from malaria, or animals being tortured in factory farms, or preventing deaths from pandemics and out-of-control AI, to name a few EA-associated causes.Pretending otherwise, though, lets more complacent philanthropists off the hook for refusing to think through the consequences of their actions. Goldberg approvingly cites the writer and political philosopher Amy Schiller, arguing that philanthropic funds are better spent on, say, rebuilding Notre Dame than on anti-malarial bednets: She wanted to know, Goldberg writes of Schiller, how could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?The life you didnt saveWell, heres one way. The Notre Dame restoration cost a reported $760 million. Top anti-malaria charities like the Malaria Consortium and the Against Malaria Foundation can save a life for $8,000, taking the highest estimate for the latter. Lets double that, just in case its still too optimistic; after all, $760 million, even spread over a few years, would require these groups to massively grow in size, and they might be less cost-efficient during that growth stage. At $16,000 per life, the Notre Dame restoration budget could save 47,500 peoples lives from malaria.Effective altruism often involves consideration of quantitative evidence, and as such, proponents are often accused of being more interested in numbers than humanity. But Id like the Notre Dame champions like Schiller to think about this in terms of concrete humanity. 47,500 people is about five times the population of the town I grew up in, Hanover, New Hampshire, which, as it happens, contains the college that Schiller now teaches at. Its useful to imagine walking down Main Street, stopping at each table at the diner Lous, shaking hands with as many people as you can, and telling them, I think you need to die to make a cathedral pretty. And then going to the next town over and doing it again, and again, until youve told 47,500 people why they have to die.Kids over cathedralsEA is in many ways an offshoot of consequentialism, the school of moral philosophy that evaluates moral actions based solely on the goodness or badness of their consequences. One of the major rivals to consequentialism is a theory called contractualism, which asks instead: Are you acting according to principles that no one could reasonably reject? Or, put another way, do you feel you can defend the rule youre following to everyone affected by it?Whatever your philosophical leanings, its a useful thought experiment. And there are some versions of that conversation I can imagine having. I think its okay to tell someone at risk of malaria that theyre not getting pills or bednets to prevent it because the money is going instead to develop a vaccine against tuberculosis so that even more peoples lives could be saved. Thats a reasonable principle to act on.In her piece, Goldberg worries that an effective altruist philanthropic strategy that among other things insists that foreigners lives count equally a foundational part of EA could fray peoples already threadbare ties to local charities like soup kitchens and shelters, worsening civic isolation. I think its worth thinking through the comparison here a bit more carefully. Housing vouchers for people experiencing homelessness in the District of Columbia, where I live now, run up to $30,000 a year. As horrific as conditions for DC-ers experiencing homelessness are, am I willing to let a couple of kids in West Africa die to put up one of my neighbors for a year? Im not.That said, its a harder question than the Notre Dame one. I can imagine explaining to kids waiting for bednets that my tax dollars are going to help people suffering in the US, not Nigeria, because we live in a democracy, and democracies have to respond more to the needs of their citizens, even if the needs in a much poorer country like Nigeria are much greater. I wont feel great, but at least theres some kind of legitimate reason. But can I imagine going down Main Street and telling people they need to die for Notre Dame? Of course not.If I were to file effective altruism down to its more core, elemental truth, its this: We should let children die to rebuild a cathedral is not a principle anyone should be willing to accept. Every reasonable person should reject it. The sight of rich Westerners like David Geffen directing their philanthropy not toward saving lives but toward improving the acoustics of the New York Phil fills me with visceral disgust. There are hard questions in the ethics of philanthropy, but this is simply not one of them. Maybe when the bednets crew amounts to more than 0.18 percent of giving, itll be worth asking if weve gone too far. But if the question is really Notre Dame versus dying kids, there is only one right answer.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

In a recent Meet the Press interview, President-elect Donald Trump claimed hes open to working with Democrats on legislation that could keep DREAMers undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children in the country. His own track record, however, casts doubt on just how serious this commitment is. I want to be able to work something out, Trump said during an exchange with NBC Newss Kristen Welker, when pressed on if he wanted DREAMers to stay in the US. His most recent remarks stand in stark contrast to his actions as president, though, when he tried to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shields some DREAMers from deportation. (He also called on Congress to act to protect DACA recipients, which it failed to do.) Related:Trumps 2017 effort to end the program threw many DREAMers into legal limbo but the Supreme Court ultimately halted it over procedural failures.Since then, however, multiple Republican-led states have filed a lawsuit thats also working its way through the courts, and thats similarly sought to unravel the program. Currently, that case is in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and experts believe it could wind up in front of the Supreme Court as soon as next year if it gets appealed. Previously, a US district court judge determined that former President Barack Obama had overstepped his executive authority by creating DACA without Congress indicating that legislation will likely be necessary to preserve its protections going forward. For more than 20 years, a legislative deal to provide DREAMers a pathway to citizenship has proved elusive, due largely to Republican opposition. In order to bring a bill protecting DREAMers to fruition, Trump would have to pressure his fellow Republicans, who will soon control both the House and the Senate, to back it. Short of doing so, his claims of supporting the group which he also made at times in his first term dont hold much substantive weight. The longstanding fight over DACA, briefly explained Obama first established DACA in 2012 in order to temporarily safeguard hundreds of thousands of DREAMers from deportation, provide work authorizations, and enable access to social benefits like health care. Recipients can renew their DACA status every two years, but the program doesnt offer