Preview: • Fox-Dominion trial delay 'is not unusual,' judge says • Fox News' defamation battle isn't stopping Trump's election lies

Preview: The judge just announced in court that a settlement has been reached in the historic defamation case between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems.

Preview: A settlement has been reached in Dominion Voting Systems' defamation case against Fox News, the judge for the case announced. The network will pay more than $787 million to Dominion, a lawyer for the company said.

Preview: • DeSantis goes to Washington, a place he once despised, looking for support to take on Trump • Opinion: For the GOP to win, it must ditch Trump • Chris Christie mulling 2024 White House bid • Analysis: The fire next time has begun burning in Tennessee

Preview: • 'A major part of Ralph died': Aunt of teen shot after ringing wrong doorbell speaks • 20-year-old woman shot after friend turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York, officials say

Preview: Newly released body camera footage shows firefighters and sheriff's deputies rushing to help actor Jeremy Renner after a near-fatal snowplow accident in January. The "Avengers" actor broke more than 30 bones and suffered other severe injuries. CNN's Chloe Melas has more.

Preview: It's sourdough bread and handstands for Jake Gyllenhaal and Jamie Lee Curtis.

Preview: A tiny intruder infiltrated White House grounds Tuesday, prompting a swift response from the US Secret Service.

Preview: Donald Trump puts all US government diversity staff on paid leave, starting 'immediately'  BBC.com White House orders government DEI employees to be placed on leave  CNN Live updates: President Trump's latest executive orders hit DEI and more  USA TODAY White House OPM orders all DEI offices to begin closing by end of day Wednesday  Fox News ‘A devastating blow’: Trump’s transgender order raises legal questions and fears  The Boston Globe

Preview: "F--k it: Release 'em all": Why Trump embraced broad Jan. 6 pardons  Axios Video: Donie O’Sullivan speaks with pardoned January 6 defendants | CNN Politics  CNN ‘A Betrayal, a Mockery’: Police Express Outrage Over Trump’s Jan. 6 Pardons  The New York Times Analysis | The GOP’s stunning response to Trump pardoning those who assaulted police  The Washington Post Why Trump Could Regret His Jan. 6 Pardons  POLITICO

Preview: Trump threatens China: More tariffs are coming on Feb. 1  CNN Trump delivers fresh tariff threats against EU and China  Reuters Watch Trump Threatens 10% Tariff on China Over Fentanyl  Bloomberg Trump plans 10% tariffs on Chinese imports on Feb. 1  Fox Business Trump threatens 10% tariff on China and considers EU levy  The Guardian

Preview: Breaking down the executive actions Trump is using to govern  NPR Trump’s slew of executive actions involve the WHO, birthright citizenship and drug prices: Live updates | CNN Politics  CNN Live updates: Trump administration pushes to implement presidential agenda and executive orders  NBC News Live updates: Trump seeks to reshape American institutions with a barrage of executive orders  The Associated Press AMERICA FIRST POLICY DIRECTIVE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE  The White House

Preview: Once-in-a-lifetime snowstorm hits Gulf Coast, with record-breaking snowfall in Florida  ABC News Florida sees heaviest snowfall in state's history as winter storm slams South  Fox Weather Multiple roads closed in Pensacola, snowplows deployed across city  WEAR Gulf Coast Freeze: Winter weather impacts (road closures, warnings, advisories)  WKRG News 5 Live updates on Wednesday | Winter storm in Bay County: Roads, schools, forecast and more  Yahoo! Voices

Preview: Prince Harry settles with Murdoch's British tabloids as trial is about to begin  NPR Prince Harry claims ‘monumental victory’ after reaching settlement with The Sun publisher  CNN Video Prince Harry settles lawsuit against the British press  ABC News Prince Harry Agrees to Settlement as Murdoch’s U.K. Tabloids Offer Full Apology  The New York Times Prince Harry settles legal claim against Sun publisher  The Guardian

Preview: Here’s how much snow fell in the South during the historic storm  The Washington Post Houston airport closure: Hobby and Bush Intercontinental Airports both set to reopen this morning following winter storm  ABC13 Houston Winter Storm Dumps Snow From Texas To Florida  The Weather Channel Photos: From Texas to Florida, a rare winter storm brings historic snowfall : The Picture Show  NPR Blizzard blasts Gulf Coast paralyzing communities with record-breaking snow from Texas to Florida to Carolinas  Fox Weather

Preview: Public health experts worry about implications of Trump withdrawing US from WHO: 'An enormous mistake'  ABC News Trump announces US withdrawal from World Health Organization  CNN Memo to President Trump: you are wrong to leave the World Health Organization. You should think again  The Guardian WHO comments on United States’ announcement of intent to withdraw  World Health Organization How Trump's U.S. exit from the WHO may hamstring global health  Axios

Preview: Trump revives executive order aiming to strip some federal employees of civil service protections  Federal News Network An Anxious Federal Workforce Bids Goodbye to Job Stability and Remote Work  The Wall Street Journal Trump's return-to-office push will likely lead to talent exodus  Axios REFORMING THE FEDERAL HIRING PROCESS AND RESTORING MERIT TO GOVERNMENT SERVICE  The White House President Trump's RTO mandate could be a final nail in the coffin of WFH  Fortune

Preview: Flights canceled for refugees who were slated to travel to US  CNN REALIGNING THE UNITED STATES REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM  The White House Trump order puts thousands of Afghan allies waiting for US resettlement in limbo  Fox News Afghans fleeing Taliban urge Trump to lift refugee program suspension  ABC News How Trump Plans to Kill the Refugee System  The New York Times

Preview: “Simply put, this is not a popular policy," said Harry Enten.

Preview: Viewership was significantly down from Joe Biden's 2021 inauguration and even Trump’s first move into the White House in 2017, said The Nielsen Company.

Preview: President Donald Trump announced a joint venture Tuesday with OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank of up to $500 billion for infrastructure tied to artificial intelligence.

Preview: “Propaganda so blatant it would make the dictator of North Korea blush,” one critic cracked about Karoline Leavitt’s praise of the president on Fox News.

Preview: “The American people can judge for themselves which President made the right call," the onetime national security adviser said.

Preview: Ronny Chieng turned one of the president's executive orders into a withering punchline.

Preview: The late night host put the president on blast for falling short on a vow he made repeatedly on the campaign trail.

Preview: The president's erroneous comment came amid threats of hiking tariffs on imports from other countries.

Preview: “Yeah, absolutely,” the man agreed with the "Daily Show" correspondent's "perfect metaphor."

Preview: "I still am not rocking with anyone sympathetic to Nazis," the Democrat said. "And I will do that until I am six feet in the ground.”

Preview: First lady Melania Trump's hamburglar hat set the tone for President Donald Trump's second term.

Preview: As senators weigh the fate of Pete Hegseth's Pentagon nomination, the former Fox News host is dealing with yet another personal controversy.

Preview: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, a guest of President Donald Trump’s at Monday’s inauguration, recently ditched Meta’s Supplier Diversity Program.

Preview: "Manifest destiny," a phrase Donald Trump used Monday as he promised to take the Panama Canal, is a call to domination and earasure.

Preview: The Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde’s remarks followed executive actions from Trump to crack down on immigration and roll back protections for trans people.

Preview: American liberals, when they do not control the government, have often found comfort in the work of comedians who light up the Republicans who rule them.

Preview: Musk, who has faced scrutiny for his extremist beliefs, has suggested angry reactions to the gesture are part of a Democratic-led hoax.

Preview: The new Trump meme coins have MAGA world astir, Biden’s FTC chair issues a warning about “surveillance pricing,” and JD Vance’s political muse speaks out in this week’s Tuesday Tech Drop.

Preview: Trump, who said he would not be a dictator “except for Day 1” of his presidency, signed a record number of executive orders on Monday.

Preview: The new Trump meme coins have MAGA world astir, Biden’s FTC chair issues a warning about “surveillance pricing,” and JD Vance’s political muse speaks out in this week’s Tuesday Tech Drop.

