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: Questions linger about alleged shooter’s motivation for killing Charlie Kirk  The Guardian Authorities asked for help in the manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer. A father’s intuition led to an arrest  CNN Charlie Kirk's suspected killer arrested after confessing to father  BBC Charlie Kirk's widow: 'You have no idea what you have just unleashed'  NPR Charlie Kirk honored as 'generation's greatest' at massive London rally where Musk condemns left  Fox News

Preview: People are losing jobs due to social media posts about Charlie Kirk  NPR Mexican congressional staffer resigns after TV comments about Charlie Kirk  The Guardian After Charlie Kirk's death, teachers and professors nationwide fired or disciplined over social media posts  NBC News People are getting fired for allegedly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder. It looks like a coordinated effort  CNN Far-right groups are doxxing online critics after Charlie Kirk’s death  Al Jazeera

Preview: Trump demands NATO action on Russian oil before any U.S. sanctions  The Washington Post Trump issues an ultimatum for NATO countries on Russia sanctions  CNN Trump 'ready' to sanction Russia if Nato nations stop buying its oil  BBC Trump calls on all NATO countries to stop buying Russian oil, threatens 50% to 100% tariffs on China  AP News US calls on G7, EU to impose tariffs on China, India over Russian oil purchases  Reuters

Preview: Thousands fill London streets for "Unite the Kingdom" rally organized by far-right activist Tommy Robinson  CBS News Thousands gather for Tommy Robinson's Unite the Kingdom rally, and counter protest  BBC Why Tommy Robinson rally was different to any other  Sky News Scuffles with police as 100,000 anti-immigration protesters march in London  Reuters Elon Musk calls for dissolution of parliament at far-right rally in London  The Guardian

Preview: Utah residents are reeling, knowing the Charlie Kirk suspect is one of their own  NPRView Full Coverage on Google News

Preview: Poland deploys planes due to threat of drone strikes in nearby Ukraine  The Guardian NATO launches ‘Eastern Sentry’ operation in response to Russian drone incursions  CNN Drone breaches Romanian airspace during Russian attack on neighboring Ukraine  Reuters As Sabotage in Europe Mounts, So Do Calls to Retaliate Against Russia  The New York Times U.S. says it will defend 'every inch' of NATO territory after Poland shoots down Russian drones  NBC News

Preview: ICE agent shoots dead man who tried to drive at agents, officials say  BBC ICE officer fatally shoots man during traffic stop in Chicago suburb, authorities say  WBEZ Chicago ICE agent released from hospital, injured after shooting of undocumented driver in Franklin Park, Illinois  CBS News ICE shooting in Franklin Park, Illinois kills Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez, who DHS says dragged officer with car near 25th, Grand  ABC7 Chicago Illinois lawmakers demand answers in Ice killing: ‘A traffic violation should never amount to a death sentence’  The Guardian

Preview: Trump is selling a strong economy. Voters aren’t buying it.  Politico America is getting the economy we voted for - by Noah Smith  Noahpinion | Noah Smith Frustrated voters refute Trump claim the economy is 'the best we've ever had'  MSN Trump's 'political team is nervous' voters aren't buying what he's selling: insider  NewsBreak: Local News & Alerts Comments - America is getting the economy we voted for  Noahpinion | Noah Smith

Preview: University of Minnesota, Teamsters reach deal to end strike that threatened Farm Aid concert  Star Tribune U of M Teamsters ends strike after latest settlement offer from the University  5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Willie Nelson speaks with Walz as Farm Aid hangs in limbo amid U of M workers strike  CBS News Farm Aid concert might move or cancel if University of Minnesota strike isn’t resolved ‘immediately’  Star Tribune Farm Aid 40 to Move Forward in Minneapolis Following Labor Strike Agreement: ‘We Are Thrilled’  Billboard

Preview: Families in crisis after massive immigration raid at Hyundai plant in Georgia  AP News Confusion, Anger, Relief: Korean Engineer Tells of Week in U.S. ICE Detention  The Wall Street Journal Freed South Korean Workers Return From the U.S. to Tearful Cheers  The New York Times How Trump's Hyundai ICE raid enraged South Koreans across the political spectrum  MSNBC News South Korea’s president says Georgia ICE raid could have ‘considerable impact’ on direct US investment from his country  CNN

Preview: "You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country," Erika Kirk said, speaking to her husband's killer.

Preview: The Texas Democrat slammed conservatives Friday who "immediately" blamed Democrats for the right-wing activist's death.

Preview: Social media users quickly pointed out all the conservatives who posted tasteless comments in the wake of other tragedies.

Preview: Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Thursday appeared jointly on CNN with Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) to denounce America's violent political rhetoric.

Preview: An ICE officer was also injured in the Chicago-area incident.

Preview: "What kind of Marvel Cinematic Universe government do we have right now?" one X user commented.

Preview: Despite what the Wall Street Journal initially reported, none of the inscriptions spread "transgender ideology."

Preview: Charlie Kirk, a supporter of President Donald Trump and popular right-wing activist, was fatally shot Wednesday at Utah Valley University.

Preview: He said the city is “deeply troubled” and “we’re going to fix that just like we did Washington,” where he’s sent National Guard and surged federal law enforcement.

Preview: A family member helped turn the 22-year-old man in to authorities.

Preview: When former Vice President Kamala Harris first heard about how poorly Joe Biden’s team was responding to excerpts of her upcoming book, she essentially shrugged, I’m told.

Preview: FBI Director Kash Patel was already facing questions about whether he was up for the job. Those questions grew louder this week after the Charlie Kirk shooting.

Preview: Lisa Rubin says a new Bloomberg News report raises fresh questions about Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, after her conversations with the Trump DOJ.

Preview: Trump's diverging responses to Charlie Kirk's and Melissa Hortman's assassinations tells you about what kind of president he is.

Preview: The evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy exists in overwhelming abundance, accessible to anyone willing to examine it.

Preview: The gunman behind this week’s school shooting in Colorado was “radicalized by an extremist network,” authorities in Jefferson County said Thursday

Preview: ICE officials arrested hundreds of South Koreans at a Hyundai-LG battery factory in Georgia, putting at risk the country's plan to invest $350 billion in U.S. manufacturing.

Preview: Taylor Swift may be compelled to provide evidence in the long-brewing legal battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively

Preview: Warning signs in the labor market are raising concerns about the U.S. economy’s health.

Preview: Open carry laws make it harder to secure the kind of public events where Charlie Kirk was killed because the visibility of guns creates a dangerous ambiguity.

Preview: Historians say the lessons of this particular time will depend on Americans themselves, and what kind of a nation they want it to be.

Preview: Tyler Robinson, the man accused of shooting Charlie Kirk, was a stellar student in high school, raised in a Republican home in Southwest Utah and training to be an electrician.

Preview: Ms. Kirk has played a key role in her husband’s movement. Speaking at Turning Point USA headquarters and on social media, she pledged his work would continue.

Preview: President Trump has promised to bring the killer to justice while using the moment to blame the left — and only the left — more broadly.

Preview: Radio and television stations, facing enormous budget holes, are pleading with NPR and PBS to lower their fees as they examine whether to drop national programming altogether.

Preview: The Trump administration has sought to block Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve meeting on interest rates this coming week.

Preview: Millions in military and development funds for Colombia hang in the balance as Washington questions the country’s fight against cocaine.

Preview: The diplomat will consult with Israeli officials about their coming military offensive in Gaza City, as President Trump’s efforts to end the Gaza war appear stalled.

Preview: The film studio, which some say has turned rightward under its new owner, said it disagreed with thousands of Hollywood professionals pledging to boycott Israeli film institutions.

Preview: Latin America’s largest nation is shaping up as a test case on how to defy President Trump.

Preview: I'm the only person I know of who has this.

Preview: Gen Z and millennials are particularly fond of it.

Preview: Trump's DOJ seems to have picked one lawyer to keep lying to the courts.

Preview: It's really not that bad.

Preview: Let her just try it one more time…

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

Preview: The lesson is decidedly not that young women don’t care about children or family.

Preview: After a national shock to the system, two people stepped up.

Preview: Ozempic has turned #BodyPositive social media from a safe space into a minefield.

Preview: The First Amendment has a Second Amendment problem.