a path to citizenship or permanent legal status. Because of recent court decisions, existing DACA recipients are still protected from deportation, but new applicants arent able to apply for the program. And due to the terms of the program which require applicants to have been in the United States as of 2007 many immigrants who came to the country more recently dont qualify. Of the estimated 3 million DREAMers in the United States, DACA only protects a fraction around 535,000 of them. The program had previously included tens of thousands more recipients, but some have obtained legal status through other channels, including marriage to US citizens, and others have left the country or declined to renew. Most of these DREAMers, who immigrated when they were children, are now in their 20s and 30s, and have firmly established their lives in the US. We have to do something about the DREAMers because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age, Trump told NBC News over the weekend. Many of these are middle-aged people now. DACA has long had overwhelming public support a 2023 Data for Progress poll found 56 percent of voters support it but Congress has repeatedly failed to pass legislation to enshrine the program into law and establish a path to legal status for DREAMers. This issue has only become more urgent since the program could be unwound in a Supreme Court decision as soon as next year and since a judge has concluded that executive actions arent enough to preserve it. A high court decision could leave hundreds of thousands of current DACA recipients vulnerable to deportation, and deepen the uncertainty that tens of thousands of other DREAMers are navigating when it comes to work permits and social benefits. The DREAM Act, which would grant conditional legal status to millions of DREAMers, was first introduced in 2001, but has faced numerous roadblocks in the last two decades. According to Diana Pliego, a federal advocacy strategist for the National Immigration Law Center, one of the last times this bill was under serious consideration was in 2010, when it failed in the Senate by five votes. That year, 36 Republicans and five Democrats voted against the legislation after it had already passed the House, with conservatives deriding it as a mass amnesty program. Although there have been attempts at resurrecting an immigration deal every congressional term, they have yet to succeed. Partisan divides on immigration have been a major impediment: Republicans generally resist establishing new pathways to citizenship, and Democrats have been troubled by efforts to bundle the DREAM Act with harsher immigration measures aimed at getting GOP members on board. In 2018, Trump urged senators to squash a bipartisan deal that included funding for his border wall in exchange for the DREAM Act because it didnt contain sufficient provisions limiting family-based immigration. Its possible similar efforts to link punitive policies with the DREAM Act could prove an obstacle in the new Congress as well: Would [Trump] again hold it hostage with his long laundry list of horrible anti-immigrant policy? Pliego speculated. Trump has also sought to put the blame for a lack of legislation on Democrats. And while it is true that Democrats briefly had the numbers in the Senate to pass a bill during the Obama administration, they havent had a similar majority since. Immigration legislation needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. And Democrats had 60 seats for a short period in 2009, though some of the seats were held by relatively conservative senators. The party, however, has had far narrower 50- and 51-person majorities in recent terms, and would have needed significant Republican support to approve an immigration deal during the Biden administration. As a failed border security proposal in February indicated, they havent gotten this degree of GOP support even on harsher immigration measures. What an actual fix would takeFor now, its too early to say whether Trump is actually committed to protecting DREAMers. At the end of the day, he has a history of being against DACA recipients, Pliego says. He tried to end DACA, and we took him all the way to the Supreme Court.She anticipates that a Supreme Court decision on the program in 2025 could potentially spur lawmakers into action, since Congress often waits until a policy is endangered to finally act. Protections for DREAMers have often gotten caught up in broader immigration fights. Republicans have at times signaled openness to them, but only in exchange for anti-immigrant measures including funding for Trumps border wall that Democrats once opposed.Trump could break that deadlock by pushing for a clean DREAMers bill that does not come attached to such measures. Democrats, meanwhile, may be more amenable to a package that both protects DREAMers and includes harsh security measures as the party has shifted to the right on the border in recent months but that remains very much an unknown. With Republicans in control of both the House and Senate starting in January, [the GOP is] likely to continue to oppose helping DACA recipients unless President Trump puts his weight behind any legislation and tells [them] to vote for the bill, Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, told Vox. In the past, some Republicans, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Lindsey Graham, have backed the DREAM Act, though the majority of the party has voted against it in both the Senate and the House. Yale-Loehr also notes the importance of considering a bill that doesnt contain poison pills, such as money for detention camps, that could undermine Democratic support. Barring these developments, the prospects for legislation addressing DREAMERs still appears likely out of reach in the new term. And Trumps purported backing of the group remains questionable, too. Hes never done anything for DREAMers, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz told NBC News. He will never do anything for DREAMers. This is bait, and we just have to not take 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: Politics