Preview: In a flurry of unilateral executive actions, Mr. Trump revived disputed claims of broad presidential authority from his first term — and made some new ones. Court battles seem likely.

Preview: It is unclear how much is left in Washington to restrain him.

Preview: A New York Times photographer followed President Trump for more than 18 hours on Inauguration Day. Here’s what he saw.

Preview: Plus, snow on Florida’s beaches.

Preview: The powerful storm, fueled by a whirling mass of cold air that usually extends across the Arctic, was expected to leave much of the South in the low-teens or single-digit degrees.

Preview: Many roadways were impassable, classes were canceled in local schools and many businesses could not open as a winter storm essentially brought New Orleans to a standstill.

Preview: The latest closure means that nearly three-quarters of Louisiana’s portion of the coast-to-coast highway is shut. A rare winter storm brought record snowfall to the state on Tuesday.

Preview: All 17 people who died in the Eaton fire lived in an area where evacuation orders came hours later than others, even as homes nearby were already burning. Some people never received warnings at all.

Preview: The Little Red Hen Coffee Shop offered grits and community for decades before it was lost in the Eaton fire.

Preview: “It took us a few minutes to accept that this pile of rubble was our home,” said Islam Dahliz, whose family was ordered by Israeli forces to evacuate Rafah in May.

Preview: Simply exiting the library feels like a battle royale!

Preview: Test your wits on the Slate Quiz for Jan. 22, 2025.

Preview: Take a quick break with our daily 5x5 grid.

Preview: Ready for some wordplay? Sharpen your skills with Slate’s puzzle for Jan. 22, 2025.

Preview: We may be entering a prolonged era of legal impunity for presidents, their families, friends, and even criminally violent supporters.

Preview: How linguists picked “rawdogging” and “brainrot” as 2024’s extremely online words of the year.

Preview: How panicked should progressives be by Trump’s executive action signathon?

Preview: Unpacking Meta’s Embrace of Homophobia and Transphobia

Preview: A Complete Unknown is a masterclass in the art of the music biopic.

Preview: Glory returns to Columbus with a championship win.

Preview: A fire fighting helicopter drops water as the Palisades fire grows near the Mandeville Canyon neighborhood and Encino, California, on January 11, 2025. | Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images Why do disasters happen? The ancient Greeks had an all-purpose explanation, as I’ve been learning from my Greek myth-mad 7-year-old son: the gods. Bad harvest? The gods. Plague? The gods. Drought? The gods. Sea monster ravages your city? Definitely the gods — specifically that jerk Poseidon, who once sent a sea monster to raze Troy because its king Laomedon refused to pay him for building the city walls.  At a time when understanding of the mechanics of the natural world was as poor as its cosmology was rich, the idea that the catastrophes were the result of the actions of higher beings must have brought some sense to the senselessness of suffering. And that idea — that we should distinguish between events that had a clear human cause and those that did not — stuck around, even as paganism gave way to monotheistic religion, and humans developed legal systems and codes meant to judge liability and guilt.  By the 16th century, the term “act of God” had entered the English lexicon, meaning any natural event or disaster that was seen as both beyond human understanding (or prediction) and a direct manifestation of divine will. An “act of God” meant that no person or business could be held legally liable for any resulting damage from such an event — a distinction that became increasingly important as the modern insurance industry took root in late 17th-century England. Originally, an “act of God” was largely a way for insurers to get out of paying claims. At a time when risk assessment and prevention was still primitive, natural disasters and other acts of God were generally not covered, because there was no way to insure against what was still unforeseeable.  But as both the insurance industry and risk prediction matured, that category began to shrink. Storms could be forecast; seismic zones could be identified; flood zones could be calculated. Insurers could price specific policies for specific risks with greater and greater confidence; if we couldn’t always prevent a disaster, increasingly we could at least see it coming and know why, and therefore prepare. It wasn’t the gods or God who made the earth move — it was the movement of tectonic plates. Risk still existed, just as it did for the ancient Greeks. The difference is that it was comprehensible. God was mostly out of the picture. Right? Not exactly. Who’s at fault? The wildfires still burning in Los Angeles are shaping up to be one of the most expensive disasters in US history, with early estimates putting the toll at $250 billion or more. The question of who will ultimately pay that bill and what might be done to prevent such a catastrophe in the future is an enormous one, with no shortage of possible answers. Perhaps it’s the fossil fuel companies that’ve helped create the climate change that turbocharged the fires, as many environmental advocates argue. Or maybe it’s the fault of the federal government for decades of fire suppression that has led to an overaccumulation of flammable fuel in forested areas.  Or it could be the government of Los Angeles’s failure to properly fund water infrastructure and firefighting. Or perhaps it’s California’s fault for restricting housing construction, which has pushed more and more development into wildfire-prone areas. Or the insurance companies for taking away coverage connected to climate change? This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Or maybe we can trace it all the way back to William Mulholland’s decision in the early 20th century to build a massive aqueduct to bring water to the parched Los Angeles, which directly enabled the rapid growth of what would become America’s second-biggest city on the site of what is essentially a roulette wheel of different natural disasters? What all these causes have in common is that at their root is human action, or inaction. Which, in a way, is a comfort. There’s no known antidote to divine retribution, but if human action is at the root of this and other disasters, then human action can remedy it. We’re a long way from blaming the gods here, unless by gods, we’re talking about ourselves. The problem of evil I was an English major with a concentration in creative writing, which means I can parse some iambic pentameter and, if I’m feeling particularly sadistic, show you the 400-page novel I wrote as my senior thesis. But my most memorable class over those four years was the only one I took in the religion department. It had the very metal name “The Problem of Evil,” which I think was the main reason I signed up. (That, and it fulfilled my ethical thought requirement.) In its formulation, the problem of evil is a simple one: How can an omniscient, omnipotent and all-good God allow evil and suffering to occur in the world? Why, in other words, do disasters happen — or perhaps better, are allowed to happen? To the ancient Greeks, the problem of evil wasn’t a problem at all. Their gods weren’t omniscient, weren’t omnipotent, and definitely weren’t all good. They were like us — immortal and powerful, but beset by recognizably human passions and emotions. Above all else, they could and did make mistakes, much as we can and do make mistakes. In the postwar era, the problem of evil increasingly became a secular one. It wasn’t just because humanity itself had become less religious, or that the war itself and especially the Holocaust had revealed evil on such a titanic scale that the very premise of an all-powerful and all-good God seemed absurd to so many. Rather, it was because scientific and technological progress had put humanity center stage.  Whether it was creating nuclear bombs capable of ending life on this planet, or astronauts leaving footprints on the moon, we were the gods now. When things happened — good, bad, or otherwise — were the ones who made them happen. We are as gods The environmentalist and tech thinker Stewart Brand has a quote that always stuck with me: “We are as gods, and might as well get good at it.” It appeared in the opening statement of the first Whole Earth Catalog in 1968, at the height of the space program and the Cold War, when the first glimpses of what would become the modern tech industry, born in California, were becoming visible. It was a celebration of human agency and creativity. In 2009, in his book Whole Earth Discipline, Brand modified the line: “We are as gods, and HAVE to get good at it.” The 1960s-era egotism in that earlier vision was tempered. We had to accept our power over the Earth, and we had to use it wisely. We had to be good gods. The alternative was destruction. The problem is, we are not good at it. Being gods, I mean — not yet. I believe that the Los Angeles wildfires are largely the result of human action, or inaction. The greenhouse gases we’ve pumped into the atmosphere, contributing to the “hydroclimate whiplash” that primed LA’s forests to burn. The housing and insurance policies that put too many homes in a wildfire danger zone, too many of which were built to burn. The small mistakes of judgement in the governmental response to the fires, and the bigger errors of overconfidence that made it possible to believe that such a place as Los Angeles could exist where it did, and everything would be fine. But the precise combination of factors that led to the fires, and the precise series of actions to take Los Angeles into a safer future — that is much, much harder to know. Which doesn’t stop the avalanche of voices who are perfectly confident in exactly who is at fault and what we should do. It’s a pattern I see in global challenge after global challenge, from artificial intelligence to pandemics to climate change. And I believe that attitude is why, increasingly, the aftermath of a disaster isn’t unity, but division. Each side is convinced they alone know who is at fault, and they alone know how to fix it. But the truth is that our power to affect the world greatly exceeds our ability to understand and anticipate the effects of what we do, as much as we might be convinced otherwise. So if we’re gods, we’re blind gods, but so wrapped up in hubris that we believe we can see.     The ancient Greeks knew hubris well, and they knew what followed it: “nemesis,” or divine retribution. But there are no gods to punish us. Instead, we have to live with our mistakes, if we can. So perhaps, as we sift through the ashes in Los Angeles, we can embrace the opposite of hubris: humility. Not about our power, but about our vision. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!