Preview: When it comes to AI, as California goes, so goes the nation. The biggest state in the US by population is also the central hub of AI innovation for the entire globe, home to 32 of the world’s top 50 AI companies. That size and influence have given the Golden State the weight to become a regulatory trailblazer, setting the tone for the rest of the country on environmental, labor, and consumer protection regulations — and more recently, AI as well.  Now, following the dramatic defeat of a proposed federal moratorium on states regulating AI in July, California policymakers see a limited window of opportunity to set the stage for the rest of the country’s AI laws. In the early hours of Saturday morning, the California State Assembly voted in favor of SB 53, a bill that would require transparency reports from the developers of highly powerful, “frontier” AI models. The bill, which has passed both parts of the state legislature, now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom to either be vetoed or signed into law. The models targeted represent the cutting-edge of AI — extremely adept generative systems that require massive amounts of data and computing power, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, xAI’s Grok, and Anthropic’s Claude. AI can offer tremendous benefits, but as the bill is meant to address, it’s not without risks. And while there is no shortage of existing risks from issues like job displacement and bias, SB 53 focuses on possible “catastrophic risks” from AI. Such risks include AI-enabled biological weapons attacks and rogue systems carrying out cyberattacks or other criminal activity that could conceivably bring down critical infrastructure. Such catastrophic risks represent widespread disasters that could plausibly threaten human civilization at local, national, and global levels. They represent risks of the kind of AI-driven disasters that have not yet occurred, rather than already-realized, more personal harms like AI deepfakes. Exactly what constitutes a catastrophic risk is up for debate, but SB 53 defines it as a “foreseeable and material risk” of an event that causes more than 50 casualties or over $1 billion in damages that a frontier model plays a meaningful role in contributing to. How fault is determined in practice would be up to the courts to interpret. It’s hard to define catastrophic risk in law when the definition is far from settled, but doing so can help us protect against both near- and long-term consequences. By itself, a single state bill focused on increased transparency will probably not be enough to prevent devastating cyberattacks and AI-enabled chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. But the bill represents an effort to regulate this fast-moving technology before it outpaces our efforts at oversight. SB 53, explained SB 53 is the third state-level bill to try to specifically focus on regulating AI’s catastrophic risks, after California’s SB 1047, which passed the legislature only to be vetoed by the governor — and New York’s Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, which recently passed the New York legislature and is now awaiting Gov. Kathy Hochul’s approval. SB 53, which was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener in February, requires frontier AI companies to develop safety frameworks that specifically detail how they approach catastrophic risk reduction. Before deploying their models, companies would have to publish safety and security reports. The bill also gives them 15 days to report “critical safety incidents” to the California Office of Emergency Services, and establishes whistleblower protections for employees who come forward about unsafe model deployment that contributes to catastrophic risk. SB 53 aims to hold companies publicly accountable for their AI safety commitments, with a financial penalty up to $1 million per violation. “The science of how to make AI safe is rapidly evolving, and it’s currently difficult for policymakers to write prescriptive technical rules for how companies should manage safety.” Thomas Woodside, co-founder of Secure AI Project In many ways, SB 53 is the spiritual successor to SB 1047, also introduced by Wiener. Both cover large models that are trained at 10^26 FLOPS, a measurement of very significant computing power used in a variety of AI legislation as a threshold for significant risk, and both bills strengthen whistleblower protections. Where SB 53 departs from SB 1047 is its focus on transparency and prevention While SB 1047 aimed to hold companies liable for catastrophic harms caused by their AI systems, SB 53 formalizes sharing safety frameworks, which many frontier AI companies, including Anthropic, already do voluntarily. It focuses squarely on the heavy-hitters, with its rules applying only to companies that generate $500 million or more in gross revenue. “The science of how to make AI safe is rapidly evolving, and it’s currently difficult for policymakers to write prescriptive technical rules for how companies should manage safety,” said Thomas Woodside, the co-founder of Secure AI Project, an advocacy group that aims to reduce extreme risks from AI and is a sponsor of the bill, over email. “This light touch policy prevents backsliding on commitments and encourages a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom.” Part of the logic of SB 53 is the ability to adapt the framework as AI progresses. The bill authorizes the California Attorney General to change the definition of a large developer after January 1, 2027, in response to AI advances. Proponents of the bill were optimistic about its chances of being signed by the governor should it pass the legislature. On the same day that Gov. Newsom vetoed SB 1047, he commissioned a working group focusing solely on frontier models. The resulting report by the group provided the foundation for SB 53. “I would guess, with roughly 75 percent confidence, that SB 53 will be signed into law by the end of September,” said Dean Ball — former White House AI policy adviser, vocal SB 1047 critic, and SB 53 supporter — to Transformer. But several industry organizations rallied in opposition, arguing that additional compliance regulation would be expensive, given that AI companies should already be incentivized to avoid catastrophic harms. OpenAI has lobbied against it, and technology trade group Chamber of Progress argues that the bill would require companies to file unnecessary paperwork and unnecessarily stifle innovation. “Those compliance costs are merely the beginning,” Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, told me over email. “The bill, if passed, would feed California regulators truckloads of company information that they will use to design a compliance industrial complex.” By contrast, Anthropic enthusiastically endorsed the bill on Monday. “The question isn’t whether we need AI governance – it’s whether we develop it thoughtfully today or reactively tomorrow,” the company explained in a blog post. “SB 53 offers a solid path toward the former.” (Disclosure: Vox Media is one of several publishers that have signed partnership agreements with OpenAI, while Future Perfect is funded in part by the BEMC Foundation, whose major funder was also an early investor in Anthropic. Neither organization has editorial input into our content.) The debate over SB 53 ties into broader disagreements about whether states or the federal government should drive AI safety regulation. But since the vast majority of these companies are based in California, and nearly all do business there, the state’s legislation matters for the entire country. “A federally led transparency approach is far, far, far preferable to the multi-state alternative,” where a patchwork of state regulations can conflict with each other, said Cato Institute technology policy fellow Matthew Mittelsteadt in an email. But “I love that the bill has a provision that would allow companies to defer to a future alternative federal standard.” “The natural question is whether a federal approach can even happen,” Mittelsteadt continued. “In my opinion, the jury is out on that but the possibility is far more likely that some suggest. It’s been less than 3 years since ChatGPT was released. That is hardly a lifetime in public policy.” But in a time of federal gridlock, frontier AI advancements won’t wait for Washington. The catastrophic risk divide The bill’s focus on, and framing of, catastrophic risks is not without controversy. The idea of catastrophic risk comes from the fields of philosophy and quantitative risk assessment. Catastrophic risks are downstream of existential risks, which threaten humanity’s actual survival or else permanently reduce our potential as a species. The hope is that if these doomsday scenarios are identified and prepared for, they can be prevented or at least mitigated. But if existential risks are clear — the end of the world, or at least as we know it — what falls under the catastrophic risk umbrella, and the best way to prioritize those risks, depends on who you ask. There are longtermists, people focused primarily on humanity’s far future, who place a premium on things like multiplanetary expansion for human survival. They’re often chiefly concerned by risks from rogue AI or extremely lethal pandemics. Neartermists are more preoccupied with existing risks, like climate change, mosquito vector-borne disease, or algorithmic bias. These camps can blend into one another — neartermists would also like to avoid getting hit by asteroids that could wipe out a city, and longtermists don’t dismiss risks like climate change — and the best way to think of them is like two ends of a spectrum rather than a strict binary. You can think of the AI ethics and AI safety frameworks as the near- and longtermism of AI risk, respectively. AI ethics is about the moral implications of the ways the technology is deployed, including things like algorithmic bias and human rights, in the present. AI safety focuses on catastrophic risks and potential existential threats. But, as Vox’s Julia Longoria reported in the Good Robot series for Unexplainable, there are inter-personal conflicts leading these two factions to work against each other, much of which has to do with emphasis. (AI ethics people argue that catastrophic risk concerns over-hype AI capabilities and ignores its impact on vulnerable people right now, while AI safety people worry that if we focus too much on the present, we won’t have ways to mitigate larger-scale problems down the line.) But behind the question of near versus long-term risks lies another one: what, exactly, constitutes a catastrophic risk? SB 53 initially set the standard for catastrophic risk at 100 rather than 50 casualties — similar to New York’s RAISE Act — before halving the threshold in an amendment to the bill. While the average person might consider, say, many people driven to suicide after interacting with AI chatbots to be catastrophic, such a risk is outside of the bill’s scope. (The California State Assembly just passed a separate bill to regulate AI companion chatbots by preventing them from participating in discussions about suicidal ideation or sexually explicit material.) SB 53 focuses squarely on harms from “expert-level” frontier AI model assistance in developing or deploying chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons; committing crimes like cyberattacks or fraud; and “loss of control” scenarios where AIs go rogue, behaving deceptively to avoid being shut down and replicating themselves without human oversight. For example, an AI model could be used to guide the creation of a new deadly virus that infects millions and kneecaps the global economy. “The 50 to 100 deaths or a billion dollars in property damage is just a proxy to capture really widespread and substantial impact,” said Scott Singer, lead author of the California Report for Frontier AI Policy, which helped inform the basis of the bill. “We do look at like AI-enabled or AI potentially [caused] or correlated suicide. I think that’s like a very serious set of issues that demands policymaker attention, but I don’t think it’s the core of what this bill is trying to address.” Transparency is helpful in preventing such catastrophes because it can help raise the alarm before things get out of hand, allowing AI developers to correct course. And in the event that such efforts fail to prevent a mass casualty incident, enhanced safety transparency can help law enforcement and the courts figure out what went wrong. The challenge there is that it can be difficult to determine how much a model is accountable for a specific outcome, Irene Solaiman, the chief policy officer at Hugging Face, a collaboration platform for AI developers, told me over email. “These risks are coming and we should be ready for them and have transparency into what the companies are doing,” said Adam Billen, the vice president of public policy at Encode, an organization that advocates for responsible AI leadership and safety. (Encode is another sponsor of SB 53.) “But we don’t know exactly what we’re going to need to do once the risks themselves appear. But right now, when those things aren’t happening at a large scale, it makes sense to be sort of focused on transparency.” However, a transparency-focused bill like SB 53 is insufficient for addressing already-existing harms. When we already know something is a problem, the focus should be on mitigating it. “Maybe four years ago, if we had passed some sort of transparency legislation like SB 53 but focused on those harms, we might have had some warning signs and been able to intervene before the widespread harms to kids started happening,” Billen said. “We’re trying to kind of correct that mistake on these problems and get some sort of forward-facing information about what’s happening before things get crazy, basically.” SB 53 risks being both overly narrow and unclearly scoped. We have not yet faced these catastrophic harms from frontier AI models, and the most devastating risks might take us entirely by surprise. We don’t know what we don’t know. It’s also certainly possible that models trained below 10^26 FLOPS, which aren’t covered by SB 53, have the potential to cause catastrophic harm under the bill’s definition. The EU AI Act sets the threshold for “systemic risk” at the smaller 10^25 FLOPS, and there’s disagreement about the utility of computational power as a regulatory standard at all, especially as models become more efficient. As it stands right now, SB 53 occupies a different niche from bills focused on regulating AI use in mental healthcare or data privacy, reflecting its authors’ desire not to step on the toes of other legislation or bite off more than it can reasonably chew. But Chilson, the Abundance Institute’s head of AI policy, is part of a camp that sees SB 53’s focus on catastrophic harm as a “distraction” from the real near-term benefits and concerns, like AI’s potential to accelerate the pace of scientific research or create nonconsensual deepfake imagery, respectively. That said, deepfakes could certainly cause catastrophic harm. For instance, imagine a hyper-realistic deepfake impersonating a bank employee to commit fraud at a multibillion-dollar scale, said Nathan Calvin, the vice president of state affairs and general counsel at Encode. “I do think some of the lines between these things in practice can be a bit blurry, and I think in some ways…that is not necessarily a bad thing,” he told me. It could be that the ideological debate around what qualifies as catastrophic risks, and whether that’s worthy of our legislative attention, is just noise. The bill is intended to regulate AI before the proverbial horse is out of the barn. The average person isn’t going to worry about the likelihood of AI sparking nuclear warfare or biological weapons attacks, but they do think about how algorithmic bias might affect their lives in the present. But in trying to prevent the worst-case scenarios, perhaps we can also avoid the “smaller,” nearer harms. If they’re effective, forward-facing safety provisions designed to prevent mass casualty events will also make AI safer for individuals. If Gov. Newsom signs SB 53 into law, it could inspire other state attempts at AI regulation through a similar framework, and eventually encourage federal AI safety legislation to move forward. How we think about risk matters because it determines where we focus our efforts on prevention. I’m a firm believer in the value of defining your terms, in law and debate. If we’re not on the same page about what we mean when we talk about risk, we can’t have a real conversation. Update, September 13, 2025, 11:55 am ET: This story was originally published on September 12 and has been updated to reflect the outcome of the California State Assembly vote.

