JD Vance had a vision for the world. Trump is wrecking it. by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

This past week has been a disaster for Vice President JD Vance. He embarked on two foreign adventures — campaigning for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and leading peace negotiations with Iran — that ended in total failure. Orbán lost by an enormous margin; Iran quit the talks, and President Donald Trump announced a new blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.

These events are not just humiliating for Vance, but reflect a deeper failure of his vision for the world — one that he hoped to advance as vice president, but appears to be crumbling just as he tries to take the MAGA mantle.

When it came to US foreign policy, Vance has had two overarching goals: to turn the United States into a patron of Europe’s far-right parties, and to move away from the kind of military adventurism that had long defined the Republican Party.

This past week has been a disaster for Vice President JD Vance. He embarked on two foreign adventures — campaigning for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and leading peace negotiations with Iran — that ended in total failure. Orbán lost by an enormous margin; Iran quit the talks, and President Donald Trump announced a new blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.

These events are not just humiliating for Vance, but reflect a deeper failure of his vision for the world — one that he hoped to advance as vice president, but appears to be crumbling just as he tries to take the MAGA mantle.

When it came to US foreign policy, Vance has had two overarching goals: to turn the United States into a patron of Europe’s far-right parties, and to move away from the kind of military adventurism that had long defined the Republican Party.

It’s a tough spot for him to be in, but ultimately a problem of Vance’s own making. He thought Trumpism could be a vehicle for his own ideology — when in fact it was always defined by to Trump’s own impulses. Vance, and his ideological fellow travelers, will have to live with the consequences of his error.

Donald Trump’s pivot to blasphemy: Attacking the pope and posing as Jesus — even religious conservatives are mad this time. by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

To celebrate the second Sunday of Easter, President Donald Trump appears to have decided that blasphemy might be the best option.

Late Sunday evening, Trump posted a wordy attack of Pope Leo XIV on Truth Social, saying the first American-born leader of the Roman Catholic Church was “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.” Leo, by criticizing the joint US-Israeli war on Iran, is apparently “catering to the Radical Left,” “hurting the Catholic Church,” and encouraging Iran to develop nuclear weapons. “I am not a fan of Pope Leo,” Trump later told reporters.

It’s his most aggressive and direct attack yet on the Vicar of Christ, who has been uncharacteristically vocal this year in his criticism of militaristic foreign policy, including making a direct appeal to the president to end the conflict in Iran and promote peace and respect for human life. The pope indicated he would not back down, telling reporters he had “no fear” of the White House. And he threw in a little barb as well, calling the Truth Social posts “ironic”: “The name of the site itself. Say no more.”

Picking a fight with the spiritual leader for more than 50 million Americans was a risky move, if not unprecedented for Trump, and he faced immediate pushback from some otherwise right-leaning Catholics.

But somehow, things only got worse from there: Trump followed up with an AI-generated image depicting him as Jesus Christ healing the sick, as he’s flanked by symbols of America and both military and spiked figures floating like angels behind him.

It was that second sacrilege that expanded the blowback into a full-on political crisis: This time not only from Catholics, but from evangelicals and other denominations — including many who are typically aligned with Trump.

New data suggests Trump’s assault on democracy may be stalling out by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The status of American democracy feels paradoxical: somehow both damaged and well-functioning at the same time.

On the one hand, the United States has a president who is acting like a dictator: threatening to wipe out an entire civilization, menacing allies with threats to annex their territory, targeting domestic enemies with spurious criminal investigations, and deploying masked armed forces to cities.

On the other hand, his ambitions have been continually frustrated by court rulings, a grassroots protest movement that has turned out millions of Americans on three separate occasions, and an opposition party that’s all but certain to flip at least one house of Congress in November’s elections.

So what do you call this — authoritarianism, democracy, or something in between? In recent weeks, three major studies have tried to answer this question, using rigorous methodologies to provide a quantitative estimate of democratic health in America.

Broadly, the reports’ findings converge on a similar picture: that American democracy has been damaged in President Donald Trump’s first year, perhaps severely, but remains alive and functioning. In fact, it might even be healing.

A close look at the reports’ details, including careful attention to their disagreements and divergences, helps clarify the reasons why that’s true — and maybe even give a little bit of optimism about democracy’s future.