Preview: An AIDS patient lies on her bed at the community hospital in Bangui, Central African Republic, on January 27, 2022. | Barbara Debout/AFP via Getty Images Vox reader Burak Ova asks: What is HIV and what is AIDS? How is it transmitted? What are the prevention methods? Is there a cure? Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) killed millions of people every year in the early 2000s during the height of the AIDS pandemic. Now, some two decades later, scientific advancements and public health interventions have transformed one of the deadliest diseases into something manageable, where a regular dose of medication nearly prevents its spread altogether. So you’re right to wonder whether we’ve squashed AIDS, at least to the point where people don’t have to worry about it.  HIV is a particularly tricky virus. When it infects a person, the virus infects and kills a specific type of blood cell (called a T cell) that fights infections. This weakens the immune system and also prevents the immune system from killing HIV. If left untreated, an HIV infection develops into a severe disease called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). At that point, the virus has completely destroyed the immune system — this makes people more susceptible to a wide range of infections with little protection. Sign up for the Explain It to Me newsletter The newsletter is part of Vox’s Explain It to Me. Each week, we tackle a question from our audience and deliver a digestible explainer from one of our journalists. Have a question you want us to answer? Ask us here. HIV spreads through contaminated bodily fluids, usually during sex or when people share needles. Scientists now believe that HIV first spread to humans from infected chimpanzees in Cameroon in Central Africa. The virus spread slowly and sporadically among humans, finding its way to modern-day Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s bustling capital city. From there, the virus went global, and in 1981, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first documented several cases of what would come to be known as HIV.   Since those fateful days, almost 90 million people around the world have been infected with HIV, and more than 40 million have died from the disease. At one point, almost 5 million people became infected with HIV each year, and some 2 million people died annually from it. Today, the outcomes are much better. In 2023, some 600,000 people died from HIV, while just over 1 million people were newly infected with the disease. Scientists and public health officials have developed a slew of medications and interventions to prevent infection or keep the virus so in check that HIV-positive people have no symptoms and can live full, healthy lives. Ending AIDS actually seems feasible.  But, despite such incredible progress, HIV remains strong in much of the world. These tools have not been enough and will not be enough to end the epidemic once and for all — alone. While more medical interventions, such as a true cure for HIV or a vaccine for the disease (which is likely still years, if not decades, away), would help, this is no longer really a problem of science. Ending the HIV epidemic has been plagued by trying to solve the seemingly insurmountable problem of equity and discrimination. In some places, especially African countries, HIV — and complications from it — remains one of the leading causes of death. Certain populations — gay men, adolescent girls and young women, sex workers, people who use IV drugs, and people in prisons — are at a disproportionately high risk of not only becoming infected with HIV but also not receiving adequate treatment. “If this were just about developing products, doing the research and development, this epidemic would be over,” said Mitchell Warren, the executive director of the international nonprofit AVAC. “It’s not unique to HIV, but HIV is probably the most glaring example. HIV is an epidemic that is obviously about a virus, but it’s spread because of inequity, because of stigma, because of discrimination, because of criminalizing behaviors.”  However, American and European support for the fight against HIV is waning. Governments are slashing critical funding and even considering eliminating key HIV programs such as PEPFAR, or the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. But relenting now risks a resurgence of the disease that could threaten not only human lives but economic and political stability as it did when the epidemic first emerged. How far have – or haven’t – we come in ending HIV? Warren started his career in HIV in 1993. He was stationed in South Africa as the country was rapidly becoming the epicenter of the HIV epidemic. Patients with HIV wasted away in front of his eyes, he recalled. Roadsides were lined with coffin makers. Every weekend, Warren’s colleagues occupied their time traveling from one funeral to the next.  At the time, HIV was a death sentence, and the only preventative tool physicians and public health officials had at their disposal was the male condom, which prevents the virus from spreading during intercourse but does nothing to protect drug users or homosexual couples who often don’t use condoms because they aren’t trying to prevent pregnancy. Condoms, of course, also do not prevent pregnant people from passing on the virus to their fetus, another way that HIV can be spread. In the first decade of the epidemic, drug companies created an antiretroviral therapy treatment that keeps the amount of virus in the body — known as the viral load — at such low levels that the virus couldn’t be spread from person to person. While these treatments did help reduce the massive number of HIV deaths, they weren’t enough to end the epidemic because these early treatments required patients to take dozens of pills a day. (And they were given after someone already had HIV, so they weren’t preventative.)  Even setting aside the sheer cost and numerous side effects of taking that many drugs so frequently, getting patients to take all those pills was a major challenge even in wealthy countries. In places like South Africa and other developing countries with too few medical centers and doctors, distributing and stocking enough drugs and getting them into patient’s hands was insurmountable.  It wasn’t until 2006 that pharmaceutical companies developed the “one pill, once a day” regimen to treat HIV-positive patients, which helped ease logistical and adherence challenges. Then, in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration approved pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, therapy, which allowed people without HIV to take medicines to prevent infection. Though PrEP is not a cheap option — it can cost up to $2,000 per patient per month in the US — HIV advocates hailed PrEP as a critical tool in the fight against HIV.  Along the way, massive HIV programs like PEPFAR rolled out other campaigns and interventions — such as promoting safe sex practices, encouraging male circumcision, and rolling out rapid HIV testing services — to prevent the spread of HIV.  But despite these amazing scientific achievements, HIV remains an enduring challenge not because of science but largely because of stigma, discrimination, and marginalization. While some 20 million people around the world today take HIV medication, about 20 percent of people with HIV cannot access treatment.  Gay men, sex workers, and people who use IV drugs are all at higher risk of contracting HIV, but they are often hesitant to seek out testing or treatment because they fear doctors and nurses will treat them poorly, or worse, report them to authorities. Sex work is illegal in at least 100 countries, and IV drug use is illegal in all but about 30 countries. Even homosexuality remains criminalized in 64 countries, including about 30 of 54 African countries, where the HIV burden is highest. The legal challenges have made it difficult for public health officials to implement certain interventions even when we know they work. Giving clean needles to IV drug users, for example, reduces the spread of HIV among drug users and yet is rarely, and even then controversially, implemented in very few countries. Then there is the challenge of gender equality. Adolescent girls and young women are also at a particularly high risk of contracting HIV, especially in certain parts of the world. In 2023, 62 percent of all new HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa were among girls and young women. In some parts of these countries, young girls, who lack the agency to insist on safe sex practices, are married to older men who have multiple sexual partners, which increases the risk of HIV transmission. Rape is unfortunately common in regions afflicted by conflict. In other situations, especially in refugee camps or places with limited economic opportunities, girls and women are forced to turn to sex work to survive. “We tend to see HIV finding the fault lines in society,” Warren explained. “This is a virus that is spread by sex and by drug use. Those are two behaviors that have been stigmatized and criminalized not just during 40 years of HIV, but for hundreds and thousands of years.” How likely is it that we can make more progress against HIV/AIDS? Bridging cultural and logistical divides is what makes public health so challenging. I’ve worked in global health for almost 10 years, and I know that achieving public health goals, such as eliminating HIV, isn’t simply about inventing and rolling out medicines and interventions but about changing societal practices and cultural beliefs.  But short of solving the persistent global challenges of inequality and discrimination, we can do more to ensure people around the world continue to have access to preventative care, testing services, and treatment. To do that, we need money — a lot of it.  For the past decade, the US government has donated more than $5 billion a year to the global fight against HIV; about half of those funds are routed through PEPFAR. Historically, PEPFAR has enjoyed bipartisan support, but in recent years, politicians — particularly from the right — have threatened to end or dramatically reduce global health funding to focus on bolstering domestic spending and improving the lives of Americans. Other politicians want to end PEPFAR because some funds are spent to improve and expand access to sexual and reproductive care. HIV is, after all, spread through sex. But the proximity of HIV care to abortion services is too close for many Republican politicians, meaning that, in this rising tide of anti-abortion views, the US government should also end funding for HIV.  The fight against HIV is losing momentum around the world. Globally, funding for HIV dropped by about 8 percent from $21.5 billion in 2020 to $19.8 billion in 2023, according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, or UNAIDS. Between 2022 and 2023, the US and other major donor countries, including the European Commission, reduced their global funding for HIV and seem poised to further cut funding for global health more broadly. The future may be even more bleak: President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that the US was cutting ties with the World Health Organization, the UN’s health agency that plays a key role in providing HIV treatment and care to millions of people, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries. The simple fact is that if global funds for HIV are reduced, we will see a rise in HIV cases and deaths. The global community has accomplished so much, but the fight is not over. This story was featured in the Explain It to Me newsletter. Sign up here. For more from Explain It to Me, check out the podcast.