Preview: Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a press conference on the steps of the Department of Agriculture on July 14, 2025, in Washington, DC. | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images If you’ve been paying any attention to the fractious debate over American health policy, you’ve probably heard this phrase: “the sickest generation in American history.” The words can be found in the third sentence of a major report released in May by a presidential commission led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the line itself essentially sums up the ethos of his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. America, and especially its children, is “the sickest country in the world,” as Kennedy himself told senators in a hearing earlier this month.  This idea — that we are sicker than we’ve ever been — underpins the radicalism of the MAHA agenda. If it’s true, then what choice do we have but to blow up the American health care system and remake it from top to bottom? Which is exactly what Kennedy aims to do. Well, I’m here with some good news: It is not true. America is not, in fact, the sickest country in the world, and this generation — our kids included — is far from the sickest generation in American history. Once you gather the evidence, and once you realize the actual state of American health for much of the country’s history, it’s so not true that to ponder the question as it’s stated feels almost absurd. Decades of progress in everything from vaccines and drugs to cleaner air and water have made Americans far healthier and longer-lived than their ancestors.  Does this mean that Americans are as healthy as they could be, or that we aren’t seeing significant new health problems arise alongside that progress, like the growth of obesity, the spread of chronic diseases, and the rise of diagnosed mental illness? No. But one of the goals of this newsletter is to help put the very real problems of the present into perspective by understanding how far we’ve come from a much darker past. Our negativity bias, turbocharged by the maelstrom of social media, tempts us to catastrophize our present moment. In turn, we lunge for revolutionary solutions that risk destroying the foundation of the progress we’ve made.  Nowhere is that more the case than in our attitude toward American health, and nowhere are the risks of the blow-it-all-up approach more dangerous. So here’s a reality check. We’ve gained an extra life Death isn’t the only enemy of medicine, but it is the last one. On that final score, today’s Americans are better off on average than virtually any who came before them. View Link In the late 19th century, even as US cities were first being wired for electricity, life expectancy in the US was just 40 years — a sobering thought for someone like myself who is currently 47. Over the course of the 20th century alone, the average lifespan of Americans increased by more than 30 years. And nearly all of those gains came from improvements in public health, like the introduction of vaccines and antibiotics, improvements in cardiovascular care, safer roads and workplaces, and a cleaner environment and food supply. (MAHA decries the state of American food, but if you want to know what the unregulated system looked like at the turn of the 20th century, just read Upton Sinclair’s stomach-turning classic The Jungle.)  The science writer Steven Johnson has a brilliant description for this phenomenon: it’s as if Americans across the board gained “an extra life.” And while the long-term increase in US life expectancy reversed slightly during the Covid pandemic, it has since recovered. Today the average American can expect to live 78.4 years, or nearly twice as long as their great-great-great-grandparent born in the 1880s. We’ve been winning the war on infectious disease, heart attacks, and cancer One of the biggest factors behind all that extra life is medicine’s success against infectious disease. In 1900, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrheal disease caused roughly one-third of all American deaths — and 30 percent of those deaths were in children under 5. In fact, as of 1915, an unimaginable one in 10 babies in the US died before their first birthday, just in case you still think today’s children are the sickest ever. That is worse than Afghanistan suffers now. As late as the 1950s, some 16,000 Americans a year — most of them children — were stricken with paralytic polio. Today, just a fraction of Americans die from infectious disease. Diseases like polio are a thing of the past thanks to vaccines, and the more recent contagion of HIV — which killed nearly half a million Americans between the early 1980s and the late 1990s — has now become a manageable condition thanks to amazing advances in antiviral treatments. One of the reasons the Covid pandemic was so overwhelming was that Americans had lost any experience with a widespread new infectious disease, and even there, estimates are that mRNA vaccines developed at lightning speed prevented millions of deaths.    As deaths from infectious disease dropped over the last century, Americans have increasingly begun to die from noninfectious diseases like heart attacks and cancer. In a way, this was a sign of health success — these diseases strike later in life, and living longer meant more Americans were reaching the age where cancer and cardiovascular disease become a threat. But despite some concerning data like the rise of some cancers in younger people, overall deaths from cancer have been consistently falling for decades, while heart attacks are far less fatal now than they were 50 years ago. One big reason for both trends: Smoking is way, way down. Fire up an episode of Mad Men and tell me those guys are healthier than we are today. We cleaned up our environment    The haze wasn’t just tobacco smoke. Take a look at Los Angeles circa 1979: America in the 1960s and ’70s was a highly polluted place, where environmental hazards directly harmed human health. Cars still ran on leaded gasoline, burning 200,000 tons of highly neurotoxic lead each year, with the result that an estimated half of US children at the time were exposed to adverse levels. Smog blanketed our cities, and water supplies received far less treatment. Polluted rivers literally caught on fire!  Today, water and air in America are far cleaner. Cumulative emissions of six major air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide fell 78 percent between 1970, the baseline year for the monumental Clean Air Act, and 2023. Ambient levels of lead fell 99 percent between 1980 and 2005, and have kept falling since. That last bit is especially important — lead is highly toxic to children, leading to lower IQs and other developmental problems. The fact that children today have blood levels that are on average 96 percent lower than children in the late 1970s is an astounding improvement in public health. (Though not so great for me, given that I was a child in the late 1970s.) One other way in which the safety of our environment has improved: Both vehicles and workplaces are less dangerous than they used to be. The per-mile fatality rate, though still too high, is about quarter what it was in 1970, while the car crash death rate for children under 13 has fallen 81 percent since 1975. Total workplace deaths have fallen by about 60 percent since 1970, even as the size of the American workforce has increased.  We may not be as sick as we think we are What about the health conditions in children, like autism and ADHD, that have really spiked in recent decades? As my Vox colleague Dylan Scott wrote this year, much of that apparent increase represents liberalizing diagnostic criteria, which have broadened to encompass many more children. The rate of US children with high-support needs autism, for instance, has only marginally grown over the past 30 years. In short, we’re diagnosing more kids who previously would have been missed. That’s a good thing if it gets them needed support earlier, but it does not back up the thesis that this generation of children is uniquely sick. In fact, some doctors now believe that medicine has a broader problem of overdiagnosis in everything from mental health to certain kinds of cancer, both because of social changes in how health is viewed and improved testing methods picking up milder forms of disease that would have gone undetected in the past. “The bottom line is if you screen healthy people for an illness, any illness, be it cancer or high blood pressure, diabetes, then you will be picking up borderline cases and overtreating them,” Dr. Suzanne O’Sullivan, the author of The Age of Diagnosis: How Our Obsession With Medical Labels Is Making Us Sicker, told Vox in May.   From obesity and diabetes to youth mental health and drug overdose deaths, there is no shortage of ways in which we really are sick — and getting sicker. But I challenge anyone to go back to a time when one in every 10 American children died before the age of one, or when HIV was a clear death sentence, or when urban air was choked with smog, and tell me that we live in a uniquely sick time.  The way to address the very real health challenges we face today is not, as so much of MAHA wants, to destroy the foundation of the public health achievements we enjoy today, but rather to build on them.  A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!

Preview: Charlie Kirk redefined how politics, political media, and Gen Z culture worked for his followers, allies, and political opponents. | Andri Tambunan/AFP via Getty Images In the hours and days after Charlie Kirk’s killing, the breadth of people — particularly younger ones — sharing grief and shock on newsfeeds, Instagram stories, or TikTok livestreams might have been surprising. They were not just avowed conservatives or loyal Trump voters, but seemingly apolitical people: old classmates or hometown friends who never posted much about current events — until now. For liberals or people in their 30s it might have seemed unexpected. But the reactions are just one sign of Kirk’s influence, and how his movement and style of politics might linger after his death. Kirk was a generational figure, who redefined how politics, political media, and Gen Z culture worked for his followers, allies, and political opponents.  To understand that lasting influence — why he resonated with Gen Z — it might be helpful to break down the elements of his appeal: 1) He redefined conservatism, creating a new generation of leaders and groups At least for the conservative Gen Z, Kirk held a kind of mythic status: He went from being essentially a nobody — the barely 18-year-old founder of a scrappy activist group — to a conservative kingmaker before age 31. He made himself indispensable to the Republican Party. President Donald Trump was reelected last year with levels of youth voter support not seen for a Republican since the 2000s. Kirk was largely credited with helping to bring that about through his nonprofit, specifically by going after disengaged or passive young men. The organization Kirk launched, Turning Point USA, started off in 2012 as a ragtag group trying to establish a foothold on any college campus. In their first year, it had about 9,200 Facebook followers, 15 campus affiliates, and 40 bloggers.  By the 2020s, Turning Point had essentially become the “youth faction of the Republican Party,” according to the Gen Z writer, researcher, and consultant Rachel Janfaza — a massive national network of more than 800 college chapters, millions of social media followers, and nearly $100 million in fundraising in 2024, that also supported other right-leaning youth-focused organizations. Before Turning Point’s arrival to campuses, “you had shells of organizations with College Republicans and Young Republicans, who weren’t entirely influential by any means, and Turning Point was the cool new organization,” Joe Mitchell, a 28-year-old former Iowa state representative who Kirk mentored, told me. “People actually wanted to go to their events, and you didn’t have to beg people to come.” Kirk advised and helped financially support the launch of Mitchell’s own nonprofit, Run Gen Z, which aims to get young conservatives elected to local and state office. Kirk provided the same mentorship and launching pad to a whole generation of young conservatives activists, he said. But Turning Point also changed the way conservatism was viewed on college campuses — turning it into a mainstream cultural and social identity, not just a set of political beliefs.  “Every hot new speaker on the conservative circuit was going to be at a Turning Point event.” Joe Mitchell, Run Gen Z founder “He totally changed the game on a culture perspective of what is cool and what people wanted to be a part of, and that had a huge impact on the way that the conservative movement has been viewed over the past few years,” Mitchell told me. “It’s much more culturally cool and there’s a good vibe around conservatives, because people are energized. … And it’s not like boring old white people all the time. … You go to these Turning Point events, and [you would see] the [pro-gay and lesbian] Log Cabin Republicans, and the Black conservatives, and the Jewish coalition.” Combining these annual Young Black Leadership, Young Women’s Leadership, and Young Jewish Leadership Summits, plus the tentpole Turning Point annual conference, young conservatives suddenly had large-scale gathering spaces on campuses and events around the country, complete with slick festival-style production and A-list political celebrities.  “Don. Jr was going, Tucker Carlson was going, the president was going — every hot new speaker on the conservative circuit was going to be at a Turning Point event,” Mitchell said. And that new coolness didn’t remain in the political sphere: It blended into the mainstream culture, contributing to the sense that society in general was shifting right, Janfaza said.  “Republicans have been so good at politically coding culture [in the 2020s] — that was Charlie,” she said. “You see all these athletes and celebrities and others who are coming out and speaking out, and I don’t think that would have happened for anybody. He was unique in that way, where he had these relationships and people respected what he was doing in the cultural zeitgeist.” 2) Kirk understood — and exploited — the new attention economy Kirk’s mastery of social media was another of his skills. He changed the way political debate and discussion spread, while building a personal brand that stretched beyond his supporters and into the mainstream.  It’s not far-fetched to say that his followers and his opponents developed parasocial ties to him as they would to a celebrity, an artist, or even a podcaster. He was easily recognizable, his voice was ubiquitous online, whether in videos promoting or sharing his views, or in counters and rebuttals by his political opponents or critics. And he was well-known enough by people across the political (and apolitical) spectrum to be parodied on TV shows like South Park.  “I’ve seen, a lot of people saying, in the aftermath of his assassination, people have been saying that they felt like they knew him, even though they never did,” Janfaza told me about her own conversations with young people this week. “That’s something that is rare. You feel that with celebrities or with athletes or people like that, people who are public figures. But for there to be a political figure who can draw that type of appeal and that type of engagement — that is something that’s really hard to come by in this era of politics.” And that was in no small part due to the way he used and quickly adapted to the changing political and social media ecosystem, employing short, quippy podcast clips, in-person confrontations like the one he was hosting when he was assassinated, and longer style debates of the “1 woke teen vs. 20 Trump supporters” style that now go viral.  “A lot of [his] most viral videos are of in-person events, the debate videos — those are things that are happening in person, and that’s what went so viral,” Janfaza said. That sense of interpersonal connection boosted that sense of closeness between his audience and him, and it changed the way other conservative and liberal influencers began to share their own content.  “He had surpassed the Jesse Watters and the Tucker Carlsons and the Ben Shapiros and he was the top guy,” Mitchell said. “He reached so many different types of demographics and age groups, he just hit so many different aspects.” It wasn’t just that Kirk had a podcast, or a youth organization, or a faith-based program, Mitchell told me. It was also that he developed a network of other young conservative influencers, like Candace Owens, Benny Johnson, and Alex Clark — a young conservative media universe that both saturates young conservative media diets and offers aspirational examples of the kind of activists and speakers some young conservatives want to be. 3) He tapped into a nascent oppositional culture on campuses, and among youth Finally, Kirk also tapped into the idiosyncrasies of Gen Z — a generation that is simultaneously more progressive and more Republican than young people have been in the recent past.   Central to this is a rejection of the establishment. As the mainstream of America grew more progressive in the 2010s, some young people’s rejection of the status quo, and distrust in established institutions and voices, created a kind of oppositional counterculture among the new youth. This led to an embrace of open debate, scrutiny, and skepticism that has made Gen Z more open to conservative and Republican entreaties over the last five years. “I keep hearing from young people since this happened, that again, people may not have agreed with everything that he said, but they respected the fact that the conversation was being had at a time when young people are prioritizing freedom of speech more than I’ve ever seen before,” Janfaza told me.  She said that part of the frustration that young people have with the status quo, with older leaders and generations, including college administrators, politicians, or other activists, is the sense that “they are afraid to touch certain subjects.”  Kirk talked about anything and everything “and that’s what was so impressive about what he was doing, it was really tapping into that sense, and he was very cognizant of the fact that people wanted to have these conversations, the controversial conversations.” That Kirk said controversial or, at times, bigoted things wasn’t something that turned off young people — even some of his opponents. His brand, and his practice of his belief in free speech, was about inviting debate, offering opportunities to disagree with someone or sharpen your own arguments.  And this brand of debate arose at a time when Gen Z was unwilling to be defined in neat ideological or partisan categories.  “Young people don’t want to be boxed in on one side or the other; they have nuance in their beliefs, they can take a little bit from this point of view and a little bit from that point of view, and they want to hear and have their positions challenged,” Janfaza said. “Kirk created a place where that’s possible. And there’s going to be a lot lost.”