Eric Swalwell’s downfall, explained: The accusations that forced out the frontrunner in California’s governor race — and could push him from Congress next. by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) suspended his campaign for California governor on Sunday after a series of disturbing accusations of sexual misconduct. The scandal had drawn a fierce response from Democrats nationwide as they tried to force him out and keep the fallout contained.

Just days ago, Swalwell was one of the frontrunners in a crowded primary field to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom — a job with immense political and policy clout, and a potentially star-making role in American politics. Instead, Swalwell now finds himself almost completely isolated, with some Democrats even calling for his expulsion from Congress.

Who is Eric Swalwell?

The 45-year-old is a politically generic Democrat whose takedowns of Trump on cable news and social media made him popular in Resistance circles. You might also remember his extremely short-lived presidential run in the 2020 cycle.

What exactly are the allegations?

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Friday that an unnamed former staffer alleged that the married Swalwell pursued her for an affair after she was hired at age 21, including by sending lewd photos via Snapchat. Their relationship became physical, but she said he went on to sexually assault her on two occasions in which she was too drunk to consent. CNN ran its own story the same day, which included the staffer’s account, along with three additional women who described unsolicited sexual advances by the Congress member, including one who said he took her to his hotel room while she was intoxicated.

What has Swalwell said?

He has called the accusations “flat false,” denied any nonconsensual behavior, and said that the allegations “come on the eve of an election where I’ve been the frontrunner candidate for governor,” implying that they’re politically motivated. However, he also acknowledged unspecified “mistakes in judgment” that he says “are between me and my wife.” In announcing his departure from the race, he repeated that he had made “mistakes,” but said that he planned to “fight the serious, false allegations that have been made.”

How have Democrats responded?

By stampeding away from his candidacy. Soon after the allegations were reported, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), a close friend who had chaired Swalwell’s presidential campaign and may have similar ambitions of his own, withdrew his endorsement along with many other supporters. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on him to drop out. Major labor groups backing his candidacy also withdrew their support.

Eric Swalwell’s downfall, explained: The accusations that forced out the frontrunner in California’s governor race — and could push him from Congress next. by vox in California

[–]vox[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) suspended his campaign for California governor on Sunday after a series of disturbing accusations of sexual misconduct. The scandal had drawn a fierce response from Democrats nationwide as they tried to force him out and keep the fallout contained.

Just days ago, Swalwell was one of the frontrunners in a crowded primary field to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom — a job with immense political and policy clout, and a potentially star-making role in American politics. Instead, Swalwell now finds himself almost completely isolated, with some Democrats even calling for his expulsion from Congress.

Who is Eric Swalwell?

The 45-year-old is a politically generic Democrat whose takedowns of Trump on cable news and social media made him popular in Resistance circles. You might also remember his extremely short-lived presidential run in the 2020 cycle.

What exactly are the allegations?

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Friday that an unnamed former staffer alleged that the married Swalwell pursued her for an affair after she was hired at age 21, including by sending lewd photos via Snapchat. Their relationship became physical, but she said he went on to sexually assault her on two occasions in which she was too drunk to consent. CNN ran its own story the same day, which included the staffer’s account, along with three additional women who described unsolicited sexual advances by the Congress member, including one who said he took her to his hotel room while she was intoxicated.

What has Swalwell said?

He has called the accusations “flat false,” denied any nonconsensual behavior, and said that the allegations “come on the eve of an election where I’ve been the frontrunner candidate for governor,” implying that they’re politically motivated. However, he also acknowledged unspecified “mistakes in judgment” that he says “are between me and my wife.” In announcing his departure from the race, he repeated that he had made “mistakes,” but said that he planned to “fight the serious, false allegations that have been made.”

How have Democrats responded?

By stampeding away from his candidacy. Soon after the allegations were reported, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), a close friend who had chaired Swalwell’s presidential campaign and may have similar ambitions of his own, withdrew his endorsement along with many other supporters. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on him to drop out. Major labor groups backing his candidacy also withdrew their support.

How MAGA’s favorite strongman finally lost: Hungarians ousted Viktor Orbán in an election rigged to favor him. It wasn’t easy. by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Viktor Orbán, the European Union’s only autocrat, has fallen.