Preview: I’ve lived in Los Angeles for over 15 years. I moved here in fall 2008 to follow my dreams and attend journalism school, and like so many Angelenos, my goal has always been to turn my passions into reality (and pay the rent while doing it). Doing all this against a backdrop of breathtaking blue skies and picturesque palm trees didn’t hurt either. After spending my adolescence in the San Francisco Bay Area, it feels almost heretic to call Los Angeles home, but I’m not ashamed. I loudly proclaim that LA is my home. It’s where my friends and I lounged on LACMA’s lawn (the affectionate shorthand for Los Angeles County Museum of Art) to watch jazz in the summertime; where I learned that no matter how badly they want you to call it Crypto.com Arena, it will forever and always be the Staples Center; it’s where you can guarantee that no matter how your night is going, the tantalizing, comfortingly familiar scents wafting from the nearest taco stand are never too far away. It’s where I internalized that you better gun it at the Beverly and La Cienega intersection’s unprotected left turn before the light turns red, lest your fellow road ragers erupt in a perfectly timed symphony of bleating car horns and brightly colored language.  This vibrant hum was abruptly disrupted when multiple fires broke out across the Los Angeles metro area on January 7. I’m now grappling with an unmistakable sense of loss, alongside so many others who haven’t lost everything, but are teetering on the edge of a new reality where so much has been lost all the same.   After the Palisades Fire erupted, I sat in my apartment in Hollywood glued to my phone, shuffling between Instagram, various live news streams, messages with friends and family and an app called Watch Duty that has helped me stay in the know about the developing fire situation. Watch Duty is a California-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that relies completely on volunteer dispatchers, first responders, reporters, scientists, and climate experts. It’s a scrappy team, but the app was critical for me — it ended up being the only place I felt I could get accurate by-the-minute fire alerts. I had never heard of the app before the fires, and neither had most of my friends and family, but it’s now an essential fixture on my phone.  LA is prone to fire and wildfire has always existed on this landscape, but I was caught by surprise by a January wildfire that ignited outside of what we typically would consider California’s fire season. But thanks to climate change, fire seasons and the geographical distribution of fires are shifting, and in California, these changes are exacerbating the variables that feed fires: A wet winter allowed for a bumper crop of grasses and shrubs to thrive, but then an astonishingly long dry period desiccated the landscape, providing ample fuel for wildfire. And then, this year’s Santa Ana winds were especially fierce, driven by unprecedented heat in the Pacific Ocean. I watched with growing horror as the Watch Duty alerts poured in, each more urgent and damning than the last. The Palisades Fire’s acreage continued to climb steadily. Messages from my mom and brother pinged across my phone’s screen. Are you okay? What are you doing? Did you pack a bag just in case?  Then the Eaton Fire came.  Ring camera footage of the Eaton Fire as it ravaged entire neighborhoods. This gives you a good view of how easily and rapidly the fire spread. Embers travel far out from the main fire, causing exponential spread. 🎥 from 205Fire on IG pic.twitter.com/WmUSZIGd0e — Hurricane Journal (@hurricanejrnl) January 17, 2025 The Eaton Fire’s devastation hits on a particularly personal level, partly because I have a number of friends and connections whose families have lost everything there, and partly because the Eaton Fire has consumed Altadena, a neighborhood east of downtown LA and one of the oldest historically Black neighborhoods in Los Angeles.  Altadena is a bastion for financial mobility and generational longevity for middle-class Black and brown Angelenos, which became one of the most integrated neighborhoods in Los Angeles County after years of white flight during the 1950s. In a region where homeownership continues to be one of the most challenging yet effective methods for generating and maintaining financial security for individuals and families of color, and when you consider the fact that the homeownership gap between Black and white homeowners remains the largest it has been in over a decade, the Eaton Fire’s impact is staggering, to say the least.  A few days later, the Sunset Fire arrived. This fire, burning just north of Sunset Boulevard in the Hollywood Hills, had begun to rapidly spread thanks to high-intensity winds that were already battering the Palisades and northeast LA. I scanned the Watch Duty map in shock as the level 2 and 3 evacuation warnings, demarcated by yellow- and red-colored zones indicating county-issued evacuation mandates, spread to my neighborhood. The colors inched closer and closer to my block. A mandatory evacuation zone was now three blocks away from my apartment. My anxiety climbed, heart racing and head pounding as my jaw clenched tightly. On Wednesday evening, I called my brother in Culver City. I think I need to leave my place, I told him. Can I come stay with you? I had thrown together clothes, electronics, toiletries and my passport in a suitcase the night before. I checked the contents of the bag before getting in my car and driving across town, stopping at a gas station on the way. A sense of panic and terror there was palpable. The air, heavy with haze and cast with a dim yet unmistakably orange tint, caused my eyes and throat to itch and burn. Fellow drivers urgently filled their gas tanks, their faces protected by n95 masks as flimsy ash particles fell across our shoulders like poisonous snowflakes.  If this is the apocalypse, I thought, at least my brother is safe (for now). At least my parents are safe (for now). I’ll find a way to replace my stuff if I have to. I arrived in Culver City, spent. The evening was a blur. I fell asleep on my brother’s couch in a heap of exhaustion and desperation, wondering when — or even if — I’d be able to go back home.  The next morning, I again turned to the Watch App, where I tuned into a press conference featuring LA Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Crowley reported significant losses in the Palisades and Eaton fires, but also said that the Sunset fire was getting under control.  I felt encouraged. Relieved. Grateful. But also: angry. Devastated. Skeptical. Optimistic. Pessimistic. Confused. Terrified. Utterly exhausted.  By Thursday night, I was back in my place. It was one of the most surreal moments of my life. I fervently scrolled social media, where I encountered a disorienting expanse of different realities. Some friends were posting tearful, aching videos detailing what they had lost — their home, vehicle, or family heirlooms. Some had lost everything. Others had evacuated but were back at home safely, sharing resources for evacuees from local mutual aid organizations. Some had fled farther south or east to Long Beach, San Diego or Palm Springs and were still there, unsure what their next steps may be.  I was safe on my couch, but I didn’t feel very safe at all.  These catastrophic fires have raised questions for me about the true meaning of home. What does it actually mean to call a place home? How can we reconcile home’s ability to encompass both a physical structure where we house our most precious things, as well as the grander, intangible, more esoteric essences that invariably connect us within a place regardless of its physical boundaries?  I’m extremely grateful to have a roof over my head and to know that my home was not lost. But thousands have not been as fortunate. I have the luxury of being unable to fully wrap my mind around what LA’s homeless and housing insecure populations have had to contend with, let alone those who have lost everything but have or will have the means to rebuild.  What I realized over the past week is that we — all Angelenos — are collectively in the process of grieving and rebuilding. Over the last week, I’ve been brought to tears by the generosity, humility, and ingenuity of the community here. I’ve seen people across all demographics take care of themselves and each other in stunningly kindhearted, tender ways. This has showed my a glimpse of an alternate future here: Where home is a place where mutual aid flows freely, where people work alongside each other using their strengths and talents in harmony, and where both our sorrows and triumphs are held in compassionate, gentle regard — north-south and east-west rivalries be damned.  I don’t know what the future of Los Angeles will look like. Civic leaders, community groups, and everyday Angelenos are actively exploring these paths, right now. I’m encouraged. And I’ll be there too, with a street taco in hand.