Preview: Charlie Kirk (right) speaks on stage with President Donald Trump at America Fest 2024 in Phoenix on December 22, 2024. | Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images In the days since the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, the overwhelming response on the left has been shock and horror. No one of prominence has justified the killing; hundreds, from Democratic Party leadership on down, have condemned political violence. But below the unanimity is a subtler debate: not about how to respond to Kirk’s death, but how to think about his life. On the one hand are sober commemorations of Kirk’s approach to democratic politics. Kirk, these authors say, had an admirable commitment to free discourse — going on tours where he would debate all sorts of people on often-hostile college campuses. He was killed while doing exactly this, answering a question about mass shootings.  I recently watched a video, posted on his own channel, of him debating a student about eating animals. The student easily beat Kirk, who wasn’t prepared for the arguments of a pro-life vegan weightlifter. Yet Kirk didn’t shirk from the challenge, taking the young man seriously and trying to rebut as best he could. There’s something admirably democratic about that. He wasn’t just a guy who went around debating, but a plugged-in political operative close to the Trump White House who actively promoted extremism. The other side argues that this portrayal leaves out crucial context. Kirk’s political activities, they argue, were often destructive of the democratic process he’s been suggested to embody. He wasn’t just a guy who went around debating, but a plugged-in political operative close to the Trump White House who actively promoted extremism. Mourning him uncritically whitewashes his role in the degradation of our politics. Kirk vehemently defended Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election and sent seven buses of activists to the January 6 rally that culminated in the storming of the Capitol. His organization, Turning Point USA, maintained a “professor watch list” designed to chill left-wing speech on campus and lionized vigilante killer Kyle Rittenhouse. He endorsed authoritarian policies, demonized his political opponents, and said a tremendous amount of objectively bigoted stuff — warning of “prowling Blacks [who] go around for fun to go target white people” or that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” So how should we remember Charlie Kirk — as someone who engaged in the process of democratic deliberation, or someone who degraded or coarsened it? Both. Or, maybe, neither. Kirk didn’t die of old age or even natural causes. Our posthumous conversation about his life is, at least for the moment, inextricably bound up with the manner of his death: He was assassinated in the midst of a public political debate.  Whenever a prominent political figure is killed, it invariably creates mistrust between political factions — something the extreme right is counting on in their post-Kirk killing push for a violent crackdown on the left. It is incumbent on every citizen in a democracy to think about how the way we talk about the killing plays into this dynamic: whether it intensifies partisan hatred or signals a renewed commitment to peaceful civil discourse. I take that to be the intent of the people praising Kirk’s willingness to engage in the democratic process. But I think it’s possible to do so without sanitizing the ways in which his persona and political approach degraded that very same process — and how such whitewashing can provide cover for the further degradation of our politics in the weeks and months to come. Threading this very fine needle, however, requires thinking carefully not just about what we say, but the way we say it. Against justification I want you to think about two sentences.  The first: “Charlie Kirk had terrible politics, but no one should be killed for their beliefs.” The second: “No one should be killed for their beliefs, but Charlie Kirk had truly terrible politics.” Semantically, the two sentences are the same. Yet the shift in syntax subtly, but fundamentally, changes the message being communicated. The first sentence puts its emphasis on the killing: The concluding thought, the dominant consideration, is that political killing is wrong. When the speaker cops to their dislike of Kirk, they are doing so to emphasize that Kirk’s killing was an awful thing, even though I detested Kirk and what he stood for. The second sentence, by contrast, uses an observation about Kirk’s badness to attenuate the condemnation of his killing. The speaker is signaling that the emphasis shouldn’t be on Kirk’s killing, but on his low moral character and malign political influence. At worst, such a formulation can seem like a coward’s justification: an attempt to insinuate that Kirk deserved to die without risking the social opprobrium that comes with outright saying it. There is a certain strain of the Kirk conversation on the left that comes across as a lengthier version of that sentence. When the bulk of an article or video is about attacking Kirk, perfunctory condemnations of his killing do not change the impression that what you really want to say is that he kinda had it coming. Which, to be clear, is an evil sentiment that must be rejected. The killing of Charlie Kirk is, first and foremost, a tragedy for his family. This was a human being, no more or less human than the rest of us. He was the father of two young children; they and their mother now have to face life without him.  It’s also a nightmare for the country. Democracies shouldn’t have political killings, or even killings that seem political. They endanger the foundation of the system, the mutual trust between citizens that allows them to place their faith in elections to resolve their disputes. Standing for democracy means standing on that principle — with no qualifications or cowardly clauses. Against whitewashing At the same time, I also think that there is some reason to prefer the first formulation — “Charlie Kirk had terrible politics, but no one should be killed for their beliefs” — over the shorter, simpler, “no one should be killed for their beliefs.” Why? Because CBS just hosted Jack Posobiec to eulogize Kirk. Posobiec is a serially dishonest political extremist who represents everything wrong with our politics. He became famous in 2016 for spreading the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which led to a man opening fire in a Washington, DC, restaurant under the delusion that he was rescuing trafficked children hidden in its basement. Posobiec spent years associating professionally with white nationalists, including personally targeting Jewish journalists for harassment. Yet in 2021, Kirk hired him at Turning Point USA and brought him into his confidence. As a TPUSA contributor, his behavior has remained extreme. In 2024, Posobiec gave an allegedly ironic speech at a conservative conference where he called for “the end of democracy,” holding up a cross and saying, “We will replace it with this, right here.” I say allegedly because his 2024 book, titled Unhumans, explicitly states that “democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans.” These “unhumans?” Pretty much the entire political left. The point is not that Charlie Kirk’s life can be reduced to his elevation of Jack Posobiec. Rather, it’s that Posobiec is an illustration of the kind of politics that Kirk helped drag into the Republican mainstream. When CBS chose to bring him on, on Thursday, to give a fawning interview about Kirk’s virtues, they were allowing Kirk’s posthumous glow to shine onto a living man who is currently working to set our politics aflame.  In fact, in that very interview, Posobiec implicitly calls for violent retribution. Inexplicably asked by host Major Garrett whether Kirk would prefer an “Old Testament” or “New Testament” response to his killing, Posobiec leaves little room for doubt. “Charlie was a big fan of the Old Testament,” Posobiec says. “Justice needs to be done here.” We cannot, as a polity, allow our horror at Kirk’s killing to rob us of our moral and political senses. We must not let people like Posobiec, who literally declares his political enemies “subhuman,” be given a perch to call down Biblical vengeance on the left merely because he had some proximity to Kirk, who knowingly embraced radicalism while alive. Just in the past few weeks, Kirk called for arresting anti-Trump mayors and accused Rep. Jasmine Crockett (who is Black) of being part of an “attempt to eliminate the white population in this country.” The method of his politics may have been democratic, but its substantive ends were bent towards repression and exclusion. We can — and we must — full-throatedly condemn Charlie Kirk’s killing, without any cowardly “buts.” Yet we must also not allow the further degradation of our politics by Kirk’s living allies, who would turn him into a martyr to the cause of assailing democratic freedoms. There are lines in both directions. And neither can be crossed.

Preview: A protester holds up a pro-Social Security sign in Detroit on April 19, 2025. | Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Image/AFP via Getty Images The other day, economist Tyler Cowen made an offhand observation that took me aback a bit: that the French, today, enjoy “the longest financed retirements ever seen in the history of the world.” Verifying the “history of the world” part is beyond my historical skill level. That said, the OECD’s Pensions at a Glance report from 2023 confirms that French retirees are enjoying a lot of years off the job. French men, per the report, left the labor force at an average age of 60.7. At that point, they have a life expectancy of 84, meaning they can expect 23.3 years in retirement, longer than any of the other countries the OECD examined (mostly rich peer nations plus a few select others). French women can expect 26.1 years in retirement, which is beaten by Luxembourg, Spain, Slovenia, and the world leader, Saudi Arabia, but still very high. (The Saudi case is more about women working fewer and shorter stints than in more liberal polities, as opposed to retirement policy.) French men and women alike can expect over five additional years in retirement compared to Americans. Incidentally, the French government fell this week in part due to opposition parties demanding that the centrist coalition in power go back on its decision to raise the formal retirement age from 62 to 64. Funding 23 to 26 years of retirement per person is expensive, which is exactly why President Emmanuel Macron raised the age in the first place, but when the elderly voter bloc is only growing in size, failing to pay that money out can be politically suicidal. Retirement, American-style As a non-Frenchman, this fight inevitably makes me think about the coming retirement battle in the US. Our Social Security trust fund is due to be depleted in about eight years. Under current law, when that happens, retirees will see an across-the-board cut of about 23 percent in their benefit levels. Everything I know about how the US government works tells me it will not get to that point. The question, then, is what a deal to prevent those cuts would look like. One obvious way to avoid the French predicament is to do what Macron did: raise the retirement age. There are two components to the aging problem hitting the US and other rich nations’ pension systems. One is that, because of the size of the baby boom population, more people are hitting retirement age than ever. The number of retired workers newly receiving Social Security hit 3.4 million in 2022, compared to under 2 million in 2000. Raising the retirement age doesn’t solve this issue. But it does partially address the second issue, which is that the average time spent in retirement has risen as nutrition and medicine have improved. A man born in 1900 and turning 65 in 1965 could expect to live 12.9 more years. The Social Security Administration estimates that a man born in 1960 and turning 65 this year can expect 18.4 more years. Even accounting for the trend of people claiming Social Security later in life, that’s a good number of additional years that the program has to pay out per male retiree. Between 2000 and 2022, the US gradually raised the retirement age for full Social Security benefits from 65 to 67. But most bipartisan proposals to reform Social Security (that is, proposals with any shot of passage) envision some kind of further age increase. Two years ago, Sens. Angus King (I-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) floated raising the normal retirement age to 70. The Bipartisan Policy Center brought together some ex-politicians and experts in both parties to put together a plan, which wound up advocating an age of 69. One of the key political virtues of a retirement age increase is that it’s a benefit cut that doesn’t present itself quite as obviously as a benefit cut. But it does amount to a cut, and potentially a large one. Right now, a 67-year-old woman can expect to live 18.5 more years. Suppose she has to wait until age 70 to claim the same amount of benefits she can now claim at 67. That eats up three of her 18.5 years of expected benefits, an over 16 percent cut. The cut for men, with our shorter lifespans, is even larger in percentage terms. The most important question to ask about it, though, is whether it’s an across-the-board benefit cut, or in fact a regressive one. There are strong arguments that it is the latter. Death inequality and Social Security The eminent Social Security expert and economist Alice Munnell recently highlighted a chart from the program’s actuary’s office that underlined a pretty concerning gap and trend: If you don’t speak Social Security jargon, this can be a little hard to parse. Essentially, it’s comparing two groups: men born in 1930 considering retirement in 1992 and men born in 1960 considering retirement in 2022. In both groups there is a large gap in life expectancy between the people who earned the least in their careers and those who earned the most. In 1992, the highest-earning men could expect to live 8.4 years longer than the lowest-earning men. In 2022, they could expect 10.3 more years. (“Highest-earning” here means the highest-earning fifth, This is not exactly Elon Musk money: in 2020, being in the top quintile as a man meant an average monthly income of at least $6,391, or $76,692 annually.) Put differently: not only is there a big life expectancy gap between rich and poor people, but also the gap seems to be growing. This puts retirement age discussions in a different light. Suppose we’re considering raising not the normal retirement age (now 67) but the early age (now 62), at which point retirees can claim reduced benefits. If we raise the age by three years, then men in the highest income bracket get a cut of 3 divided by 25.6, or about 11 percent. Men in the lowest income bracket get a cut of 3 divided by 15.3, or almost 20 percent. The specific numbers are different if you’re considering raising the normal retirement age, or looking at female workers, but the overall takeaway is the same: raising the age of retirement amounts to a bigger cut for poorer workers. Recently, economists Henry Aaron at Brookings and Mark Warshawsky got into a heated dispute about how to make sense of these numbers. Warshawsky argues against using life expectancy numbers like those above on the grounds that they inevitably require one to make projections (we don’t know, of course, how long people who retired in 2022 will in fact live, chiefly because most of them haven’t died yet), and for restricting analysis to men aged 65-69. Aaron argues that this is too restrictive (everyone, including insurers, relies heavily on life expectancy projections as well) and neglects that women, for instance, have seen lifespan inequality increase. To my non-expert eye, Aaron has the better of this specific dispute. But it’s worth emphasizing that the lifespan gap between rich and poor need not be increasing in order for hiking the retirement age to be regressive on net. If, in 30 years, rich men are still living 10 more years in retirement than poor men, an increase in the retirement age will still hit poor men harder than rich men, even if the gap itself hasn’t grown. Splitting the difference  The traditional Republican approach to Social Security has been to call for its shortfall to be closed entirely with benefit cuts; the traditional Democratic approach has been to rely entirely on tax hikes. Neither of these has any shot in hell of happening, especially if the Senate filibuster remains in place.  I highly doubt that there are 50 Republicans in the Senate now willing to vote for major benefit cuts, and there certainly aren’t the 60 that would actually be needed. Similarly, I put the odds of Democrats ever electing 60 senators willing to pass a huge payroll tax hike, even just on top earners, at near zero. 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. If there’s going to be reform before the trust fund runs out in 2033, it’s going to have to be on a bipartisan basis and involve pretty huge concessions by each side. And I suspect some kind of a retirement age increase will be part of the deal. If that happens, the best option out there is one that Wendell Primus, Tara Watson, and Jack Smalligan outline in their recent Brookings reform plan. They would raise the retirement age — but only for the top 40 percent of earners. Most retirees would not see the age rise at all, while the top fifth of earners would see it rise to 70. Those in the 60th to 80th percentiles would see smaller hikes. Along with other progressive benefit cuts and tax hikes, the plan would fix the program’s solvency issue. This retirement age change would make the system somewhat more complicated, as people would have to look up what their specific retirement age is based on their income. But it’s the only plan I’ve seen that keeps the most popular kind of benefit cut from being painfully regressive.