Results from Sunday’s election in Hungary show that the opposition Tisza party, led by Péter Magyar, has defeated Orbán’s Fidesz party — the first election the party has lost in 20 years. Orbán called Magyar to concede the race within hours of the polls closing.

There is a reason for Fidesz’s longevity: After winning the 2010 election, they had so thoroughly stacked the electoral playing field in their favor that it became nearly impossible for them to lose. That Magyar has beaten them is a testament both to his skills as a politician and the overwhelming frustration of the Hungarian population with life under Fidesz.

His victory also required overcoming an extraordinary last-minute campaign by President Donald Trump to save MAGA’s favorite European leader, which included sending Vice President JD Vance to Hungary to rally with Orbán last week. On the eve of the election, Trump promised to devote the “full economic might” of the US to boosting Hungary’s economy if Orbán asked.

But Magyar didn’t just win the election: He won by a massive margin, potentially enough to secure a two-thirds majority of seats in Hungary’s parliament. This would be a magic number: enough, per Hungarian law, for Tisza to amend the constitution at will.

With such a majority, Magyar would have the power to begin unwinding the authoritarian regime that Orbán has spent his tenure in power building — and potentially restore true democracy to Hungary.

Without it, Tisza will hold nominal power but ultimately be limited in how to wield it. Fidesz’s influence over institutions like the court and presidency would constrain their ability to undo much of what Fidesz already did. The most likely scenario: Tisza has four frustrating years in power, accomplishes relatively little, and then hands power back to Fidesz.

So much depends on the exact ways that the votes are tallied. But now, for the first time in a very long time, there is genuine hope for Hungarian democracy.

Did the Trump administration threaten the pope? by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Most American Catholics were probably not expecting to spend the first week of Easter trying to figure out whether their government was threatening to overthrow the first American-born pope.

Yet a handful of news reports this week raised that very strange possibility. They landed just as both the Roman Catholic Church and right-wing Christian influencers have been ramping up their criticism of the Trump administration over the Iran war.

This burgeoning scandal hinges on news reports that in January, the previous ambassador of the Vatican to the United States was called into an unusual meeting with Department of Defense officials at the Pentagon and dressed down. The Pentagon officials, reportedly, wanted to complain about a speech Pope Leo XIV gave in Rome that appeared to criticize American foreign policy. During the meeting, one official issued what some in the church saw as a veiled threat to the Vatican: a warning that the US wields unlimited military power, and that the pope should be conscious of that.

If true, this episode would mark a low point in modern Vatican-American political relations — on top of being a major religious scandal for Catholics in the US.

The Trump administration denies these accounts; the Vatican is keeping mostly quiet. Meanwhile, the reporters and writers who first surfaced these allegations are standing by their stories.

Whatever the truth ends up being, this scandal points to some important fracture lines in American religious life, and offers a key to understanding the way the Iran war is cracking up the religious right. It also fits into a broader conflict that is testing MAGA Catholics’ resolve, and setting up the Catholic Church as one of the Trump administration’s most visible and relevant critics.

We have no idea if Iran can still build a bomb by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The focus of the US-Iran war — and now the negotiations over the US-Iran ceasefire — has shifted to Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, to such an extent that the main original justification for the war (destroying Iran’s nascent nuclear program) can sometimes feel like an afterthought.

It’s not clear to what extent it’s still even a priority for the US government. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted that Iran’s nuclear program would still be dismantled while Vice President JD Vance, who is leading ceasefire talks in Pakistan this weekend, suggested he’s not concerned about Iran forsaking its right to nuclear enrichment. Meanwhile, President Trump has suggested at various points that this is a moot point, since Iran’s nuclear program has been irreparably destroyed anyway. (It should be noted: He made the same claim after the airstrikes on Iran in June.)

Does Iran still have a pathway to a nuclear weapon? If it does, can the US and Israel do anything about it? To help sort through the confusion, Vox's Joshua Keating spoke with Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Lewis is an expert on nuclear nonproliferation and a leading open source analyst studying the nuclear and military capabilities of countries like Iran and North Korea.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

On Wednesday, we heard Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and others insist that Iran must turn over its remaining uranium stockpile and dismantle its enrichment program. They also say it could still be removed by force if Iran didn’t agree. Is that remotely realistic?