President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly considering deporting some immigrants to countries other than their own. If he tries to do so, it wont be the first time. Like before, however, he would probably face legal challenges. According to NBC News, Trump is considering sending immigrants whose home countries will not accept US deportees to third countries including Turks and Caicos, the Bahamas, Panama, and Grenada. Currently, many immigrants from so-called recalcitrant countries are simply released into the US since there is nowhere to send them. Its not immediately clear what legal mechanism Trump intends to rely on to carry out these deportations to third countries. A representative for the Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment. A regulation and a law currently give the executive branch some ability to deport immigrants to third countries; however, the legality of both is an open question. During his first term, Trump previously sought to use executive power to send asylum seekers of various nationalities to Guatemala under what he called an Asylum Cooperative Agreement. Under the agreement, migrants who passed through Guatemala before arriving in the US were sent back if they did not first seek protection there. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the policy, but that suit was never resolved: The government stopped enforcing the policy during the pandemic and President Joe Biden was elected. The rule remains on the books, however. If Biden does not rescind it before he leaves office, the incoming Trump administration could use it to deport people to the countries under consideration if it survives in court, and if the US can broker similar agreements with those countries. Alternatively, Trump could try to invoke federal immigration law allowing the removal of immigrants to third countries in certain circumstances, such as when they cannot be returned to their country of origin and the third country is deemed to be safe for them. The ACLU has challenged Bidens use of this law to fast-track deportations of Venezuelans to Mexico without their consent. The outcome of the lawsuit may determine the kind of powers Trump may have to carry out his plans.Either way, the Trump administration would have to ensure that immigrants would be sent to a country where they will be safe, as is required under US and international law. Folks are supposed to be safe from persecution and torture and [any] procedure has to include adequate screening for fear of return and a fair process, Katrina Eiland, deputy director of the ACLUs Immigrants Rights Project, said. To the extent [the Trump administration is] incentivized to take shortcuts, thats a huge problem and something that the ACLU and other allies Im sure would be prime to sue over. Recalcitrant countries, briefly explainedThe US had designated 13 countries as recalcitrant as of 2020, including Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran. It has not publicly updated that list in the years since, and immigrants have been arriving in the US in increasing numbers from some of those countries. For instance, apprehensions of Chinese nationals at the US southern border jumped from less than 2,000 in fiscal year 2022 to over 36,000 in 2024. Many of them are fleeing economic hardship and political oppression following the countrys strict pandemic-era lockdowns. But China has been reluctant to accept its own citizens: The US sent a large deportation flight to China in July for the first time in six years. Though Venezuela was not previously on the list of recalcitrant countries, it also stopped accepting deportation flights from the US in February following the implementation of American sanctions. While the US was previously only returning a fraction of the millions fleeing Venezuelas dictatorship, the Biden administration saw the deportation flights as a deterrent to further migration. US immigration agents recorded more than 300,000 encounters with Venezuelans in fiscal year 2024.All of these people, who number in at least the hundreds of thousands, could be targets for a deportation program that sends immigrants to third countries under Trump.Can Trump actually deport people to third countries?Whether Trump can deport people to third countries in large numbers may depend on what happens in the ACLUs pending lawsuits. But, again, existing legal authorities could allow him to carry out at least some of these removals.The ACLU has argued in its lawsuit challenging the rule underlying the USs agreement with Guatemala that the agreement does not provide for sufficient screening to determine whether an immigrant would face credible fear of persecution in Guatemala. Under US and international law, immigrants cannot be returned to places where they would face such credible fear. At the time the agreement was established, Guatemala had the ninth-highest homicide rate worldwide, at about 26 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, and the State Department had issued a travel warning for US citizens in Guatemala.The rule also claimed that asylum seekers would only be sent to countries where they have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection. The Trump administration certified that Guatemalas legal framework met that standard despite what Eiland called a total dearth of evidence in the administrative record, and in fact a lot of evidence to the contrary.Its not clear whether the same legal arguments would apply to any similar agreements Trump might broker with Turks and Caicos, the Bahamas, Panama, and Grenada. But in the meantime, Biden still has an opportunity to rescind the underlying rule that would allow additional agreements to be implemented.With a little over a month to go till inauguration, they may do nothing, in which case the rule is still there. Theoretically, the Trump administration could come in and sign new agreements, Eiland said. In its other lawsuit challenging the deportations of Venezuelans to Mexico, the ACLU has argued that such a use of the third-country removal authority is unprecedented and will result in removal to situations in which noncitizens are likely to face persecution or torture. The law lays out a detailed process for determining when an immigrant can be sent to a third country, and the ACLU has argued that the Biden administration is not abiding by it.If the courts uphold Bidens use of the law, that would potentially open the door for Trump to do the same for additional citizens of recalcitrant countries, giving him another tool through which he could carry out his plans for mass deportations. 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 Monday, police in Altoona, Pennsylvania, arrested Luigi Mangione in connection with last weeks shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. When Mangiones identity became public, the online reaction around Thompsons death went into overdrive; unlike most shootings, this one has brought a stream of support for the suspected killer rather than for the victim, and Mangiones capture has only intensified that sentiment. Related:Mangione, 26, has since been charged with second-degree murder in New York, among other crimes, and has been valorized as a folk hero in many corners of the internet, though the killing of Thompson, 50, has also been widely condemned. After Mangine was arrested and identified, his following on X went from a few dozen followers to more than 300,000 overnight. From a flood of supportive memes on Instagram and X to a shooter lookalike contest this weekend in Manhattans Washington Square Park, making jokes about Thompsons death somehow came to be considered acceptable and appropriate.The widespread interest in Mangione demonstrates just how much built-up hate there is toward insurance companies: Americans are infuriated about the costs and complications of health care coverage, and Thompsons murder has brought that anger to the surface. To try to better grasp the reaction among Americans, Today, Explained reached out to journalist Bob Herman, who covers the business of health care at Stat News and has co-reported several investigations about UnitedHealthcare.Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram spoke with Herman about UnitedHealthcares business practices, their place in the health care market, and why they have been a target of so much anger. An excerpt of his conversation with Herman, edited for length and clarity, is below. In the full podcast we also get into who Mangione is and what we know about his motives, why it took police five days to find him, and how they eventually did, so listen to Today, Explained on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts.Bob HermanUnitedHealthcare is the largest health insurance company in America, and it is part of a bigger company called UnitedHealth Group. UnitedHealthcare covers older adults on Medicare Advantage, they cover the poor who are on Medicaid, they sell Obamacare plans, and theyre also the plans that employers offer to their workers. Weve had a whole series this year called Health Cares Colossus that has looked at this massive company and how it has its tentacles everywhere. A lot of people recognize it for UnitedHealthcare, the insurance company. It is not just a health insurance company thats what its most known for, thats why its often reviled but people dont recognize all the other components that it owns. It owns a ton of medical practices. It either employs or is affiliated with one out of every 10 doctors in the country. It is the largest claims processor. They are everywhere.Sean RameswaramWhat was your reaction when you saw that Brian Thompson had been shot last week? Bob HermanIve never covered a homicide on my beat. Normally, this is a beat filled with white-collar crime, so this definitely has been outside of the norm. My colleague and I were watching UnitedHealth Groups Investor Day on Wednesday morning, just kind of a routine thing. Its a big meeting every year all kinds of investors and shareholders get together and they talk about their earnings for the year and its a big cheerleading routine. Normally Brian Thompson appears pretty early on, as the head of the insurance division for United. And then about an hour in, thats when I first got a text of a New York Post story saying that Thompson had been shot and killed. So a little bit more than an hour into it, thats when Andrew Witty, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, the parent company, came back out and canceled the rest of the conference. We had never seen anything like it.Sean RameswaramAlmost immediately, people were celebrating this homicide. What was your reaction to that?Bob HermanThe reactions were pretty morbid. Pretty grim. The dancing on the death of somebody was pretty vile. But anyone who covers health care knows that people are fed up with the system. This is not new. This has been going on for decades. Even when the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, came into play 15 years ago, people still hated the system and its persisted since then. So peoples frustrations have been bubbling under the surface for so long. To say you were surprised by all the reactions, then I think maybe you had your head buried in the sand a little bit. Sean RameswaramBefore we talk about what this company does that might upset people, can you just tell us about the company generally? Bob HermanUnitedHealthcare is the largest health insurance company in America. They cover more people than anyone [its coverage] includes Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, Obamacare, and all the different types of employer plans out there. And theres a lot. Sean RameswaramWhich I imagine makes them pretty powerful in this market.Bob HermanYeah. Now, a lot of health care dynamics are local. The fights that often occur between health insurers and providers, like hospitals and doctors, are all about who has market share in a specific area. United might not always have the biggest market share in a given area, but nationally they are very powerful, they are very profitable. Theres no way of getting around them in pretty much any market. They exist almost everywhere in some capacity. Sean RameswaramAnd what do they do with that power? How do they throw it around? Bob HermanIf you have a UnitedHealthcare plan, you want them to negotiate better rates for you. Thats their primary function. And so they use some of that to try and drive better deals with hospitals and doctors and other types of facilities. Theyre also an insurance company and they happen to deny or delay claims as well. As an insurance company, the easiest way to make money is to make sure youre paying out fewer dollars. Now, there are laws in place, especially a federal law that says you have to spend a certain amount of your premium dollars on care for people. You just have to do it. But insurers have an incentive to stay as close to those thresholds as possible. They dont want to have to pay out more than they absolutely have to.Sean RameswaramYou just, of course, used two of the operative words in this story because as we found out, the shooter had inscribed three words on his bullets: deny, delay, and depose. Is this company known for its denials? Bob HermanEvery health insurance company out there is known for their denials, to some degree. Specific rates of denials are tough to come by, but insurers especially the for-profit ones that [trade] on the stock market have an incentive to deny care. There have been so many issues with denials over the years. My colleague Casey Ross and I reported on a big one within Medicare Advantage, the program for older adults. UnitedHealthcare is the biggest [provider] in Medicare Advantage, and over the past several years, theyve been using algorithmic prediction, predictive tools, and artificial intelligence to basically ramp up denials specifically in post-acute care, the care that somebody gets when they leave the hospital. So especially on that side of the coin, post-acute care denials have been a very big issue for United. Sean RameswaramWhat exactly does that mean, that theyre using algorithms and AI to deny Medicare Advantage [claims]? How do they do that? Bob HermanSo lets say someone goes to the hospital and then the hospital says, okay, you know, youre ready for physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy. Lets send you to a rehab facility or a nursing home. So a person will go there and theyll start their physical therapy, and behind the scenes, UnitedHealthcare has used a tool called NaviHealth. Theres an algorithm within the company that looks at the patients demographics how sick they are, their history and tries to come up with some kind of prediction of how much time theyll need in that nursing home. Lets say its 16 days. Thats what the algorithm says after 16 days, you should be good. Now, if its used as a guide, thats fine. But in many cases, we found documents that said that United told their case managers, You have to stick to the algorithm.And thats where it becomes a problem, because if youre saying this algorithm spits out 16 days for somebody and theyre not