Preview: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks with reporters outside of the Senate Chamber at the US Capitol on September 10, 2025. | Kent Nishimura/Getty Images Mere hours after the killing of Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump blamed the “radical left” and signaled a crackdown was coming — despite the killer’s identity and motives remaining unknown. In an Oval Office statement on Wednesday, Trump said his administration would “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it.” What exactly he might mean, and what it will look like in practice, remains to be seen. But several prominent right-wing commentators called for taking action against progressive donors and nonprofit groups that they asserted (with zero evidence) were somehow responsible for the killing. Others called for action against the Democratic Party itself. It’s a dangerous moment, similar to those many other countries — including the United States — have faced in the past. An awful act of violence like Kirk’s killing can become the justification for a government campaign of repression against political opponents who had nothing to do with that killing.  One dark way situations like this often play out is that, as outrage is peaking, the ruling party passes “emergency laws” stripping civil liberties protections or giving the government new legal powers to go after its perceived internal enemies. But, in the US right now, there’s a huge obstacle to something like that: the Senate filibuster. The filibuster — a procedural maneuver with which a bill that lacks the support of 60 senators can be blocked — means Trump and the GOP’s 53-seat Senate majority can’t pass whatever they want into law. Either they have to abide by the complex and restrictive budget reconciliation process (which is exempt from the filibuster), or else they need to win over some Senate Democrats. So, as long as the Senate filibuster sticks around, any repression campaign from Trump would have to rely on existing law or executive authority — or get Democratic votes. Which is why it’s ironic that, in the days before the shooting, Democrats were in the midst of psyching themselves up for a confrontation that could very plausibly lead to the filibuster’s demise. For years, the filibuster has been a punching bag for progressives, who blame it for restricting what Democratic presidents can do. Many would be happy to see it go, even now. And yet, Trump’s attempt to centralize power — and this talk about taking action against progressive donors and groups — shows why the filibuster is actually quite valuable in times of authoritarian threat. If it goes, that’s one fewer guardrail still holding Trump back. A prolonged government shutdown could well spur Republicans to end the filibuster Before Kirk’s killing, the hottest topic among Democrats was whether the party’s senators should filibuster to block a new funding bill — and force a federal government shutdown until their demands are met. Back in March, the last government funding expiration date, Senate Democrats decided not to force a shutdown via filibuster, and the party’s base was apoplectic. Now, the new deadline of September 30 is approaching, and Democrats are debating what they should do this time. The loudest voices calling for a shutdown fight are motivated by deep concern over Trump’s authoritarianism and a belief that Democrats need to do more to fight back against it. Demanding new restrictions on Trump’s authoritarian moves — and forcing a government shutdown if those demands aren’t met — is one way to do that, my former colleague Ezra Klein argues. It’s important, though, to try to think a few steps ahead about how a shutdown fight will play out. Let’s say Senate Democrats really do shut down the government via filibuster, making demands that Trump and Senate Republicans consider unacceptable. And let’s assume — a big assumption, but let’s go with it — that Democrats actually close ranks, hold firm to their demands, and resolve to keep the government shut down indefinitely. What happens next? I see no plausible world in which Trump meekly caves. Instead, what will happen is that the Senate GOP will face increasing pressure — from Trump and their base — to ram through a rules change that ends the filibuster and gives them the power to make new laws on their own. Some might argue that Senate Republicans always cave to Trump when he wants something. But that simply isn’t true. Trump has wanted the filibuster gone since the first year of his first term — but Senate Republicans have consistently rejected his demands, preferring to keep it. That’s eight years of not caving on this particular topic. 60 votes to advance a bill, 51 to change the rules? Senate procedure is a funny thing. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster for a typical bill. But, a majority of 51 senators — or 50 plus the vice president — can, if they so desire, ram through a rules change getting rid of that requirement. This is known as the “nuclear option.” As you can tell from the name, the nuclear option is considered extreme, and there are longstanding norms against casually invoking it. Still, Senate leaders from both parties in recent years have from time to time used it to alter the rules around confirming nominees; in fact, Republicans deployed it this very week. But for legislation, the current 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster has remained unchanged since 1975. However, if Senate Republicans become convinced that Democrats are abusing the filibuster, if they think Democrats have become completely intransigent in forcing a shutdown with no end in sight, and if they face enough pressure from the right, they will be provoked to end it. That is: Klein’s shutdown strategy, intended to resist Trump’s authoritarianism, could well result in Trump attaining more power. Let me spell out this dynamic again. Currently, Senate Republicans do not want to eliminate the filibuster. They’re happy to keep it around (it’s a convenient excuse for telling Trump that no, they can’t do this or that). But, if Senate Democrats use the filibuster in a way they feel is completely unacceptable — like, say, shutting down the government indefinitely if demands they consider unrealistic aren’t met — and if they feel sufficient heat from the right, they will change their minds.  Klein argues that Senate Democrats providing their votes to a status quo government funding bill would be “complicity.”  But, if you’re highly concerned about the authoritarian threat posed by Trump, why would you stoke a confrontation that could well end in one of the last major constraints on his power being removed? Progressives should think harder about what might happen if Trump is freed from the filibuster What does a world without the filibuster look like? Many progressives have long said it would look quite good, actually — better for the country and better for Democrats, and the progressive agenda specifically.  But they’re relying on out-of-date arguments honed in a very different political world — and failing to update their thinking for the threat Trump now poses. Progressive anti-filibuster sentiment began to congeal in 2009, when Klein and others made the case that the Senate would be better off without it. The immediate context was annoyance that President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional majorities were being hampered from passing the agenda of their liking. The debate roared back in a similar context when President Joe Biden took office in 2021. The more high-minded argument was that the filibuster is simply bad for democratic accountability. A president and congressional majorities should, the argument goes, be able to actually pass what they want to pass. A majority should get to enact its agenda, and then it will be up to voters to decide whether they like that agenda — and render their verdict in the next election. Paired with this high-minded argument is an ideologically self-interested one. Progressives believed that ending the filibuster would be more helpful to their ideological and policy aims more than it would be to conservatives’ aims. After all, the argument went, all conservatives want to do with the government is cut taxes; progressives actually want to do things to help people, and the filibuster is holding them back. The opening months of the second Trump administration should dispel this dangerous complacency — and should especially dispel any illusion that the right doesn’t want to “do anything” with government. Trump’s appointees have displayed enormous imagination in how they’ve weaponized federal powers to threaten and coerce various societal actors. But they could do much, much more if they had greater authority to rewrite laws. The filibuster effectively constricts the horizon of the possible. Trump’s retribution agenda is so centered on executive branch powers for that reason. In Project 2025 and other efforts, right-wing thinkers spent years dreaming up ways to enact their agenda through the executive branch, because passing new (non-reconciliation) laws seemed so implausible. If, all of a sudden, the filibuster went away, and it became possible for Trump to pass whatever new laws he wanted — so long as he bullied enough GOP swing votes into going along — the horizon of the possible would change. Here’s one concrete example: Back in March, Trump issued an executive order making various demands on states to change their voting systems. But the order is dubiously legal, and it’s unclear how impactful it will be. A new law would be a much more powerful and effective way for Trump to reshape elections. That gets to one glaring flaw in the aforementioned high-minded argument for filibuster reform. The argument holds that a majority should get to enact its agenda unchecked by the minority and that it should be up to voters to render their verdict on that agenda in the next election. But what if a president, free of the filibuster, passes new laws interfering with that next election? What if a president, after a national tragedy, seizes the moment to pass emergency laws cracking down on his political opponents? At a time when so many guardrails holding Trump back are bending and breaking, it seems quite dangerous for Democrats to risk gambling away one of the biggest ones remaining.