Preview: An asylum seeker from El Salvador holds her daughter as they wait for their CBP One appointments. | Guillermo Arias/AFP via Getty Images If all of President Donald Trump’s Day 1 executive orders on immigration and deportation go through, he will have succeeded in a radical overhaul of US law. That, however, is a mighty “if.” His agenda Monday was a mix of new and familiar policies: In the latter category, Trump revived a number of measures from his first administration, including forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for decisions in the US immigration cases, implementing “extreme vetting” of immigrants coming into the US, and cracking down on “sanctuary cities” and states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents.  He also began to implement several 2024 campaign promises, including establishing a framework through which he intends to carry out mass deportations, mobilizing the military to the border, and paring back Biden-era programs that gave temporary protections to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. And he delivered on a long-standing promise to sign an executive order potentially ending birthright citizenship — in the unlikely event it stands up to a court challenge.  Some of these executive orders, such as the so-called Remain in Mexico policy, have already been tested in the courts during Trump’s first administration or are clearly within his powers as president. That category includes rescinding his predecessor’s executive orders or agency policy guidance on immigration, such as a Biden directive prioritizing violent criminals and recent arrivals for immigration enforcement. Other Trump actions appear patently illegal; the ACLU and 18 state attorneys general have already challenged his order ending birthright citizenship, which legal experts have long argued is blatantly unconstitutional. The survival of other new policies, particularly around deportations, may depend on how they are implemented in practice. As new executive orders go into effect, legal advocates will be watching for the ways in which those policies could violate the constitutional rights of immigrants and existing federal immigration and national security laws. According to Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s immigration policy work, however, “there is more sophistication, I think it’s fair to say, in the way that they [Trump administration officials] are going about it,” compared to the hasty executive orders of Trump’s first term.  In short, we’re in for months or even years of legal wrangling — and the outcomes of those fights will determine the reach of Trump’s immigration overhaul. What Trump’s immigration executive orders actually do Trump made immigration a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign after record-high numbers of crossings at the US-Mexico border early in the Biden administration. While border crossings came down significantly after former President Joe Biden implemented executive orders limiting access to asylum last year, Trump nevertheless signed Day 1 executive orders addressing what he described as an immigrant “invasion” and setting the stage for a large-scale deportation operation.  Trump has sought to keep out and remove immigrants, both documented and undocumented, by multiple means: In addition to restarting the “Remain in Mexico” policy, he declared a national emergency at the border, blocked any noncitizens from entering on the basis that they could spread unnamed “communicable diseases of public health concern,” and prohibited them from claiming a right to remain in the US under its asylum laws.  He ordered a rollback of Biden-era parole and Temporary Protected Status protections that allowed people from countries including Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to live and work in the US. He laid the groundwork to reestablish his policy of “extreme vetting” of legal immigrants from his first term, applying heightened scrutiny at the agency level to visa applications across the board.  He will pause US refugee admissions for at least a 90-day period, starting on January 27.  He has left open the door to future travel bans and agreements with other countries that would require asylum seekers to apply for protections there first. He cleared the way for the Defense Department to deploy the military to the southern border (though in exactly what capacity remains unclear) and ordered the construction of the border wall to restart. Trump’s executive orders prioritize criminals (particularly members of drug cartels or international criminal gangs that he has now designated as foreign terrorist organizations) for deportation, but they make no promises to spare other undocumented immigrants. He is reportedly planning to order immigration raids in major cities in the early weeks of his new administration, though one such raid in Chicago may have been postponed following leaks.  To achieve his promised mass deportation agenda, Trump’s executive orders look to beef up immigration detention capacity, seek cooperation with local law enforcement, expand the use of fast-tracked deportations, punish sanctuary cities and states, and sanction countries that have been reluctant to accept their own citizens as deportees.  Finally and perhaps most controversially, he issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship from February 19 onward, which would impact children born in the US to an undocumented mother or a mother in the US on a temporary visa, if their father also lacks citizenship or permanent residency status. How the courts could limit Trump’s ambitions on immigration During Trump’s first term, the courts served as a check on his efforts to unilaterally remake the immigration system via executive order, regularly issuing nationwide blocks on his policies that often delayed if not ultimately doomed them.  This time, Trump’s policies are just as likely to be challenged in court. A group of former Biden-Harris officials, in collaboration with the legal organization Democracy Forward, are gearing up to file lawsuits against Trump’s initial executive orders. The ACLU and other legal organizations are also beginning to inundate the new Trump administration with litigation. However, what’s different about Trump’s second term is the makeup of the courts. Trump appointed swaths of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and other federal appellate courts during his first term, and he may now find a more favorable legal environment to enact his immigration policies.  Trump officials appear to have learned from their mistakes, experts noted, and are less likely to rush to implement splashy policies — such as the travel ban on citizens of certain countries Trump pursued early in his first term — without gathering the necessary justification at the agency level.  “I think that the time that the Trump administration had to study some of their losses could have played into how they’ve framed these orders that just came out,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on immigration. “They’re trying to follow past decisions and put forward things that they think can stand up In the courts.”  As president, Trump has significant discretion over federal immigration policy, and he already tested the limits of that authority during his first term. For instance, his “Remain in Mexico” policy, an amended version of his 2017 travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, and his efforts to expand “expedited removal” — a process by which immigrants can be deported quickly and without a hearing before an immigration judge — all survived legal scrutiny the first time around and likely will again.  Many of Biden’s immigration policies implemented via executive order can be — and indeed, already have been — undone via executive order. That includes Biden’s implementation of immigration enforcement priorities and the CBP One app that allowed immigrants to sign up for appointments at the border where they were processed and often allowed to cross. On Monday, immigrants saw their appointments canceled. However, there are elements of Trump’s executive orders that seem clearly illegal or at least deeply questionable, according to legal experts. That includes ending birthright citizenship, which most legal experts argue would require a constitutional amendment for which there does not exist sufficient support in Congress.  In another executive order, Trump also lays the groundwork to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts that allows the president to detain and deport noncitizens from countries at war with the US. It was last used during World War II to detain civilians of Japanese, German, and Italian descent. Despite Trump’s rhetoric about an invasion and his decision to name cartels and international criminal gangs as terrorist organizations, however, the US is not at war, and experts say Trump likely lacks legal standing to use the law to deport immigrants. “Most experts believe that to invoke [the Alien Enemies Act] requires a declared war, and only Congress can declare war,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and director of the think tank’s office at New York University School of Law. “​​Whether this is a war or there’s an invasion is going to be subject to litigation, and there is good law against the President on this.”  Some of Trump’s executive orders, however, may occupy a legal gray zone until we know more about exactly how they will be implemented or how they could infringe on individual rights. That includes his deployment of the military to the southern border.  There is a long precedent of the military supporting operations at the border through infrastructure and logistics, but not of US troops interacting directly with immigrants. An expanded presence on the border, particularly of active duty service members rather than National Guard troops, could violate federal law. That includes the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military to enforce federal law without the permission of Congress or the Constitution. These kinds of legal questions are likely to be resolved only after lengthy litigation, potentially delaying, if not sinking entirely, some key parts of Trump’s immigration agenda. But the Trump administration also appeared on Monday more savvy about how it intends to defend the orders in court than it did in 2017 — and with a more pliant court system in place, it’s an open question how far Trump’s unilateral immigration agenda will go.