ready to go home on the 16th day, if they cant even go to the bathroom themselves, if they still cant walk around but the algorithm says its time to ship them out, thats where its a problem. And thats whats happened. Then families are left with the decision of, do I pay out of pocket to stay at this nursing home to get the care that my mom or dad or grandparent needs? Or do I take them home with me and then risk having them fall or get hurt again and have to go back to the hospital or worse? So thats how the algorithms play in those types of situations. Sean RameswaramAnd people know this is happening and theyre mad about it? Bob HermanOn the Medicare Advantage side, most people actually dont. Theyre not aware as much about this because the algorithm happens behind the scenes. Its not like families are getting a sheet of paper saying, Hey, our algorithm says you have this much time here. They really dont find out about this until the nursing home says, Hey, your insurance is up and we have to kick you out now. The denials are very front and center in other insurance plans where they say, I know I need this back surgery or I need this prescription, and then United will come along with maybe a prior authorization which says, Hey, doctor, fill out more paperwork to make sure that this person needs this procedure or needs this drug. And then maybe theyll come back with a denial that says, Were not going to cover this procedure or this prescription drug. Thats where its most front and center for people, thats where a lot of the outrage comes from: those widespread delays and denials. Sean RameswaramWere talking about our eldest citizens who are often on the receiving end of these algorithms or AI initiatives that tell them theyve run out of care. Bob HermanAt least in our reporting it is for the Medicare Advantage it is the oldest, its the frail, often the poor, the oldest people in this country who often have no idea that this is going on. Once they find out, they can appeal; anyone can appeal any denial. But it is such an arduous process. If youre sick or injured, thats not something you want to be doing, and you might not have family to help you out either. So it is very clearly a problem. Sean RameswaramIs this a UnitedHealthcare-specific problem or is this a systemic problem? It feels like a systemic problem. Bob HermanThis is systemic. This is not isolated to just UnitedHealthcare. UnitedHealthcare gets the most criticism and heat for this because they are the largest and theyre a very common provider for any workplace plan. But there are other large insurers: Cigna, Aetna, all the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, Humana. This is just how US health insurance works. This is a systemic issue, especially for the insurance companies that are on the stock market. They have a duty to make money for shareholders. And one of the ways that they do that is by making sure that they pay out fewer claims. The most-watched number on every earnings call for an insurer is whats called the medical loss ratio. Thats a number that says how much money from our premiums we spend on medical care, and lower is better. If its higher than expected, Wall Street freaks out. I think that kind of tells you a lot. Sean RameswaramThis has been an insane week for this industry. But do you think anything changes now, other than executives are going to have more security? Bob HermanCould this be a galvanizing event to broader health care reform? Its certainly possible, because the American public has made their voices very clear here. But this is completely dependent on a new administration, a new Congress. This is a federal policy issue. And if Congress doesnt act, then youre just going to continue to see more of this unless companies start to make changes on their own. But if they do, itll be around the edges. Itll be tinkering.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:

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 question thats loomed over the disturbing allegations against Sean Diddy Combs is the culpability of his famous friends. Will anyone else be exposed during his upcoming trial or named in the growing pile of civil lawsuits against him? In the months since the hip-hop mogul was federally charged with sex trafficking and racketeering in the Southern District of New York, spectators online have been mining old photos of Combss star-studded white parties, looking at potential celebrities from Ashton Kutcher to Beyonc that could have been involved or at least possibly aware of his alleged freak-offs.This focus on Combss high-profile associates seems to have built on the speculation around the late financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, whose 2019 death left many open questions about his own elite circle. Online, conspiracy theories circulate about who knew or did what with the Diddy case, from QAnon-esque readings of Justin Bieber lyrics to anti-gay speculation about his mentorship of Usher. However, recent accusations involving one of Diddys most illustrious music peers have lent some gravity to this conjecture. On Monday, in an anonymous civil lawsuit, fellow rapper and mogul Jay-Z (a.k.a. Shawn Carter) was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000 along with Combs.The complaint, which was filed in October, initially only listed Combs as a defendant, concealing the names of a male celebrity who allegedly participated in the assault and a female celebrity who allegedly witnessed it. However, some back-and-forth between Carter and the accusers counsel resulted in the rappers inclusion in a re-filing, making Carter the first high-profile defendant intertwined in Combss ongoing legal scandals. While its still early days for this case, the suit raises questions about what this will mean for the rest of Combss legal proceedings, and whether other A-list figures could possibly be named. Notably, Hollywoods Me Too movement did not penetrate the even less regulated music industry in a culture-shifting way, let alone the male-dominated genre of rap. Will the calling out of a celebrity as gigantic as Jay-Z embolden more victims to speak up? What is Jay-Z being accused of? In the new lawsuit, posted by legal journalist Meghann Cuniff, the anonymous plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, claims that Combs and Carter took turns raping her at an MTV Video Music Awards after-party while an unidentified female celebrity watched. The accuser says she was transported to the party by Combss driver, who she met outside of Radio City Music Hall while she was trying to gain entry into the venue for the awards show. The driver told her he would take her to the party after the show, stating that she fit what Diddy was looking for. When they arrived at the mansion where the party was held, the woman said she signed what she thought was a nondisclosure agreement. She was also given a drink that made her feel woozy and lightheaded, making her need to lie down, according to the lawsuit. Shortly after she went into a room to rest, Combs and Carter entered. Combs allegedly