Preview: A monarch butterfly lands on a milkweed plant in a neighborhood park in Staten Island, New York. | Benji Jones/Vox BROOKLYN, New York — When people imagine what nature looks like, this probably wouldn’t be it. On an overcast afternoon in August, I stood next to a strip of plants between the sidewalk and the street in Central Brooklyn, no more than a block from a six-lane highway. An ambulance wailed in the distance. It smelled of exhaust. This was New York City after all. But this narrow patch of green was full of life — of what you might call nature. Furry bumblebees hovered around clusters of shaggy white flowers. Iridescent flies appeared and then disappeared, like flecks of glitter briefly catching the light. And on the underside of a few leaves were the unmistakable pinhead-sized eggs of a monarch butterfly, which look like tiny lemon candies.  Cities like New York are obviously not known for their wildlife. You won’t find wolves or jaguars or other charismatic megafauna strolling the streets or hunting in big city parks. But if you know what to look for and take a moment to observe your surroundings, you can find interesting and even rare animal species everywhere. I recently learned, for example, that NYC has more than 200 species of native bees, including the Gotham sweat bee — a species that scientists first discovered in the city.  In the summer and early fall, NYC is also home to a large number of monarch butterflies, America’s most iconic bug. Nationwide, these Halloween-colored insects are imperiled. Their population has declined so much in recent decades that the Biden administration proposed listing them late last year under the Endangered Species Act, a powerful environmental law that’s considered a last resort for species facing extinction. Yet in NYC, you can still find them all over — even in tiny patches of plants near a highway. This is a pretty strange situation: A species that may be federally protected in the same category as animals like sea turtles and manatees is fluttering around the largest and most densely populated city in the country.  How are monarchs holding on in New York when they seem to be in such steep declines nationwide? Over a few weeks in August, I traveled to urban ecosystems across the city to try to answer this question. And along the way, I learned something valuable — that helping wildlife is a lot easier than you might think.  Why monarchs need help in the first place  Monarchs aren’t just nice to look at. They also lead miraculous, almost improbable, lives. Like many birds, whales, and caribou, monarchs migrate. Each fall, nearly all the butterflies that live east of the Rocky Mountains — including those in New York City — fly to the same grove of fir trees in the mountains of Central Mexico, often traveling some 2,000 miles. They ride out winter clumped together on the trees, often in such great numbers that they cause the branches to droop.  Their springtime behavior is even more remarkable: The butterflies migrate back north for the summer, but it takes them two to three generations to get there. The adults in Mexico will fly to the southern US, lay eggs, and die. Their offspring will complete the next leg, flying a bit further north. That happens again and again until the butterflies reach the northern US and parts of southern Canada, where they breed and their offspring start the process all over. All kinds of mysteries surround this process — including how tiny-brained insects coordinate an intergenerational relay race — but what’s clear is that fewer butterflies are making it to Mexico. Each winter, scientists measure the number of acres occupied by monarchs in those fir trees. Between 1993 and 2002, the first 10 years of monitoring, butterflies were clumped on trees across an average of about 21 acres. That’s an area roughly equal to 16 American football fields. During this past winter, however, monarchs occupied just 4.4 acres.  Scientists blame these declines largely on the loss of milkweed, the only plant that monarch caterpillars can eat. Milkweed once grew abundantly throughout the Midwest in places like Iowa and Kansas, the core breeding range for monarchs. Yet in recent decades, herbicides sprayed by farmers on corn and soybean fields, which blanket the region, destroyed an enormous number of milkweed plants. Researchers estimate that between 1999 and 2014, herbicides and the destruction of grasslands for farmland, homes, and other infrastructure killed more than 860 million stems of milkweed in the Midwest. These chemicals — which farmers still use — also kill native wildflowers that provide food for adult monarchs, fueling their long migrations.   It’s no surprise, then, that conserving monarchs requires protecting what little milkweed remains, and planting more of it. That’s why NYC is important. Even though it’s built for humans and full of concrete and traffic, the city has been creating pockets of habitat that sustain monarchs and other native bugs. And if that approach can work here, it can work anywhere. The surprising value of cities for monarch butterflies While monarchs live complicated lives, their needs are fairly simple: milkweed plants for their larvae, or caterpillars, and pesticide-free wildflowers for the adults. “The average insect spends three-quarters of its life as a larva or an egg,” said David Lohman, an insect ecologist at the City University of New York. “The whole habitat for that part of the life for most insects, including monarchs, is a single plant.”  If seeded with the right plants — specifically, with native plants, those that evolved here — even small spaces in cities can meet those needs. For example, the patch of plants I visited in Central Brooklyn, part of a community garden called Prospect Farm, was only four feet wide, but it had more than a dozen stems of common milkweed. That’s where I spotted the monarch eggs: They were on the underside of the plants’ thick, oblong leaves. It’s hard to overstate the value of native plants, like milkweed or bee balm. They’re ecosystem anchors, drawing in native insects, which in turn draw in native birds, building out links in the food chain. “It’s amazing that if I plant these plants, I’m automatically supporting pollinators or beneficial insects,” said Matthew Morrow, the head of horticulture at NYC’s Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks), who says he’s known within the agency as the native plant proselytizer. “Run that up the chain, and I’m supporting bird life and other things that feed on all of these creatures.”  Until recently, native plants, other than trees, weren’t common in gardens, parks, and other green city spaces. Professional and home gardeners gravitated toward nonnative ornamentals, like daffodils and tulips, which were widely available in nurseries and bred to fit a conventional aesthetic: tidy and uniform with big flowers, bold colors, and a long bloom. Native plants, meanwhile, tend to have a different look, appearing messier and sporting subtler flowers. As important as common milkweed is for monarchs and other insects, for example, it looks, as its name might suggest, a bit like a weed, especially when it’s not flowering.  But attitudes are changing. For many years, scientists and environmental advocacy organizations have been trying to raise awareness about insect declines and the value of locally adapted plants. Those efforts are paying off: Gardeners in parks, suburbs, and city homes are now planting far more native plants. They’re also becoming slightly more comfortable with a wild aesthetic, in some cases even leaving sticks and dead leaves around because they know insects nest in them.  “My goal is to remove the invasives and to replant with native plants,” said Emily Stringer, a professional gardener at De Matti Park, a small green space in Staten Island. Native plants like mountain mint, a perennial with pale lavender flowers and mint-scented leaves, offer much more ecological value than some ornamentals, said Stringer, who works for NYC Parks.  She’s been transforming De Matti into a native plant refuge since the start of the pandemic, she told me, when I met her in the park on a hot August afternoon. “There’s a lot more life, no doubt about it,” Stringer said, speaking with a strong Staten Island accent.  During a brief walk through the park, I saw a dozen or so monarchs bouncing around the native flowers. At one point, something large and flying appeared in front of a cluster of purple flowers. It was the size of a golf ball, with a green head, a shrimp-like tail, and a comically long proboscis — the straw-like mouth part that insects use to drink nectar. Its wings moved so fast they were a blur, allowing it to hover. I later learned this was a hummingbird moth.  This shift to native plants is happening in all kinds of spaces across the city, including big parks, small parks, community gardens, and backyards. I even met a guy who does what he calls “guerilla gardening” in northern Manhattan. He plants milkweed and other native plants in parks and tree wells, typically without explicit permission from city officials. It’s these efforts that are helping sustain monarchs and other native bugs in New York.  “Every little bit counts,” said Keith De Cesare, a guerrilla gardener who also describes himself as an educator, artist, and naturalist. “No spot is too small.”  (I asked NYC Parks about Keith. A spokesperson told me that “guerrilla gardeners are often well-intentioned and deserve recognition,” but some of the species they plant might not be appropriate for the location. “Certain plants can grow too tall and obstruct sight lines, while others may fall over, creating potential slip and trip hazards,” the spokesperson told me.) The native ecosystems of NYC On a sunny morning in late August, I visited Brooklyn Bridge Park, an 85-acre public landscape along the East River, which separates Manhattan from Brooklyn. It’s one of my favorite spots in the city — a park near the Brooklyn Bridge built atop old shipping docks that looks onto downtown Manhattan.  My first stop was a small field of wildflowers on Pier 6, not far from the water. In the background was the Manhattan skyline, where helicopters buzzed like flies overhead, while in the foreground was a chunky monarch caterpillar. I watched the animal — an accordion of black, white, and yellow — chew its way through a milkweed leaf, and then another. It was seemingly oblivious to the fact that it lives in one of New York’s wealthiest areas.  As I moseyed along the edge of the flower field, I watched adult monarchs, too. They flew from flower to flower, moving up and down as if guided by a conductor, occasionally pausing on a milkweed leaf to lay a single egg.  Brooklyn Bridge Park is entirely human-made and built over what was essentially an industrial wasteland. But now it’s a complex ecosystem and a refuge for a number of important species, including monarchs. That ecosystem is rooted, unsurprisingly, in native plants: They’ve been a part of the park since it opened in 2010, and even more so now. During my visit, Evelyn Manlove, a horticulturist at the park, told me she chooses plants based in part on the insects they may attract, like milkweed for monarchs and curly everlasting, a perennial wildflower, for lady butterflies. These city spaces are essential for animals, but they’re not just for them. They clearly help humans, too. Plenty of research shows that spending time in parks can lower stress and the risk of psychiatric disorders. Scientists have also linked listening to birdsong to mental health benefits — and native plants tend to attract more birds. I find that watching butterflies move through space or caterpillars chew through leaves is almost meditative. Maybe it’s the experience of awe. Maybe it’s the benefit of just drawing your attention to the present.  On another afternoon, I traveled further north in Brooklyn to a small patch of prairie near the Williamsburg neighborhood. The prairie, which is open to the public, is a green dot in an ocean of gray: To the east and south was the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, a major highway, and to the west and north were warehouses, parking lots, and apartment buildings.  This space was once a cemetery for the US Navy. But long after it was decommissioned — the cemetery ran out of space and the Navy decided to close it and moved most but not all of the bodies to another cemetery — a nonprofit called Brooklyn Greenway Initiative turned it into a meadow. It’s an oasis of sorts, filled with more than 100 native plant species including common milkweed, coneflowers, and asters. From within the prairie, now known as the Naval Cemetery Landscape, you can hear cars honking and engines revving, but also the trill of a common yellowthroat — a yellow and green warbler — or the high-pitched cheep of a cedar waxwing.  “When the world overwhelms, we can find comfort in nature’s resilience. We, too, can be the trees.” — visitor at the naval cemetery landscape in brooklyn The city-nature dichotomy offers something special, said Avvah Rossi, the head of horticulture for Brooklyn Greenway Initiative. And that something is best captured by a public notebook tethered to a bench in the meadow. It’s essentially a guestbook for visitors, and part of a project led by another organization, called Nature Sacred, to study the effect of green spaces on human well-being.  “Grateful for the softness and pause that nature provides us,” one person wrote. “When the world overwhelms, we can find comfort in nature’s resilience. We, too, can be the trees.”  “I feel less alone surrounded by nature,” wrote another. “I can feel the trees whispering to each other. I don’t understand them, but they make me feel included. It’s nice to be part of something.” “Thank you, tree, for providing a space to piss on,” wrote a third person.  An environmental problem we can actually all help fix It’s not like New York is some kind of insect sanctuary. Like any city, it’s full of concrete and traffic and light pollution that can make it hard for monarchs and other native bugs to survive. Monarchs use sunlight to navigate. Some moths, meanwhile, have been shown, rather incredibly, to navigate with the stars. Both of these feats are likely much harder in a city full of artificial light. Research also makes it clear that cities alone can’t save monarchs — rural areas, including agricultural lands, also need to play a role.  Yet urban pockets of native plants clearly help. That’s what I find so special about monarchs and other native bugs: It doesn’t take much to support them. Bringing back California condors or coral reefs is not something that normal people can easily do, or know how to do. But we can all help conserve monarchs and myriad other animals by simply planting some native flowers.  Earlier in the summer, I met a naturalist named Chris Kreussling at his home in Flatbush, a neighborhood in Central Brooklyn below Prospect Park. His place was easy to pick out since his front yard is basically a prairie.  Kreussling’s home is perhaps the best example of what one person can do for native insects in New York City. A garden of native plants envelops his home in bright yellows, purples, and pinks, turning it into a hotspot for native insects. “My garden is my main observatory,” said Kreussling, a retired software developer who loves bugs. “You can just see how much biodiversity there is.”  As we walked around the garden, Kreussling, who helps run a local organization to conserve pollinators, pointed out what I would normally miss. Weevils, tiny beetles with large snouts. The nests of cicada-killer wasps. Leaves with perfectly round holes made by leaf-cutter bees (the bees build nest cavities with the pieces). I was struck by the simple realization that this whole tangled world of life is invisible until you pay attention.  Kreussling told me that sometimes people ask him what he does about insect damage on his plants. “I celebrate it,” he told me. It means the garden is doing its job, he continued — it feeds life.  As we searched for critters, a monarch flew by and landed on a plant called ironweed, which has small purple flowers shaped like pom-poms. I hustled over to watch it feed as Kreussling continued looking for less obvious critters. Some scientists call monarchs the pandas of the insect world: They draw a lot of attention, and often overshadow less charismatic species. That attention, however, is valuable, said Emily Erickson, an urban ecologist and monarch expert. It can inspire people to care about the natural world, she said, and the lesser-known and less charming creatures that inhabit it. “People seem to be more likely to do positive actions if they feel more connected to what they see flying around in their yard,” she said.  I don’t have a yard. I don’t even have a stoop. Can city-folk like me help, too?  While reporting this story, I learned about an organization called Monarch Watch that runs a butterfly tagging program to help monitor the monarch migration. The group sells tiny, lightweight stickers — the tags, each printed with a unique ID — designed to adhere to monarch wings. And each fall, volunteers around the country apply those stickers to monarchs as they’re traveling south. Then in the winter, Monarch Watch records the IDs they find on monarchs in Mexico. The data the group collects helps scientists figure out where monarchs are coming from and how many are dying along the way.  Tagging is a way for anyone to support monarchs, but first, of course, you need a butterfly. Volunteers often catch the insects in the wild with nets. I, however, decided to try to raise one in my apartment, a la elementary school activity. On an August evening, I went to Central Park and found a monarch egg on a common milkweed leaf. I took it home and put the leaf in a Tupperware container in my kitchen. By morning, the egg had hatched into a caterpillar. It was no larger than an eyelash, and every day, it doubled in size. When the caterpillar got too big for its exoskeleton, it’d wiggle out of it, eat the remains, and form a new one — a zero-waste bug! The caterpillar chewed through milkweed leaves so quickly that it became hard to keep its crucial food supply stocked. (Let’s just say there might be a few leaves and branches missing from milkweed plants in my neighborhood.) One morning, when it was a little larger than a Tootsie Roll, I noticed the caterpillar hanging upside down from a leaf, like a sleeping bag pinned up to dry. Then it turned into a chrysalis, a hard shell that protects the insect as it transforms into a butterfly. It was like a theatrical costume change: Within minutes, the caterpillar had unzipped its old skin, revealing the emerald green chrysalis underneath. About 10 days later, there was a butterfly. We — even my bug-unfriendly partner — were surprisingly excited. We had raised a butterfly! Her wings were missing two dots normally found on males, suggesting she was a female.  I delicately picked her up and carefully placed the sticker, which has a strong, pressure-sensitive adhesive, on her wings. We then carried her to a nearby park, hiked to a field of native wildflowers, and let her go.  She’s just one butterfly, and her chance of making it to Mexico is slim. A large portion of monarchs die along the way from car strikes, storms, and a lack of pesticide-free flowers from here to Central Mexico, underscoring the point that conserving migratory species can’t just happen in one place. Still, it’s pretty remarkable that her journey begins here, in the nation’s largest city.  Before there were skyscrapers and parking lots and a crosshatch of city streets, New York was a wild place, a mosaic of coastal forests, prairies, and marshes. We’ve since changed the landscape in some irreversible ways that make it inhospitable to animals that once lived here. But as city gardeners and naturalists showed me, a little effort — a little green — can go a long way, benefitting us, monarchs, and other wildlife alike.  And if NYC can be a place where monarchs can flourish, so can anywhere. They really just need something to eat.