Preview: Donald Trump and Elon Musk pose for a photo at a UFC event at Madison Square Garden on November 16, 2024, in New York City. | Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images The H-1B visa program helps corporations replace US workers with cheap foreign laborers who lack basic rights. It also makes America wealthier. These twin truths are at the heart of our nation’s debate over the policy. Officially, the H-1B program aims to provide temporary visas to foreign workers who possess rare intellectual skills. And it has helped Silicon Valley giants attract top talent, while enabling hundreds of thousands of foreign-born people to enter the United States and earn far higher wages than they would have received back home. For these reasons, factions on both the left and right see value in the H-1B visa.  Trump-aligned tech moguls like Elon Musk argue that it fuels innovation and national prosperity. Many Democrats, meanwhile, feel compelled to defend H-1B visa holders’ economic contributions, particularly when these guest workers become subject to xenophobic attacks.  Yet the H-1B visa has also attracted criticism from progressives and reactionaries alike. They argue that, in practice, many companies don’t use the visas to secure exceptionally skilled workers — but rather, exceptionally exploitable ones: An H-1B visa holder’s right to be in America is contingent on the sponsorship of their employer, which limits their bargaining power with their bosses, and may even force them to tolerate abuses, such as wage theft.  What’s more, by providing employers with this hyperexploitable pool of labor, the H-1B visa undermines the wages and employment of native-born tech workers, in the tellings of both socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and far-right podcaster Steve Bannon. (More ignobly, some aligned with the latter figure disdain the program because H-1B visa holders are heavily nonwhite.) The H-1B’s proponents and detractors both make some reasonable points. In recent years, IT staffing firms and outsourcing companies have gamed the H-1B visa system, securing nearly half of all such visas through various subversions of the program. These companies typically do not seek out specific individuals with hard-to-find talents, but rather, interchangeable junior-level workers with lower wage expectations than their American counterparts. Meanwhile, H-1B workers’ vulnerability to deportation does enable abusive practices by some employers. And yet, despite these flaws, the H-1B program has likely been economically beneficial for native-born Americans. Studies suggest that increasing the admission of H-1B visa holders boosts the innovation at US tech firms, lowers prices for American consumers, and actually lifts wages for US workers. Fortunately, the H-1B’s economic benefits do not derive from its most exploitative features. The fact that the H-1B system has been gamed by low-value outsourcing companies makes it worse for innovation. Similarly, were highly skilled H-1B workers given permanent legal residency — rather than a time-limited visa that they could lose the minute they’re laid off — they would simultaneously be less vulnerable to exploitation and more capable of contributing to the US economy in the long term.  Therefore, the H-1B visa system should be reformed — or replaced — in a manner that makes America’s high-skill immigrants both more numerous and more free.  Why the H-1B visa system is broken When Congress created the H-1B visa, it intended to give US employers access to workers they could not find domestically — specifically, those who possessed extraordinary, hard-to-find skills. But this is not how many companies actually use the program.  Part of the problem lies with the way that H-1B visas are allocated. Demand for the visas far outstrips their supply; 446,000 people sought an H-1B visa in 2023, but only 85,000 received one. The government therefore distributes the visas through a lottery: Every worker who appears remotely qualified is entered into a drawing, in which winners are chosen at random. This scheme prevents the government from giving priority to the most highly skilled applicants or those seeking to fill the best-paying jobs. What’s worse, the lottery actually tilts the scales in favor of relatively low-skilled applicants seeking some of the least well-paid jobs in tech.  The reason for this is simple. A Silicon Valley company that’s trying to hire one specific individual due to their rare capabilities is all but certain to lose the lottery; the odds of any individual applicant winning a visa are low.  On the other hand, the lottery system is quite favorable for an outsourcing or staffing company looking to hire lots of IT workers with basic, widely held skills. Such firms don’t need one specific candidate, just a large number of interchangeable entry-level laborers. So, they can sponsor the applications of many more workers than they actually need and then take whichever individuals happen to win the lottery. If too many of their workers get selected, they simply decline to complete all of their applications. According to Bloomberg, when IT staffing firms get one of their H-1B applicants through the lottery, they complete that worker’s application only 50 percent of the time; for other companies, that figure is closer to 90 percent.   Outsourcing companies — like those that provide American firms with tech support teams based in India — are especially well-suited to gaming the lottery. Such companies collectively employ hundreds of thousands of workers in India, but want to embed a minority of them within the offices of American clients. They can therefore instruct tens of thousands of their overseas employees to enter the lottery en masse, then bring the winners to the US. Altogether, IT staffing and outsourcing firms commandeered 40 percent of all H-1B visas in 2023, according to a Bloomberg investigation.  This outcome serves neither Silicon Valley giants nor US tech workers very well. Google, Amazon, and other superstar companies lose out on top foreign talent, as outsourcing and IT staffing firms hoard scarce H-1B visas. And since the latter firms are not recruiting specific, uniquely talented individuals — but rather, large numbers of interchangeable laborers — their use of the H-1B is especially likely to undermine the wages and employment of Americans. In fact, outsourcing firms directly subvert the H-1B program’s protections for US workers.  When applying for an H-1B visa, companies must pledge that they will pay their desired guest worker at least as much as they currently pay similar American workers. Thus, a US company cannot fire its existing workforce and then hire cheaper H-1B workers to fill their shoes. But if an American firm decides to fully eliminate its IT department — and contract out those functions to outsourcing companies — then it can indirectly replace its US employees with H-1B workers willing to accept a lower wage.  This is because, in that scenario, it is the outsourcing company — not the American firm — that applies for the H-1B visas. These outsourcing companies typically pay lower wages to their US citizen IT workers than major American corporations do. So they can promise to pay their H-1B applicants as much as they pay their US employees — and still pay the former lower wages than most American IT workers earn.  To see how this works, consider the case of Southern California Edison (SCE). In 2015, the energy provider contracted out some of its IT operations to Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, two major outsourcing companies. SCE proceeded to lay off hundreds of its own employees — but not before requiring them to help train Infosys and Tata’s H-1B workers, who would be effectively replacing them. A Department of Labor investigation of this incident found that it violated no laws. If the H-1B program’s design fails some US workers, it can also harm guest workers. These harms shouldn’t be exaggerated: H-1B workers are not akin to “indentured servants.” Even the guest workers who fill IT jobs at relatively low-wage staffing firms generally earn exponentially higher salaries than they would back home. According to Bloomberg, the median wage of an H-1B worker at an outsourcing company is $90,000 a year — far higher than a similar worker can earn in India (from which a majority of such guest workers hail). Nevertheless, H-1B workers’ dependence on their employers for legal status leaves them vulnerable to abuse. If an H-1B holder loses their job, they must find a new one within 60 days or face deportation. And they cannot change jobs unless they convince a new employer to sponsor their visas. Some employers seek to capitalize on their H-1B workers’ vulnerability. According to a 2021 report from the Economic Policy Institute, the IT staffing firm HCL has systematically underpaid their H-1B workers — relative to what was required by law — effectively stealing $95 million in wages from them. It’s clear then that the H-1B program is seriously flawed. But it doesn’t follow that America would be better off if the H-1B visa did not exist. Even with its flaws, the H-1B visa benefits Americans The H-1B visa has doubtlessly harmed some US workers. But the program’s impact on Americans appears to be highly positive. Specifically, the policy seems to raise wages for native-born workers as a whole, while increasing the welfare of American consumers. There are a few explanations for how this could be true.  One is that immigrants in general tend to complement native-born workers more than they replace them. This is because immigrant workers don’t just provide labor — they also demand it, since they consume goods and services. Thus, immigration, like population growth in general, does not eat into a finite number of jobs. Rather, it enables a higher degree of labor specialization and thus higher productivity.  Immigrants and native-born workers also have disparate strengths, and often occupy different niches within the labor market. It seems likely that some portion of H-1B workers genuinely possess skills that are in short supply domestically. And if nothing else, such visa holders are more fluent in the culture and languages of their home countries than the vast majority of native-born American workers are. That can be valuable for an international firm with overseas affiliates or business partners. Conversely, native-born workers may be better suited to certain roles in light of their fluency with American culture.  The notion that companies often don’t see H-1B and native workers as interchangeable is buttressed by empirical evidence. In 2004, the annual cap on H-1B visas abruptly fell from 195,000 to 65,000. But this did not lead affected firms to increase their hiring of native-born workers, according to a 2017 study. That finding, the paper’s authors write, suggests that there is “a low degree of substitutability between H1B and native workers.” Similarly, a 2024 study found that companies that win the H-1B lottery tend to subsequently increase their hiring of college-educated immigrant workers — without reducing their employment of native-born ones. This result indicates H-1B visa holders often complement the labor of a firm’s American employees, rather than replacing it. Whatever impact H-1B holders have on the wages of their American colleagues, there are reasons to think they increase living standards for US workers writ large.  For one thing, H-1B workers can help tech firms scale their operations more rapidly, leading to higher rates of innovation. Innovation, in turn, can spur higher economic growth and therefore wages and employment. Economists have found that increases in the H-1B visa cap are associated with a jump in patented inventions, and that winners of the H-1B lottery subsequently introduce more new products and hire more native-born workers. Separately, boosting the amount of highly skilled labor in a given area can attract investment. The larger the pool of STEM workers in a given city, the more incentive that tech firms have to open or expand operations there. This can improve conditions throughout a local labor market. A 2015 study found that increases in H-1B holders at the municipal level were associated with wage gains for native-born workers, both college-educated and non-college-educated.  As the economics blogger Noah Smith argues, it’s plausible that this same basic dynamic holds at the country level, such that bringing more tech workers into the US increases investment into the United States. Researchers have found that when multinational firms lose access to H-1B workers, they tend to replace them by increasing hiring abroad. This effectively transfers dollars out of the US economy and into foreign ones, to the detriment of American workers. Of course, Americans are not only laborers but also consumers. And a 2017 study of the economic impacts of the H-1B visa estimated that the program increases output and lowers prices in the IT sector. None of this is to deny that the H-1B program has adverse impacts for certain workers. Although most studies find that the visa is beneficial for native-born wages in the aggregate, some researchers estimate that it reduces pay and employment for American computer scientists. This said, the case for opposing the H-1B visa on this basis seems weak. The median salary for a US computer scientist in 2023 was $145,080, according to the Bureau for Labor Statistics. This puts the typical computer scientist in roughly the highest-earning 10 percent of all Americans.  If a given policy 1) increases the wages and employment of American workers writ large, 2) boosts innovation in the US economy, 3) lowers prices, and 4) radically increases the material welfare of foreign-born tech workers (by letting them work in the US) — at the cost of slightly reducing wage growth for workers in the top decile of the income distribution — that policy seems beneficial on net. At the very least, it is hard to think of a progressive argument for prioritizing the interests of high-income workers over those of Americans as a whole.  We don’t need to choose between innovation and labor rights Fortunately, US policymakers do not need to choose between maintaining the existing H-1B system — with its copious flaws — and eliminating it.  The H-1B system is economically beneficial primarily because high-skilled immigration is economically beneficial. If we replaced the H-1B visa system with a dramatic expansion of green cards for highly educated immigrants — distributed on the basis of a merit-based point system, like those that exist in Canada — we could eliminate the peculiarly exploitative features of the H-1B system while retaining its material upsides. Indeed, letting in more highly skilled immigrants is almost certainly more beneficial than admitting more temporary guest workers. As is, H-1B visa holders often receive an education at a US university, hone their skills for six years at American companies, and are then forced to leave the country, taking their enhanced human capital with them.  Of course, the Trump administration is unlikely to support a large expansion of legal immigration. For the moment then, it might be best for policymakers to focus on more closely aligning the H-1B system with its official purpose. Instead of distributing H-1B visas through a lottery that outsourcing companies can game, the government could give priority to firms seeking to fill the most highly skilled and best-paid positions. It could also establish a higher minimum wage for H-1B visa holders (something the first Trump administration tried to do, before courts shot them down), bar companies from indirectly replacing their workers with lower-wage H-1B visa holders through outsourcing, or attempt to disqualify IT staffing firms from seeking H-1B visas. To reduce H-1B workers’ vulnerability to exploitation, meanwhile, we could immunize them from deportation for a longer period after they are laid off: If visa holders were given 180 days to find a new job, instead of only 60, they might feel more comfortable standing up to abusive employers. Ideally, these changes would help build political will for increasing the overall number of H-1B visas. Even in its present, highly flawed form, the program boosts the prosperity of Americans and guest workers alike. A reformed H-1B system — that prioritized advanced skills and high wages — would surely be worthy of expansion.