grabbed her and exclaimed, You are ready to party! According to the lawsuit, Carter took off her clothes, held her down, and raped her while Combs and the unidentified female celebrity watched. Combs then allegedly raped the plaintiff while Carter and the unnamed celebrity looked on. Eventually, the plaintiff was able to escape after hitting Combs in his neck and running out of the room. Texas-based attorney Tony Buzbee, who in recent months filed numerous lawsuits against Combs accusing him of physical and sexual assault, says in the latest lawsuit that he sent Carter a demand letter prior to refiling, requesting a mediation to resolve the matter. Carter then filed his own anonymous lawsuit against the plaintiffs legal team, accusing them of extortion. In the refiled complaint, Buzbee calls Carters lawsuit frivolous and accuses him of orchestrating a conspiracy of harassment, bullying, and intimidation against Plaintiffs lawyers, their families, and former associates in an attempt to silence Plaintiff from naming him. Jay-Z and Diddy at the Roc Nation Brunch on January 25, 2020, in Los Angeles. Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Roc NationAfter the refiling, Carter denied all allegations, releasing an impassioned and seemingly unvetted by a publicist statement on his entertainment company Roc Nations social media accounts on Sunday. (The statement is currently being circulated as an ad on X.) In his response, he calls the initial demand letter he received from Buzbee a blackmail attempt, disparages Buzbees reputation as a lawyer, and mentions the effect of the accusations on his family, which includes his wife, singer Beyonc Knowles-Carter: My only heartbreak is for my family. My wife and I will have to sit our children down, one of whom is at the age where her friends will surely see the press and ask questions about the nature of these claims, and explain the cruelty and greed of people. He also implores Buzbee to file a criminal complaint rather than a civil one.On Monday, Carters attorneys opposed the plaintiffs request to proceed anonymously. The motion notes that in two previous cases that Buzbee filed in the New York district, the court denied his requests, after failing to meet the burden to show that each plaintiff was entitled to the exceptional remedy of anonymity. Are more celebrities likely to be named? While the world waits for a conclusion to this disturbing lawsuit, the implications of the news are yet to be seen. Will the exposure of someone as powerful as Carter result in more celebrities being outed in Combss legal proceedings or even sued on their own? Or is this simply the outcome of confidential back-and-forth handled in a messy manner?In a previous interview with Vox about the rise of high-profile sex-trafficking cases, former Department of Justice prosecutor Neama Rahmani said its unlikely that more would be exposed in the criminal charges against Combs, given that US Attorney Damian Williams lacks a kitchen-sink approach to prosecuting. He also said the standard is higher in criminal court, and prosecutors arent going to risk naming someone unless theyre certain they can get a conviction. However, he does expect for celebrities involved in these cases to receive civil lawsuits, as were seeing currently. Theres a lot of allegations that there were other celebrities that participated in these freak-offs, says Rahmani, who has prosecuted human trafficking cases. According to Cassie Ventura, he recorded these freak-offs both for his sexual pleasure but also to have power over the [celebrity] participants to blackmail them. So this might be the first domino to fall. Rahmani also tells Vox that other lawsuits against Carter could emerge, similar to the way Casandra Cassie Venturas 2023 claims against Combs, her ex-partner, led to an avalanche of allegations by other accusers. For now, Rahmani says spectators will have to wait and see.Its really impossible to know, he says. But it might be a Me Too-type of situation for the music industry. 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:

H.G. Wells is probably best known for his story about an alien invasion, The War of the Worlds, and some of his other fantastical science fiction. But he also dabbled in some less well known prehistorical fiction. In 1921, he published a story about early modern humans and Neanderthals called The Grisly Folk. In it, a group of early modern humans is wandering around. Wells makes it clear that he does not think they are especially refined. They engage in scintillating dialog like:Ugh! said one abruptly and pointed.Ugh! cried his brother.But though these true men, as Wells calls them, were still savages, very prone to violence and convulsive in their lusts and desires, they were, he claims, recognizably human. We can understand something of what was going on in their minds, those of us who can remember the fears, desires, fancies and superstitions of our childhood, he says. By contrast, the antagonists of this particular story, the grisly men, are not recognizably human at all. These are Neanderthals, and, Wells imagines, they were less intelligent than true men; they had no speech and did not understand. They were less social than true men, and senselessly violent. In the story, they make a hobby of making off with the children of true men. And, in Wells version of events, they treated their own children no better. He writes descriptions like: A male may have gone with a female or so; perhaps they parted in the winter and came together in the summer; when his sons grew big enough to annoy him, the grisly man killed them or drove them off. If he killed them he may have eaten them. If they escaped him they may have returned to kill him. The grisly folk may have had long unreasoning memories and very set purposes.In short: Wells assumed Neanderthals were unintelligent brutes. And he was absolutely not alone. For around a century, this was the prevailing narrative about Neanderthals. It was present, not just in Wellss imagination, but in scientific papers. In more recent decades, weve realized that this narrative is almost certainly incorrect. Researchers have revisited old Neanderthal bones and tools, and realized that our prior understanding of these early human peoples was misguided. Still, the myth of the ignorant Neanderthal is so pervasive that headlines often lead with it. Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern humans, scientists find reads a Guardian headline. Or, from HowStuffWorks: More Proof Neanderthals Werent Stupid: They Made Their Own String. The question is: Where did this idea even come from? Why did researchers think Neanderthals were so unintelligent to begin with? It turns out theres a really deep past to that, says Paige Madison, a science writer who wrote a journal article on this topic, and is writing an upcoming book on human origins. Theres a reason why we tend to think of Neanderthals as these kind of brutish, dumb, lesser Homo sapiens. We spoke to Madison as part of the latest episode of Unexplainable, Voxs science podcast, which looks at how difficult it is to really know anything about Neanderthals at all. What follows is my conversation with Madison, edited for clarity and length. Byrd Pinkerton Dont leave me in suspense. What is the deep, dark reason that we thought of Neanderthals as dumb?Paige Madison So the first Neanderthal fossils [recognized as such] came out of the ground in the 1850s. And you have this confluence of factors that shaped how people were thinking about Neanderthals and even how they were thinking about themselves. This was [a time] of colonialism, and you had all of these assumptions about what variation meant amongst humans and what it meant for potentially taking over other cultures and extracting resources from them. There were a lot of assumptions about certain groups of living humans being superior to other groups. Those assumptions made their way into the science of Neanderthals. [They] were just sort of taking [their] worldview on humans and applying it to these fossils in the past.Byrd Pinkerton Is there a specific example that helps explain how the culture of the late 19th century wound up informing how people looked at bones?Paige Madison At the time you had this new science that was really trying to put living humans into categories and characterize them and understand differences. The form that it really took was the measurement of skulls. There were scientists collecting skulls from all over the world and trying to measure these variations. One was the presence of a brow ridge, which is something that varies a little bit with living humans, and there was this idea that [a brow ridge] was more primitive. And then the presence of a steep forehead. They thought that this had to do with a region of the brain that was more developed. And so they would generally categorize most Europeans, for example, as having this steep forehead, and they would use this as evidence that these groups were superior.Those differences are minuscule and they are certainly not meaningful in terms of intellect and cognition, but at the time they were seen as incredibly meaningful and a way that you could differentiate these groups.So Neanderthals then come out of the ground and just get slotted into that worldview. They fit in exactly the spot that these European scientists were categorizing as the lower end of human intellect. The more primitive end. And it automatically then carried with it the implication that these were creatures that were primitive.Byrd Pinkerton Where did the perception of the hunched Neanderthal come from? Beyond just them being foolish, I feel like I also have this impression of them knuckle-dragging around. Slumping.Paige MadisonYeah! So theres this story that you will find in textbooks, where basically this one French scientist, Marcellin Boule, misinterpreted a Neanderthal skeleton. And as the story goes, he got a hold of one of the first really complete specimens and he took a look at it and decided that these were these hunched-over brutes that were so dumb that they couldnt even really stand up straight. But I think he kind of applied this brutish conception that had already existed and applied it to their posture. And so of course that is significant. It did partially shape how we think about them. But he certainly did not invent it by any means.Byrd Pinkerton Got it. So a variety of European scientists developed this narrative about Neanderthals as dummies, people who were somehow inferior to other early modern humans. How did we start pushing back on that story?Paige MadisonIt definitely wasnt just one thing. Very rarely in the history of science do we ever see big conceptions shifting because of one thing. So just as Boule didnt create this image [of the brutish Neanderthal] alone, it wasnt destroyed by one scientist alone, but instead was more of a confluence of factors that happened all around the same time.One of those was World War II coming to a close and the consequences of the involvement of race science in World War II being really clear. So, for a historian, it doesnt seem to be a coincidence that you see people starting to push back on this dumb, brutish, primitive conception [of Neanderthals] right around the time that people are also pushing back on the racial conceptions of living humans.Another thing was, scientists actually got back into the museum in Paris, where the skeleton that Marcellin Boule looked at was housed and they took a second look. They noticed that this was an elderly individual, and it was very clear that there were signs of arthritis on the bones. Byrd Pinkerton So basically it was like if people 10,000 years in the future took like one super arthritic old man and were like, Yep, every person in the 2000s was just like this 72-year-old. Paige MadisonExactly. And its worth mentioning, too, that the signs of arthritis on the skeleton are well recognized and Boule probably should have been able to recognize them. So it kind of goes to show how our expectations can lead us towards a certain conclusion and kind of push us in that direction even when the evidence isnt quite there. Thats why you see these interpretations change over time because theres so much else thats going into the interpretation. Its not as simple as looking at the bones and immediately knowing exactly what they mean. That is being filtered through tons of other information, both scientific and cultural. You know, we just cant turn off that lens at any given moment.Byrd Pinkerton So... its kind of like Boules ideas in his time were easily accepted because they made sense in the cultural context that they were a part of, but later, they were rejected, in part because of evidence and also in part maybe because the narrative had shifted. People were questioning race science anyway. They were starting to question race science applied to Neanderthals. And so suddenly its almost like it opened up space to also question this image that Boule had [of Neanderthals]?Paige MadisonExactly. Suddenly the earlier ideas about Neanderthals just didnt make as much sense.Byrd Pinkerton It sounds like what youre saying is that our perception of Neanderthals has always been less about Neanderthals and more about ourselves, or our current cultural moment? Like, if you read what people historically have written about Neanderthals, you learn less about Neanderthals and you just learn more about the scientists and the society that they live in?Paige MadisonThats exactly what I would argue. Some scholars have said that its a little bit like holding a mirror up to ourselves, because Neanderthals were so closely related to humans living today.I think whats interesting about it and youll hear this from a lot of historians of science is that its much easier to see that in the past, to accuse them of making mistakes given their biases or their cultural or political leanings, but in fact, what most historians and philosophers of science would argue is that that is still going on. Its just harder to see it in the present. Byrd PinkertonHow do modern scientists guard against this in their attempts to better understand Neanderthals?Paige MadisonI think the best thing that most scientists can do at this point is to be very explicit about what their biases could be, what the limitations might be, and really just put all of that out on the table so that we can examine it the best that we can.One really strong way that I see this playing out in the science is [scientists] recognizing that their worldviews are shaping the kinds of questions that theyre asking and the ways theyre asking those questions.So, for example, if you find artwork in a cave, and you assume that artwork is something that only Homo sapiens have done and that Neanderthals were not capable of it then you never even ask the question [could Neanderthals have made this?]