Preview: Charlie Kirk appears at a Utah Valley University event on September 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. He was speaking on campus when he was shot and killed. | Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images Charlie Kirk, the influential right-wing activist, was shot and killed Wednesday on a college campus in Utah. The shooter is still at large, and as of this writing, little is publicly known about the shooter’s identity or the potential ideological motive behind the attack. But instead of waiting for facts of the case to emerge, many conservatives quickly to jumped to conclusions in the immediate aftermath. Shortly after Kirk was shot, Elon Musk posted on his platform X, “The Left is the party of murder.” Fox News host Jesse Watters said, “They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. They are at war with us.” And conservative activist Christopher Rufo made a call to crack down on left-wing groups. “The last time the radical Left orchestrated a wave of violence and terror, J. Edgar Hoover shut it all down within a few years,” Rufo posted on X. “It is time, within the confines of the law, to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.” Most alarmingly, President Donald Trump, in an Oval Office address later that evening, echoed those sentiments. “Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives,” Trump said. “For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”  Trump also hinted at the kind of crackdown that his administration might impose in the wake of Kirk’s killing, saying they would find “those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.” There are two major problems with the right’s rush to blame the incident, and political violence more broadly, on the left. First, even if the shooter turns out to be a left-wing extremist — certainly within the realm of possibility — the urge to immediately blame the left before facts emerge is reckless. As we learned from the assassination attempt on Trump last year on the campaign trail, shooters might not always have clear ideological motives. Second, and more importantly, the attempt to frame political violence as a problem that solely plagues the left is not just irresponsible; it’s factually inaccurate. What Trump conveniently left out of his speech, for example, is violent right-wing extremism — the very sort of violence that he incited after he lost the 2020 election, culminating in an assault on the US Capitol. But that omission isn’t a one-off. For years, Trump and his allies have tried to paint Democrats and the left as not only extreme but violent. He has called Democrats the “party of crime,” blamed Democrats’ rhetoric for his assassination attempt last year, and warned that if Democrats gain power, they would “violently” assault his agenda. Trump, like many other influential figures on the right, chose to capitalize on Kirk’s killing — even before the facts of the case are known — to shape the story to his own political advantage by solely focusing on left-wing political violence, and to create a dangerous environment of fear that is entirely detached from reality. Who is to blame for the rise in political violence? The uncomfortable truth that Trump tried to paper over in his statement is that in recent American history, the most frequent perpetrators of domestic terrorism have been far-right extremists.  According to a 2020 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, since the 1990s, “far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks.” Since that report, there has been a notable rise in political violence perpetrated by the far left, but far-right extremists still account for most terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. This should come as no surprise. Rhetoric from conservative leaders — especially since Trump’s rise to power — has grown more and more extreme, often promoting or even embracing violence as an answer to America’s problems.  In his 2016 campaign for president, for example, Trump implied that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, could be prevented from becoming president by getting shot, saying that “Second Amendment people” could do something to stop her. In 2019, he mused about shooting migrants in the legs at the border. In 2020, he struggled to condemn the white supremacist group the Proud Boys. And in 2021, he met with and defended Kyle Rittenhouse, the young right-wing vigilante who shot three people, killing two of them, in demonstrations protesting police shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Trump also incited an insurrection after he lost the 2020 election, unleashing a mob on the US Capitol that included Proud Boys and members of other right-wing paramilitary groups — a marked departure from the peaceful transition of power that Americans had come to take for granted. During his 2024 campaign, he called those who took part in the Capitol siege “patriots,” and when he returned to the White House this year, he pardoned them. It’s not just Trump. Other prominent Republicans have excused or embraced violence. After Melissa Hortman, a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota, was assassinated in her home earlier this year, Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah posted on X, “This is what happens When Marxists don’t get their way.” He also posted a photo of the suspect with the caption “Nightmare on Waltz Street” — seemingly a reference to the Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Other influential Republicans peddled conspiracy theories and joked about the assault on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband. Contrast that with how prominent Democrats have responded to Kirk’s assassination — unequivocally condemning the act and calling for nonviolence.  In public polls, while most Americans still oppose political violence, there seems to be a growing acceptance of resorting to violence to achieve political goals. When United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was killed in December 2024, for example, an Emerson poll found that 22 percent of Democratic respondents said that the killing was at least “somewhat” acceptable, compared to 12 percent of Republicans. The acceptability of the killing was especially pronounced among young people. But when it comes to political violence more broadly — that is, when voters are asked about their general views on political violence rather than a specific case — Republicans were more supportive of the idea than Democrats.  ccording to a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll last year, for example, one in five Americans believe that violence could be the answer to getting the country back on track, though Republican respondents were more than twice as likely to believe that than Democratic respondents.    Political violence is a serious problem that only seems to be getting worse in the United States. But it’s still hard to say that this is a problem that plagues both sides of the political aisle equally. While Democratic leaders have certainly escalated their rhetoric when attacking Republicans, calling the MAGA movement an existential threat to democracy, they haven’t engaged in the kind of rhetoric that routinely flows from Trump and his allies — a rhetoric that winks and nods at resorting to violent tactics and, in some cases, explicitly endorses violence.    So while there is growing concern about the rise of political violence on both the right and left, it’s important to note that Trump’s rhetoric and leadership — bolstered by a supportive party and media apparatus — is the context in which all this is happening. And so far, there is no Democratic counterpart to Trump that could equally share the blame for fanning the flames. That context is what makes this moment especially worrisome: Despite Trump’s promotion of violence over the years, his framing of political violence as a problem that is solely coming from the left is an implicit admission that some forms of violence don’t count as violence — at least not in his eyes.  At minimum, he does not appear to find violence from his supporters or allies, or against his political opponents, as worthy of condemnation. Doing so, after all, would undermine the narrative he wants to spin: that a violent left-wing is relentlessly attacking his supporters and the entire nation, and only he can protect them. As Trump prepares to crack down on Democrats and leftists, as he indicated he would in his Oval Office address, he’ll continue to ignore far-right extremists. That, alone, might only embolden them.