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

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

Preview: Donald Trump attends a private party ahead of his inauguration ceremony on January 20. This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Within hours of being sworn into office on Monday, President Donald Trump announced a spate of executive orders and policies to boost oil and gas production, roll back environmental protections, withdraw from the Paris climate accord, and undo environmental justice initiatives enacted by former President Joe Biden. Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” and appointed fossil fuel industry executives and climate skeptics to his Cabinet. His first-day actions represent a complete remaking of the country’s climate agenda, and set the tone for his administration’s approach to energy and the environment over the next four years.  “Drill, baby, drill” Among the most significant actions Trump took Monday was declaring “an energy emergency,” which he framed as part of his effort to rein in inflation and reduce the cost of living. He pledged to “use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure,” an unprecedented move that could grant the White House greater authority to expand fossil fuel production. He also signed an executive order “to encourage energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters,” and another expediting permitting and leasing in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  “We will have the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it,” Trump said during his inaugural address. “We are going to drill, baby, drill.” The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve can store 714 million barrels of crude oil, but currently holds about 395 million. Under his administration, he said, the cache will be filled “up again right to the top.” He also said the country will export energy “all over the world.” “We will be a rich nation again,” he said, standing inside the Capitol Rotunda, “and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help.” Richard Klein, a senior research fellow for the international nonprofit Stockholm Environment Institute, noted that fossil fuel companies extracted record-high amounts of oil and gas during the Biden administration. Even if it is technologically possible to boost production further, it’s unclear whether that will reduce prices.  Dan Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California Berkeley, said it is a “direct falsehood” that increasing fossil fuel extraction would drive down inflation. He agreed that the US should declare a national energy emergency — but for reasons exactly the opposite of what Trump had in mind. “We need to quickly move to clean energy, to invest in new companies across the US,” Kammen told Grist. Exiting the Paris agreement (again) Trump delivered on his promise to once again withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the United Nations pact agreed upon by 195 countries to limit global warming, which the new president referred to on Monday as a “rip-off.” In addition to signing an executive order saying the US would leave the agreement — titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements” — Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations to set the departure in motion. Due to the rules governing the accord, it will take one year to formally withdraw, meaning US negotiators will participate in the next round of talks in Brazil at the end of the year. By this time next year, however, the US could join Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the only nations that aren’t part of the accord.  “It simply makes no sense for the United States to voluntarily give up political influence and pass up opportunities to shape the exploding green energy market,” Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. Only two in 10 Americans support quitting the Paris agreement, according to a poll by the Associated Press. Trump’s announcement came just 10 days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2024 Earth’s hottest year on record, one marked by life-threatening heat waves, wildfires, and flooding around the world. Experts say things will only get worse unless the US and other countries do more to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  “Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled,” climate scientists wrote last October. They noted then, even before Trump’s election, that global policies were expected to cause temperatures to climb 2.7 degrees Celsius (6.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. One analysis by Carbon Brief estimated that a second Trump administration would result in an extra 4 billion metric tons of climate pollution, negating all of the emissions savings from the global deployment of clean energy technologies over the past five years — twice over. Reversing course on electric vehicles  Trump also took action to revoke “the electric vehicle mandate,” in keeping with his campaign promise to support autoworkers. “In other words, you’ll be able to buy the vehicle of your choice,” he said during his inaugural address — even though there is no national mandate requiring the sale of electric vehicles and consumers are free to purchase any vehicle of their liking. The Biden administration did promote the technology by finalizing rules that limit the amount of tailpipe pollution over time so that electric vehicles make up the majority of automobiles sold by 2032. Under Joe Biden, the US also launched a $7,500 tax credit for consumer purchases of EVs manufactured domestically and planned to funnel roughly $7.5 billion toward building charging infrastructure across the country.  “Rolling back incentives to build electric vehicles in the United States is going to cost jobs as well as raise the price of travel,” said Costa Samaras, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University who served as a senior policy leader in the Biden White House. “Fueling up an electric vehicle costs between one-third and one-half as much as driving on gasoline, not to mention the benefits for reducing air pollution. Ultimately, to lower the price of energy for US consumers, we need to diversify the sources of energy that we’re using and ensure that these are clean, affordable, and reliable.” Rescinding environmental justice initiatives Trump signed a single executive order undoing nearly 80 Biden administration initiatives, including rescinding a directive to federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions. The Biden-era policy protected communities overburdened by pollution and directed agencies to work more closely with them.   That move was part of a broader push that Trump described in his inaugural address as an attempt to create a “color-blind society” by stopping the government from “trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.” Klein said the objective was “embarrassing.” Kammen said it was a “huge mistake” to move away from environmental justice priorities. Blocking new wind energy  Trump officially barred new offshore wind leases and will review federal permitting of wind projects, making good on a promise to “end leasing to massive wind farms that degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers.” The move is likely to be met with resistance from members of his own party. The top four states for wind generation — Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas — are solidly red, and unlikely to acquiesce. Even Trump’s pick for Interior secretary, Doug Burgum, refused to disavow wind power during a hearing last week, saying he would pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy. Many state and local policymakers, including the members of America Is All In, a climate coalition made up of government leaders and businesses from all 50 states, pledged to take up the mantle of climate action in the absence of federal leadership. “Regardless of the federal government’s actions, climate mayors are not backing down on our commitment to the Paris Agreement,” said Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, in a statement. “Our constituents are looking to us to meet the moment and deliver meaningful solutions.”