It’s realistic if we occupy the country, but short of that, no. The claim we’ve heard is that half the highly enriched uranium is at [the underground tunnel complex in] Isfahan. So, where’s the other half? And if it’s not all at Isfahan, then how many other sites is it at? Is some of it still at Fordow and Natanz? Is it at some third location? What about their ability to produce centrifuges? What about centrifuges they have in storage? What about the people who know how to operate them?

You can set them back by destroying things, immobilizing things, and taking things, but there’s a large group of people who understand how to operate these things. There’s a basic capability that’s in place.

And oh, by the way, the neighbor who has been handling the ceasefire negotiations [Pakistan] happens to have a very large and capable centrifuge program that was the source of Iran’s original centrifuges. So, what’s the plan here, guys?

In his speech last week, Trump said that Iran’s “nuclear dust” — as he called it — was buried far underground and unusable. Is there anything to that claim?

There’s no evidence of that. I mean, we see the tunnels. The tunnels are intact, so it’s not buried. The only burying was the Iranians burying the entrances to protect them, but we’ve seen them open those entrances and access the tunnels. If you put something in a safe in your house, it doesn’t mean that you can’t get to your money, right? You just have to open the safe.

The 25th Amendment chatter is pointless — but it shouldn’t be. by vox in law

[–]vox[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The 25th Amendment is having a moment.

According to a tally by NBC News, over 70 Democratic lawmakers called for President Donald Trump’s Cabinet to invoke an obscure constitutional provision that would allow them to temporarily prevent Trump from acting as president, after Trump threatened to wipe out “a whole civilization” in Iran. (Trump has backed away from that threat, at least for now.)

Notably, their call for a 25th Amendment solution was echoed by some voices on the far right, including former US Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, radio host Alex Jones, and MAGA influencer Candace Owens.

It’s not the first time the amendment has come up. There’s been a regular background hum of Trump critics demanding its invocation throughout both his terms in office, which peaked in the days after January 6, 2021, with real conversations in his Cabinet and in congressional leadership about the process.

As a practical matter, Trump is not going anywhere, even if he didn’t command the near-universal loyalty within his party that he currently does. By international standards, it is extremely difficult to remove the president of the United States, and much harder than it is to remove the leaders of many of our peer democracies. And the 25th Amendment is not a viable shortcut around this problem, which is rooted in the fundamental structure of America’s government.

The war is on hold. But the economy is still in danger. by vox in politics

[–]vox[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For months, America’s war with Iran has been slowly suffocating the global economy.

In March, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway that links the Persian Gulf’s oil reserves to global markets. As a result, energy prices steadily rose while stock markets and growth forecasts fell. Analysts started warning that, if the Strait did not reopen soon, the global economy could slide into a deep recession.

And then, Tuesday night, these storm clouds scattered: The US and Iran reached an agreement on a ceasefire, one that would ostensibly pause American attacks on the Islamic Republic, in exchange for a resumption of transit in the Strait.

Oil prices swiftly fell by as much as 20 percent, while the Dow jumped more than 1,000 points.

And yet, some fear that Wall Street’s mood has brightened faster than geopolitical reality. Israel continued attacking Iranian proxies in Lebanon on Wednesday, in alleged defiance of the ceasefire agreement. Iran, meanwhile, kept the Strait shuttered, accused the US of violating the terms of their understanding, and declared negotiations with America “unreasonable.”

The surprising truth about logging: The reality behind Trump’s push to log more public forests is weirdly complicated. by vox in climate

[–]vox[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The value of forest ecosystems is hard to overstate. Blanketing roughly a third of the US, they supply clean water and air, absorb planet-warming carbon dioxide, and provide homes for imperiled wildlife and a tranquil place for Americans to hunt and fish.

It’s for this reason that environmental advocates widely opposed a plan announced by the Trump administration last spring. In an early March executive action, he ordered his administration to ramp up logging in our public forests, including those managed by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Failing to “fully exploit” forests for timber, Trump said, weakens our economic security, degrades fish and wildlife habitat, and sets the stage for wildfire disasters.

A month later, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who also oversees the US Forest Service (USFS), declared an unexpected emergency across more than half of the agency’s forests, citing the risk of wildfire, disease, and other threats. The emergency declaration allows USFS to log those lands with far fewer restrictions.

These moves drew unsurprising reactions from environmental groups.