Preview: Charle Kirk at the Cambridge Union on May 19, in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. | Nordin Catic/Getty Images for The Cambridge Union Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old conservative activist and firebrand, developed an enormous following, particularly among young people, for his brash, unapologetic positions on social issues. The investigation continues into the circumstances of his killing on Wednesday at a Utah campus event, including who the shooter was and what their motivations were. But his death has reignited a debate about political violence and polarization in this country. While many politicians have expressed remorse and condemnation for the killing, social media has been riven with factional debates. Some on the left have celebrated and joked about his death. Some on the right have blamed Democrats or liberals and have vowed revenge. But how did Charlie Kirk, at such a young age, amass so much political influence and the friendship of the sitting president? Today, Explained host Noel King discussed this with Kyle Spencer, journalist and author of Raising Them Right: The Untold Story of America’s Ultraconservative Youth Movement and Its Plot for Power. Charlie Kirk was one of the young people she profiled in that book, and in writing it, she got to know him. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Charlie Kirk was a central character in your book Raising Them Right. Tell me about him. Charlie was a very, very charismatic leader of the modern Republican Party. He started out as a kid who cared about politics and morphed slowly into somebody who was able to transform the way people thought about Republicans. Where did he grow up? Charlie grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. He attended a public high school. It was going from a mostly white school to a mostly Black and brown school. He was in a school that was very supportive of Obama. His classmates were generally very liberal. He was even early on a conservative. He had issues with what was being taught early on in his classes. He believed that, in history and economics classes, he was being taught from textbooks that were overly supportive of liberal policies and that students were not getting enough information on conservative policies.  He slowly began to create a following by starting a small organization of his high school students and of students from other high schools around him, a place that they could come to if they had conservative ideas and were feeling kind of left out. That was the beginning of Turning Point USA, which he officially launched after he graduated from high school.  At the time, the Tea Party movement was coming alive, and he was going all over the state and neighboring states to talk to Tea Party folks and to raise money. So first he made allies, and then he began very quickly to understand what he needed to do was raise money. And he proved to be very, very gifted and skilled at finding both people who supported his cause and also people who wanted to financially donate. Tell me about Turning Point USA and how much of a following it grows to have. Charlie Kirk was always a political junkie, and he was always conservative. But what he cared about originally were economics. He cared about what he thought of as a bloated budget deficit, of a government which was spending too much money, of taxes that were too high, of a China that he felt was overwhelming the economic markets around the world and bullying the United States. And he became very involved in 2016 in Trump’s election and also in the Republican Party at the time. And that’s when he evolved his views into a lot more of the culture war issues that we knew him for: issues around diversity and equity programs, reproductive rights, and Second Amendment rights. He became an advocate for conservative social stances that he believed young people, if they had them, were being silenced and were being discouraged from voicing. How important was he to Donald Trump’s success? What Charlie really brought originally to President Trump was an ability to communicate very effectively, energetically, passionately, and charismatically with young people who Charlie and Trump and other conservatives really wanted to bring into a movement that was seen, before Trump and before Charlie, as very stodgy and old-school. So he branded the GOP and MAGA to young audiences. That was originally his gift to Trump. Eventually, Charlie was able to show that he was an excellent strategist, that he could think about ways to bring in older audiences, more diverse audiences. A lot of the diversity that we’re seeing and reading about, that the Republican Party has developed inside its follower base, a lot of that was imagined by Charlie Kirk in 2012, early, early on. He didn’t have a formal role in the White House, but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t very powerful. I remember a couple of months ago when the Epstein files were kind of tearing at President Trump and at the MAGA base, he was the guy who came out and he calmed things down by saying, I’m done talking about the Epstein files. And many people seem to say, “Okay, if Charlie’s done, we’re done too.” Charlie has millions and millions of followers who pay attention to him and what he says. On the one hand, Charlie had very radical views, a lot of views that were very far from the moderate positions that are held in this country, but the way in which he discussed those issues and presented them to his public were very folksy, no-nonsense, relatable, conversational. So when Charlie would say things, people would listen to him, because he often made a lot of sense to them. He was controversial. A lot of the views he held were views that people found really challenging and dangerous, but he also was able to convey those views to other people in ways that made them say, “Hey, I think this guy really knows what he’s talking about. I trust him.” As his views became more and more conservative, he became more opposed to LGBTQ rights. He became more opposed to diversity programs. He became more convinced that white men were really the victims of racism in our country. He became more and more invested in traditional marriage in a role for women inside marriages that was very 1950s-esque. The more he moved to the right on these issues, the more he became interested in a kind of biblical leading of our country, a merging of church and state. The more that he held more conservative views, he actually grew his following with more moderate audiences. And that was really his genius — is that he got young people at a time when they have increasingly turned to podcasters and to social media influencers for friendships. Charlie became their good friend. And now what you’ll see is that young people that were supporters, knew Charlie, were inside Turning Point USA, worked for him — they are absolutely devastated because he had a kind of cult following. People, really, really adored him and looked up to him as much as he was feared and disliked outside of his movement. He was just absolutely adored inside, and they remain very loyal to him. How do you think Charlie Kirk will be remembered? Charlie Kirk has a stamp on the modern Republican Party that is really extraordinary. It is for many of his followers a terrible, terrible tragedy that he has passed. However, they can find solace in knowing that Charlie Kirk’s beliefs, his understanding of how the GOP ought to motivate around the country and how it ought to acquire followers, those ideas, those tactics, those strategies, they are embedded in the party now, and that’s not going away. You’ve seen that there is a tremendous amount of politicized rage and fear right now. What do you think we should be prepared for? I think right now you’re seeing two sides. You are seeing one part of the country trying to tone down the rhetoric. This was a horrifying event. And we’re going to see a big, big push as you’re seeing right now, to tone down the rhetoric, to tone down the violence, and to understand what it means to live in a civil society with rules of law. You have another side that is very enraged, very angry, kind of looking for a fight.  Unfortunately, this sad, sad turn of events is going to be one of the events that ignites more rage. And we’re seeing already online, with some of those folks, already [making] calls for, “this is war; this is clearly our enemy that has done this; we need to fight back; we need to attack,” even as we have no idea actually how this tragedy happened and who is responsible. And I don’t think any of us know how this is going to turn out. But the fact that you have the number of folks who are saying “let’s go to war” should be very, very alarming to all of us.

Preview: Charlie Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA, speaks before former President Donald Trump’s arrival during a Turning Point USA Believers Summit conference at the Palm Beach Convention Center on July 26, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images Millions of Americans just witnessed a killing.  On Wednesday, scattered amid social media’s banal ephemera — tired memes, partisan agit-prop, and celebrity gossip — appeared a video of a young man speaking into a microphone, then recoiling from a gunshot to the neck. For hours, this snuff film was impossible to escape, the atrocity autoplaying over and over, as clout chasers capitalized on the human mind’s helpless fascination with violence. It was a horrifying spectacle, made all the more so by the identity of the deceased — the conservative activist and influencer Charlie Kirk. Kirk evangelized for causes that I despise. But through years of long-form commentary, he had endeared himself to millions of conservatives. Our brains did not evolve to distinguish parasocial relationships from actual ones: For almost all of our species’ history, to hear a person speak on a near-daily basis was to know them intimately. Countless Republicans, therefore, experienced Kirk’s death as though it were the loss of a friend. For liberals, meanwhile, Kirk’s killing constituted an appalling assault on political liberty. The commentator came to prominence as a defender of conservative speech on campus. Now, while speaking at a university, he had been silenced by a bullet. Such violence did not just steal Kirk’s voice, but discouraged others from articulating provocative views in public, whatever their ideological content.  Kirk’s assassination was thus an assault on the democratic project — on our capacity to collectively govern ourselves through the exercise of reason. It was also alarming, obscene, and ironic in the grimmest possible sense. The right’s response proved to be much the same. The right’s shamelessly distorted narrative about political violence in America Within hours of Kirk’s shooting, the most powerful Republicans in the country — from the president to Fox News hosts to megabillionaires — were agitating for authoritarian repression, and justifying it with incendiary lies. (Meanwhile, Democratic officials, to a person, condemned Kirk’s assassination.) To appreciate the Orwellian nature of the right’s reaction, consider a few of its aspects: A president who fomented an insurrection four years ago — and ordered military honors for one of its perpetrators just last month — declared his commitment to hunting down all who “contributed” to “political violence.”  He attributed all political violence to the radical left’s habit of “demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible” — as though he had not likened his political opponents to “vermin,” declared that Democrats are “an evil group of people,” or baselessly accused the party of conspiring to rig elections by helping undocumented immigrants engage in mass voter fraud. President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Fox News’s Jesse Watters, and countless other Republican influencers suggested that the left was the sole wellspring of political violence in the US — just three months after a conservative assassinated a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota. Their elision was blatant and intentional. In Trump’s speech, he rattled off a list of recent acts of political violence, one that omitted the myriad attacks on Democratic officials.  Trump attributed the attempt on his own life to the “radical left,” despite the dearth of evidence that the man who tried to assassinate him, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was motivated by progressive ideology. Trump and other conservatives hailed Kirk as a champion of “free speech” and “open debate” while calling for government crackdowns on progressive organizations, whose advocacy could have theoretically inspired his killer. Ironically, this last argument is structurally identical to those of the illiberal leftists whom Kirk lived to denounce: that some ideas are so likely to cause harm that we must suppress them, even if they do not explicitly encourage specific acts of violence. All this dishonesty and unreason was as menacing as the promises of vengeance it rationalized. The openness of the right’s lies signaled that truth would be no obstacle to the sating of its bloodlust, nor to its exploitation of tragedy for partisan gain. The left’s online culture is flawed — but so is the right’s The right’s mendacity contains a sliver of truth: There are some sick currents in the culture of the extremely online left. Social media algorithms reward provocation. And they foster status games in which ideologues seek to demonstrate their superlative commitment to the cause. This can encourage apologetics for violence: Expressing glee at the killing of a health insurance executive, for instance, can both 1) gain you attention and 2) signal that you’re more outraged by America’s unjust medical system than your squeamish peers. These dynamics are perverse and harmful. Yet there is nothing wrong with the left’s political culture that isn’t also wrong with the right’s. And right-wing extremism has claimed far more lives in recent years than the left-wing variety.  A conservative movement committed to Charlie Kirk’s ostensible ideals — to free speech and open discourse — would respond to his assassination by decrying political violence in all its forms and rejecting the pernicious notion that the government must suppress certain ideas to keep the public safe. But such a movement does not exist.  Today’s conservatism is animated by resentment, fear, and a consequent will to dominate its opponents. Kirk’s assassination has reinforced these authoritarian impulses and provided a pretense for indulging them. In doing so, it has thrown our already imperiled democracy into even greater jeopardy.

Preview: Elon Musk was temporarily overtaken as the world’s richest person by Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison after the company’s stock surged $100 billion on AI-related cloud computing contracts. What do you think? The post Elon Musk Briefly Loses Title Of World’s Richest Man appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: WASHINGTON—Fulfilling his pledge to realign the mission of the White House kitchen with the vision of the Founding Fathers, President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week officially renaming the White House refrigerator the U.S. Department of Ham. “When Thomas Jefferson had the first ice house installed in 1801, the name Department of Ham […] The post Trump Renames White House Fridge Department Of Ham  appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: Sombr, the artist behind hits “Undressed” and “Back To Friends,” won his first ever award at the 2025 MTV VMAs on Sunday. The Onion shares everything you need to know about the singer. Birthplace: Liminal space Age: However old Sufjan Stevens’ Illinois feels to you Genre: Alt-horny Hairstyle: The Muammar Gaddafi VMA Received: Most Recent […] The post Artist Profile: Sombr appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent erupted at top housing finance official Bill Pulte during a private dinner, threatening to “punch [him] in [his] fucking face” after learning Pulte had allegedly bad-mouthed him to President Trump. What do you think? The post Treasury Secretary Bessent Threatens To Punch Senior Trump Official In Face appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: The 77th Primetime Emmy Awards will be broadcast on Sunday, Sept. 14. The Onion shares everything you need to know about this year’s most lauded TV series.  Adolescence Synopsis: A psychological drama about every parent’s worst nightmare: their child being British.  Nominations: Outstanding Depiction of Boys Being Boys, Outstanding Dramatic Performance—Bloke Most Memorable Moment This […] The post The Onion’s Guide To The Emmys appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: DESTIN, FL—In an expression of disgust and contempt for the scarlet, peeling crowd of beachgoers streaming past them, the vacationing Hoekstra family reportedly affirmed their viewpoint Monday that getting sunburned was a moral failing. “Some people just have no forethought, no discipline,” said Ellen Hoekstra, the family’s 48-year-old matriarch, who watched from her seat on a […] The post Family Views Getting Sunburned As Moral Failing appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: RACINE, WI—Saying the new product “attacks and intimidates pests right where they live,” popular insecticide brand Raid introduced its first-ever bug doxxing kit Tuesday. “Our complete doxxing system brings insect eradication into the 21st century by revealing the exact locations of termite mounds and ant colonies, a practice that encourages anonymous individuals on the internet to […] The post Raid Introduces New Bug Doxxing Kit appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: Freida Meeks, 90, died Sunday but will not be discovered by staff at her ramshackle nursing home for another three months. The post Freida Meeks appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: A study published in Nature Climate Change found that warmer temperatures drive Americans to consume more added sugar, especially from sodas and frozen treats. What do you think? The post Study: Warmer Weather Drives More Sugar Consumption appeared first on The Onion.

Preview: SALT LAKE CITY—Alarmed by numerous reports that the vice president was currently en route to the state, sources confirmed Thursday that a visit from JD Vance was the last thing Utah needed right now. “We’re already going through a lot, but to add JD Vance on top of everything else?” said one Utah resident, who […] The post Visit From JD Vance Last Thing Utah Needs Right Now appeared first on The Onion.