Preview: First lady Jill Biden, President Joe Biden, President-elect Donald Trump and Melania Trump stand together ahead of Trump’s second inauguration, at the White House on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald J. Trump and JD Vance were officially sworn in as the 47th president and vice president of the United States on Monday, January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. Their inauguration looks different from previous years, in part because it is being held inside the Capitol Rotunda, instead of outside the US Capitol, as a polar vortex threatens much of the nation with below freezing temperatures. Trump is expected to issue hundreds of executive orders as soon as he is inaugurated for his second presidency, including vows to impose tariffs on imported goods and to carry out a mass deportation effort. (How Trump plans to carry out these plans remains unclear.) He also pledged to provide “major pardons” for the roughly hundreds of nonviolent defendants convicted of storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Follow here for the latest news, analysis, and explainers about Inauguration Day.  What did Trump just do to the environment? The single most unconstitutional thing Trump did yesterday, explained 6 things we learned from Day 1 about how Trump will govern Why Wall Street found Trump’s first day reassuring Is Donald Trump’s agenda actually popular? The Trump executive orders that threaten democracy Trump’s real inaugural address started when the teleprompter stopped Covering a second Trump presidency Why Trump’s second inauguration isn’t like the first 6 factors to watch in the incoming Trump administration The broligarchs have a vision for the new Trump term. It’s darker than you think.

Preview: Strong winds blow embers from homes burning in the Eaton Fire on January 7, 2025, in Pasadena, California. | David McNew/Getty Images Wildfires are raging across Los Angeles, turning the skies red, destroying homes and businesses, and blanketing the region with smoke and debris. The largest fire is in Pacific Palisades, which has grown to over 23,000 acres and forced hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Two other major fires have engulfed Los Angeles County: The roughly 14,000-acre Eaton Fire in Altadena and the 799-acre Hurst Fire north of San Fernando, the latter of which has been largely contained. Several more small fires have also broken out throughout Southern California as powerful winds continue to sweep the region. At least 25 people have been killed and 12,000 structures have been destroyed. Devastating wildfires like these are becoming increasingly common, even in places that have not historically been at risk, with climate change exacerbating the conditions that fuel them. This is a developing story. Follow here for the latest news, explainers, and analysis. I evacuated when the Sunset Fire broke out. What happened next was surreal. Why does Trump hate this tiny fish so much? What happens when the California fires go out? More gentrification. There are no grown-ups in California Want to help fire victims? The best way to support Los Angeles in the short and long term. Please keep talking about famous wildfire victims What happens to kids when their schools are destroyed? It’s a make-or-break moment for housing in California How the Los Angeles fires highlight the challenge of disaster relief An even bigger threat is looming behind California’s fires The unusually strong force behind the apocalyptic fires in Los Angeles What homeowners and renters need to know after a wildfire Wildfires impact wildlife and pets, too. Here’s how you can help them. California overhauled its insurance system. Then Los Angeles caught fire. What happens when a wildfire reaches a city? Yes, even most unexpected landscapes in the US can and will burn The shady origins of the climate haven myth We’re in a deadly cycle of mega fires. The way out is to burn more. Wildfires will put even more pressure on the country’s housing crisis How to prepare for another season of wildfire smoke The Air Quality Index and how to use it, explained

Preview: BEEKMAN, NY—Upon receiving the news that his name had somehow been included in an executive order granting clemency to nearly 1,600 rioters, Mark David Chapman reportedly decided to just go with it Monday when he was pardoned alongside the Jan. 6 defendants. “Well, sure, I guess I’ll just say here that I’ve been held hostage […] The post Mark David Chapman Decides To Just Go With It After Receiving January 6 Pardon appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: The post We Must Protect The First Amendment At All Costs vs. No Thanks, I’ll Just Take My Freedoms For Granted Until They Disappear appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: The post Biden In Critical Condition After Sticking Tongue In Marine One Chopper Blade appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: The post Better Copulate Than Never appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: SEATTLE—Kicking himself for not purchasing a gift sooner, local man George Yorkin reportedly groaned Tuesday upon learning that the only thing left on the Jeff Bezos–Lauren Sánchez wedding registry was a new rocket booster. “Oh, shit, it’s $290 million?” the visibly annoyed Yorkin said as he stared at the Zola page for the Amazon billionaire […] The post Man Groans After Only Thing Left On Bezos Wedding Registry New Rocket Booster appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: CAMBRIDGE, MA—Revealing a precipitous decline in the nation’s access to a once-plentiful resource, an alarming study published Tuesday by Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that only one in four Americans can get a motherfuckin’ “hell yeah.” “It’s no secret that peer enthusiasm is harder to come by than it was in previous […] The post Alarming Study Finds Only 1 In 4 Americans Can Get A Motherfuckin’ ‘Hell Yeah’ appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: WASHINGTON—Hampering the chief justice’s efforts to swear him in for a second term, President-elect Donald Trump autographed the inaugural Bible before handing it back to John Roberts, sources confirmed Monday. “There you go—all yours,”  said Trump, who took the Bible from Roberts, pulled a Sharpie out of his suit pocket, opened the book, and scribbled […] The post Confused Trump Autographs Swearing-In Bible Before Handing It Back To Justice Roberts appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: WASHINGTON—Placing his right hand on the collection of posts taken from the controversial message board, JD Vance was reportedly sworn in as vice president Monday on a stack of printed-out 4chan greentexts. “I, James David Vance, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign […] The post JD Vance Sworn In On Stack Of Printed 4chan Greentexts appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: WASHINGTON—Cackling wildly as he pulled himself from the smoldering wreckage while those around him watched in horror, Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth reportedly crashed a golf cart into the stage at the presidential inauguration Monday. “Ooooh shiiiiit, what the fuck was that?” said the bewildered former Fox News host, who, after stumbling out of the vehicle […] The post Pete Hegseth Crashes Golf Cart Into Inauguration Stage appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: WASHINGTON—Not bothering to conceal her phone screen, Melania Trump was reportedly swiping through Raya matches Monday in full view of television cameras. The former and incoming first lady of the United States was captured in close-up by various news networks perusing profiles on the celebrity dating app during her husband’s inauguration ceremony, occasionally pausing to zoom […] The post Melania Trump Swiping Through Raya Matches In Full View Of Cameras appeared first on The Onion.