Latest news with #TheLogoff
Vox
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
A court ordered Trump's team to free an activist. They refused.
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: The Trump administration is defying a federal judge's order that it free a pro-Palestinian activist, attacking both the rule of law and the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. Catch me up? In March, the Trump administration arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student, and designated him for deportation over his participation in campus protests. Mahmoud was a legal permanent US resident, but the administration argued it has the right to revoke Khalil's green card on the grounds that his presence constitutes a threat to US foreign policy. Khalil sued to stop the deportation, and the two sides have been in court ever since. So what happened this week? On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the administration to free Khalil. But today, the administration said it would not free him, arguing unconvincingly that it's still detaining Khalil for a different violation. (The judge's ruling to free Khalil explicitly anticipated this strategy and described it as legally unsound.) What's next? The administration says that it will appeal the order to a higher court — and keep Khalil detained in the meantime. What's the big picture? If Khalil had conducted all the same protest actions on behalf of a cause favored by the administration, he'd still be free. That means that, under Donald Trump, immigrants are facing consequences for expressing political opinions that the administration objects to — a clear violation of the First Amendment. And with that, it's time to log off… I'm in desperate need of a long walk with my dog and a podcast, so I'm excited about the new episode of Today, Explained. The episode is focused on Dropout, a streaming platform whose fans are so dedicated that some of them are actually asking to pay more for the service. (You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and elsewhere.) I hope everyone has a safe and fulfilling weekend, and I'll see you back here Monday.
Vox
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Trump's team takes aim at a major climate rule
is the senior politics and ideas editor at Vox. He previously worked at Rolling Stone, the Washington Post, Politico, National Journal, and Seattle's Real Change News. As a reporter and editor, he has worked on coverage of campaign politics, economic policy, the federal, and homelessness. A home in front of the John E. Amos coal-fired power plant in Poca, West Virginia, in February 2022. Dane Rhys/Bloomberg via Getty Images This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: The Trump administration is attacking Biden-era policies aimed at limiting air and climate pollution from power plants, part of a broader bid to stimulate the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment — and the future. What's the latest? The head of President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency today said the agency would begin the (lengthy) process of repealing a pair of environmental regulations on coal and natural-gas power plants. What do the rules do? The first regulated power plants' carbon emissions, which drive climate change. The administration did not propose a replacement rule, meaning the proposal, CNN reports, 'effectively leave carbon emissions from US power plants unregulated .' The second tightened regulations on mercury and other toxins that, above certain levels, are hazardous for human health. What's next? The administration is required to go through a formal process for changing rules, including a public comment period. More significantly, environmental groups are certain to sue to block the rule changes, arguing they violate the nation's environmental laws and don't follow the best available science. That means the rules' fates are likely to be decided by the courts. What's the big picture? Scientists warn that human-driven climate change is already making the planet less hospitable to human life and that — absent major corrective action — it will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. The Trump administration is instead taking action to make the problem worse. And with that, it's time to log off…
Vox
10-06-2025
- Health
- Vox
RFK Jr.‘s new attack on vaccines, briefly explained
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: Today, Dylan Scott and I are focusing on US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to fire every member of a federal vaccine advisory board, an attack on medical science that will have negative repercussions for public health. What's the latest? Kennedy fired every sitting member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Monday. What does this board do? For more than 60 years, the panel has advised the federal government on vaccine policy, providing guidance — that officials have almost always followed — on which shots people should get and when. What's next? The vaccine advisory committee was first convened by the surgeon general in 1964, but it is not enshrined in federal law. That means Kennedy can change its membership or dissolve the panel entirely if he so desires. In firing the board's members, Kennedy called it 'little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.' What does this mean for us? Absent clear, science-based federal guidance on vaccines, it'll be harder for us to know which shots health experts think we should be getting. And, more broadly, it'll be harder for the population to achieve 'herd immunity' — when enough people are vaccinated against a disease to prevent it from spreading widely. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. What's the big picture? Kennedy has a long history as a vaccine 'skeptic,' promoting unfounded theories about the supposed health risks of vaccines responsible for saving millions of lives. As Health secretary, he has made vaccine policy — and undermining the value of those vaccines — a centerpiece of his agenda. And with that, it's time to log off…
Vox
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Trump escalates his battle with California
is the senior politics and ideas editor at Vox. He previously worked at Rolling Stone, the Washington Post, Politico, National Journal, and Seattle's Real Change News. As a reporter and editor, he has worked on coverage of campaign politics, economic policy, the federal, and homelessness. This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump is sending troops to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies, a threat to civil liberties and another example of the president claiming that an emergency justifies a major expansion of his power. Catch me up. What's going on here? Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents last week raided workplaces in Los Angeles, as part of the Trump administration's larger goal of mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. Residents protested over the weekend, and, the Los Angeles Times reports, there has been 'widespread' vandalism and damage around the city. Trump on Sunday announced he would begin sending in 2,000 National Guard troops — against California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. Then this afternoon, Trump's administration began mobilizing more than 700 Marines to be deployed in LA, CNN and other outlets report. What's next? Newsom is suing the administration over the National Guard takeover, arguing Trump overstepped his authority by sending in the Guard against a state governor's wishes — which hasn't happened since 1965. Is Trump breaking the law? Using federal troops for domestic law enforcement is generally illegal, but Trump is citing emergency powers, claiming without evidence that LA has been 'invaded and occupied' by migrants. LA authorities acknowledge there is civil unrest but argue the use of military force will only escalate the situation, and it's clear that LA is not in the grip of a foreign power. What's the big picture? The president is citing a false pretense to send active-duty military troops to a city where residents are protesting — some peacefully, some violently — his policies, even as local leaders say conventional law enforcement is capable of restoring order. This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech, and it's yet another expansion of the president's authority. And with that, it's time to log off…
Vox
06-06-2025
- Automotive
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