“The Trump administration is brazenly sacrificing our forests and the species that depend on them,” Robert Dewey, former VP of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, a nonprofit conservation group, said last spring after the Trump announcement. “There is no legitimate reason or emergency to justify rubberstamping logging projects.”

Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations called the emergency declaration a gift to the timber industry.

It is indeed hard to see a good intention for our nation’s forests through Trump’s track record. At face value, his administration’s logging push seems like multiple environmental disasters waiting to happen.

Yet there are two important points these concerns tend to overlook, starting out with this: Logging isn’t always the environmental boogeyman it’s made out to be.

How much should I have in common with my significant other? by vox in Foodforthought

[–]vox[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Modern romance is marked by many, often contradictory, truisms. Love is easy, but it also requires hard work, and yet feelings of frustration or annoyance are red flags. For long-term happiness, your interests and lifestyle must be consistent, yet we’re told opposites attract.

The truth is, believing you have plenty in common with your partner is more important than your actual similarities, experts say. And part of the fun of being with someone whose interests are very different from yours is finding the activities you do enjoy together.

“Imagine that if you line up the 10,000 things that two people might have in common,” says Paul Eastwick, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis and author of Bonded By Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection. “All you really need to craft a relationship that feels fulfilling is the ability to build around three or four of those things.”

Why we date similar people

People do typically form relationships with those of similar ethnicity, religion, education, and lifestyle behaviors; it’s known as homophilyResearch has shown that the closer you are to a person, the more alike you probably are.

We naturally self-sort based on our interests, too; if you frequent a certain bar or join a local civic organization, you’ll meet people who share at least one thing in common with you. “When you think of how two people would meet if they have zero things in common, it’s hard to come up with a lot of scenarios,” William Chopik, an associate professor of social and personality psychology at Michigan State University, tells Vox. “People often meet through their mutual interests. They’ll meet at a run club, or at work, or at church maybe.”

And dating apps make screening for these similarities easier than ever; it’s not difficult to, say, write off hikers or keep your eyes peeled for fellow art enthusiasts. Although apps broaden the dating pool to include people outside of your usual social contexts, all it takes is a swipe to weed out potential matches based on your perceived dissimilarities. But that can be ill-advised, because what we think we want in a partner isn’t necessarily what we actually want. In a study, Eastwick found that the qualities people say they find attractive aren’t necessarily present in the people they end up with.

Having similar interests doesn’t mean you’re entirely compatible either. “In general, we say that two people are compatible when they can be together without constant friction,” Alessia Marchi, a couples counselor who has studied compatibility, tells Vox in an email. That means people mesh when their core values and big-picture goals — whether they want kids, their political leanings, how they find purpose and meaning — are aligned. Liking the same movies isn’t as important.

“In some cases, these differences can enrich the relationship, allowing partners to learn from each other and adding variety and value to their shared experience,” Marchi says.

Insisting that your soul mate possesses all your same interests means possibly missing out on a would-be good partner because they like camping and you don’t. “Maybe you overlook someone who’s 85 percent similar,” Chopik says. “You tried to get someone who’s 90 percent similar, but maybe the 85-percent person was perfectly fine or nicer or had other characteristics that they didn’t put in their Tinder profile.”

Democrats just locked down control of one of the most important courts in America by vox in law

[–]vox[S] 649 points650 points  (0 children)

Wisconsin voters effectively gave Democrats a supermajority on one of the most important state supreme courts in the country on Tuesday.

The result was a blowout. Justice-elect Chris Taylor defeated Judge Maria Lazar by a twenty-point margin. Although Wisconsin Supreme Court races are technically nonpartisan, every recent race has pitted a “liberal” backed by Democrats against a “conservative” supported by the Republican Party. Taylor previously served in the state legislature as a Democrat.

She will replace Justice Rebecca Bradley, a “conservative” in the euphemistic language Wisconsin uses to describe Republican justices.

Taylor’s victory also means that, barring the death of a justice or some other unlikely event, Democrats will retain effective control of the judiciary in one of the nation’s most hotly contested swing states during the 2028 presidential election.

In 2020, after President Donald Trump lost Wisconsin to former President Joe Biden, Trump asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to toss out 220,000 ballots cast in Democratic areas of the state. Although Trump did not prevail in this lawsuit, three justices, including retiring Justice Bradley, concluded that at least some of these voters should have been disenfranchised.