. You just ask Which Homo sapiens did this and when?But if you come into a cave and you see that theres art in there, you can ask, Who did this? in a more open way.Thats something I work with scientists [on] a lot just thinking about the ways that their starting points, their questions, have already either opened or closed certain possibilities.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 stereotypical image of public housing in America is one of deteriorating buildings, urban blight, and dysfunctional housing authorities in seemingly never-ending crises. Residents routinely deal with bad living conditions, including heat failures, pest infestations, mold, and leaks. And public housing projects are often found in areas with concentrated poverty and in underserved, racially segregated neighborhoods.By and large, Americas experiment with public housing has been viewed as a failure so much so that housing authorities have offloaded some of their responsibilities to the private sector.But the demise of public housing was not an inevitable outcome. As my colleague Rachel Cohen has pointed out, other countries have successfully pulled it off. Governments around the world have shown that they can operate mixed-income housing developments that have reliable maintenance and upkeep and that public housing doesnt have to segregate poor people away from the middle class.So why did public housing in the United States age so poorly? A bold experiment that was designed to failThe federal governments plans to build public housing started in the 1930s, as part of the New Deal, in an effort to create jobs during the Great Depression and address the countrys housing shortage.But efforts to undermine public housing are about as old as the efforts to build it. From the outset, opposition was fierce. Many Americans didnt like the idea of the government using their tax dollars to subsidize poor peoples housing, and real estate developers were concerned about having to compete with the government. The Housing Act of 1949, which had a goal of providing a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family, bolstered Americas public housing plans by heavily investing in the construction of new housing units. But by then, the federal government had already undermined its own stated plans by capping construction costs (which encouraged using cheap materials and discouraged modern appliances) and allowing racial segregation. Congress had also doomed public housing authorities ability to raise revenue through rents in 1936 when it passed the George-Healey Act, which established income limits for who can qualify for public housing making mixed-income public housing models impossible for federally funded projects.As housing projects started to draw more Black residents, white people who lived in public housing started leaving, especially after the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s banned racial discrimination in housing. This was partly because the Federal Housing Authority pushed for more people to own homes and expanded its loans mostly to white people, helping white families move out of the projects. Black families didnt receive the same opportunity.You saw a change in the racial composition, which simply added to the stigma and the pattern of administrative neglect that characterized many housing authorities, the historian Ed Goetz told the Atlantic in 2015. Starting with President Richard Nixon who declared that the US government had turned into the biggest slumlord in history and suspended federal spending on subsidized housing public housing started facing serious austerity measures and never recovered. Federal investments shifted away from building new public housing units and toward housing vouchers and public-private partnerships.In the decades that followed, public housing started declining in quality, and Congress funded a program to demolish dilapidated public housing units and replace them with newly constructed or renovated mixed-income developments. But according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, those demolitions were an overcorrection; public housing simply needed more funding and better management.It didnt have to be this wayAmericas public housing was an ambitious program that consistently faced efforts by lawmakers to undermine it. Throughout the programs history, legislation deliberately limited its potential to house Americans as needed. In addition to the George-Healey Act, laws like the 1998 Faircloth Amendment put a ceiling on the number of homes public housing authorities are allowed to own. But that doesnt mean that public housing in the United States is entirely devoid of successes. The general picture of decay and neglect ignores the many positive experiences people have had living in government-run dwellings. As Goetz, a public policy professor at the University of Minnesota, writes, The story of American public housing is one of quiet successes drowned out by loud failures. More than 2 million people live in public housing in the United States, and without it, many of them would struggle to find affordable shelter. Indeed, there are countless stories of people whose lives would be tangibly worse without public housing. Mike Connolly, a Massachusetts state representative who has proposed expanding public housing, is one example. Personally, I view [public housing] as a success. I was raised in a public housing project in Norwood, Massachusetts, he told me. Having that stable environment not being subject to eviction, not being necessarily subject to a particular cost burden around housing I think was really terrific for me and gave me the opportunity to develop into someone who has been doing a lot of good things in life.These bright spots show that theres a solid foundation that the United States can build on rather than abandon its public housing experiment. I think of [public housing] as a successful program that has provided low-cost, moderate-quality shelter to millions of people for almost a century across the United States, Paul E. Williams, the executive director of the Center for Public Enterprise, told Vox. It has been hampered and limited in its ability to do more by policy mistakes over the past 80 years.So if America wants to be a public housing success story, it can. It just has to stop sabotaging its own efforts to get there.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: