vox--2020-09-28--What Trump’s taxes tell us about his foreign entanglements

The entanglements between President Donald Trump ’ s foreign policy and his global business have long been an unnerving feature of his White House tenure , giving rise to ethics concerns — as well as fears that allies and adversaries might use those businesses to manipulate the executive branch .
The New York Times ’ s landmark report on Trump ’ s taxes over the past two decades helped expose the nature of some of those ties abroad — and they ’ re more extensive than the president has let on .
According to the revelations , Trump — who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to publicly release his tax returns — brought in $ 73 million from around the world during his first two years in office .
A lot of those funds came from his golf resorts in Scotland and Ireland .
But he also received cash from countries crucial to the global affairs objectives of his administration , like $ 3 million from the Philippines , $ 2.3 million from India , and another $ 1 million from Turkey .
The returns also show that Trump ’ s empire garnered more revenue from abroad than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , for example , Trump earned at least $ 13 million in a licensing deal for two towers in Turkey ; a similar agreement in the Philippine capital of Manila was worth $ 9.3 million ; and he made $ 5 million in a botched hotel project in Azerbaijan , roughly twice what he revealed in an ethics filing .
Furthermore , Trump in 2017 paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes to foreign countries like Panama , India , and the Philippines than he did the US , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 750 .
Trump has made a lot of money from foreign sources since becoming president None of the president ’ s foreign earnings are terribly surprising , as Trump ’ s hundreds of businesses have continued with their work as usual since he became America ’ s president .
In 2017 , the Washington Post detailed how Trump made millions licensing his name to real estate projects around the world .
Congressional committees revealed foreign governments booked rooms at Trump ’ s hotel in Washington ahead of official meetings .
And Open Secrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money in politics , reported in 2019 that Trump held $ 130 million in foreign assets by the end of his second year in office .
His most recent personal financial disclosures , covering 2016 through 2019 , showed revenues of up to $ 4.1 million came from India , up to $ 7 million came from Turkey , and up to $ 5 million came from the Philippines , per the researchers .
“ Trump is continuing to profit from his foreign business interests , ” Open Secrets ’ Anna Massoglia told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has helped illuminate how he ’ s doing so , “ as well as on other financial entanglements that he ’ s paying taxes on.
” However , Massoglia noted , “ there are a lot of gaps because he hasn ’ t disclosed his tax returns.
” Those personal tax returns would provide an even more detailed picture than the documents the Times collected .
The Times ’ s tax return story , though , still drives home that Trump has made — and is still making — more money from other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s troubling , especially since it could negatively interfere with his job as president and remit as the unquestioned authority of US foreign policy .
As Mieke Eoyang , a former staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee and now senior vice president of the Third Way think tank in Washington , tweeted after the story broke , “ Our national security officials must act in the country ’ s interest not that of their foreign creditors.
” Why the tax return story is so worrisome for US foreign policy Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three main countries cited by the Times ’ s report : the Philippines , India , and Turkey .
It ’ s less clear now if the bonhomie stems from their diplomatic relationships or because they lead nations that are lucrative for the president .
Turkey is perhaps the best example of this conundrum .
Trump said last year that he was a “ big fan of ” President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan , but their relationship hit some snags over Ankara ’ s attacks on US allies in Syria and its unlawful imprisonment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ties were low , the Times recalled a few curiosities : In other words , countries like Turkey can potentially find ways to Trump ’ s heart by ensuring money goes into his family ’ s pocket in hopes of altering US foreign policy .
The Trump Organization , then , gives nations an unprecedented extra leverage point to influence an American president .
Money flowing into Trump ’ s pockets perhaps answers the question Trump himself asked of journalist Bob Woodward during an interview for the book Rage .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the tougher and meaner they are , the better I get along with them , ” Trump told Woodward about his relationships with authoritarian leaders , including Erdoğan .
“ Explain that to me someday , okay ?
” Perhaps also smoothing the way , as the New York Times notes , other nations have placed former Trump associates into positions of power .
For instance , Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made the businessman behind the Trump Tower in Manila a special trade envoy to the US , and Argentina ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s licensing deal in Uruguay to a cabinet post .
The implication of such moves is some foreign governments altered their operations and staffing just to appeal to the president ( as the saying goes : personnel is policy ) .
And these decisions make clear Trump ’ s businesses aren ’ t just a side nuisance and ethical dilemma — they are central to how parts of the world interact with the US during this administration .
All of this is a problem .
Yes , foreign governments funneling money into business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
But since such rule-breaking hasn ’ t — and likely won ’ t — lead to immediate action , the biggest concern is this : If the president makes decisions based on his private interests , and not the public ’ s , then he ’ s subjugating the demands of US foreign policy for the bottom line of his family ’ s business .
That issue becomes more acute when you factor in Trump ’ s $ 421 million in debt , much of it owed in the next four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who he owes that money to , but it ’ s not unreasonable given the scope of the Trump Organization ’ s foreign business to assume some of the debt is held by foreign lenders like Deutsche Bank , which has loaned Trump ’ s businesses several hundred million dollars in recent years .
These debts could mean Trump has financial concerns on his mind during officials chats with his counterparts .
Ensuring foreign powers don ’ t have financial leverage over government officials is why , as Eoyang pointed out on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors that goes into the denial of a security clearance .
Foreign Indebtedness is a red flag.
” Due to the New York Times , that red flag — among others — is waving wildly .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The entanglements between President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and his global business have long been an unnerving feature of his White House tenure, giving rise to ethics concerns — as well as fears that allies and adversaries might use those businesses to manipulate the executive branch. The New York Times’s landmark report on Trump’s taxes over the past two decades helped expose the nature of some of those ties abroad — and they’re more extensive than the president has let on.
According to the revelations, Trump — who broke with decades of precedent by refusing to publicly release his tax returns — brought in $73 million from around the world during his first two years in office. A lot of those funds came from his golf resorts in Scotland and Ireland. But he also received cash from countries crucial to the global affairs objectives of his administration, like $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India, and another $1 million from Turkey.
The returns also show that Trump’s empire garnered more revenue from abroad than previously known. Over the past two decades, for example, Trump earned at least $13 million in a licensing deal for two towers in Turkey; a similar agreement in the Philippine capital of Manila was worth $9.3 million; and he made $5 million in a botched hotel project in Azerbaijan, roughly twice what he revealed in an ethics filing.
Furthermore, Trump in 2017 paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes to foreign countries like Panama, India, and the Philippines than he did the US, where he paid the lowly sum of $750.
Trump has made a lot of money from foreign sources since becoming president
None of the president’s foreign earnings are terribly surprising, as Trump’s hundreds of businesses have continued with their work as usual since he became America’s president.
In 2017, the Washington Post detailed how Trump made millions licensing his name to real estate projects around the world. Congressional committees revealed foreign governments booked rooms at Trump’s hotel in Washington ahead of official meetings.
And Open Secrets, a group researching the influence of money in politics, reported in 2019 that Trump held $130 million in foreign assets by the end of his second year in office. His most recent personal financial disclosures, covering 2016 through 2019, showed revenues of up to $4.1 million came from India, up to $7 million came from Turkey, and up to $5 million came from the Philippines, per the researchers.
“Trump is continuing to profit from his foreign business interests,” Open Secrets’ Anna Massoglia told me, adding that the Times report has helped illuminate how he’s doing so, “as well as on other financial entanglements that he’s paying taxes on.”
However, Massoglia noted, “there are a lot of gaps because he hasn’t disclosed his tax returns.” Those personal tax returns would provide an even more detailed picture than the documents the Times collected.
The Times’s tax return story, though, still drives home that Trump has made — and is still making — more money from other countries than he’s admitted publicly. That’s troubling, especially since it could negatively interfere with his job as president and remit as the unquestioned authority of US foreign policy.
As Mieke Eoyang, a former staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee and now senior vice president of the Third Way think tank in Washington, tweeted after the story broke, “Our national security officials must act in the country’s interest not that of their foreign creditors.”
Why the tax return story is so worrisome for US foreign policy
Trump has back-slapped the authoritarian leaders of the three main countries cited by the Times’s report: the Philippines, India, and Turkey. It’s less clear now if the bonhomie stems from their diplomatic relationships or because they lead nations that are lucrative for the president.
Turkey is perhaps the best example of this conundrum.
Trump said last year that he was a “big fan of” President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, but their relationship hit some snags over Ankara’s attacks on US allies in Syria and its unlawful imprisonment of an American pastor.
When US-Turkey ties were low, the Times recalled a few curiosities:
[In 2018,] a Turkish business group canceled a conference at Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel; six months later, when the two countries were on better terms, the rescheduled event was attended by Turkish government officials. Turkish Airlines also chose the Trump National Golf Club in suburban Virginia to host an event [in 2017].
In other words, countries like Turkey can potentially find ways to Trump’s heart by ensuring money goes into his family’s pocket in hopes of altering US foreign policy. The Trump Organization, then, gives nations an unprecedented extra leverage point to influence an American president.
Money flowing into Trump’s pockets perhaps answers the question Trump himself asked of journalist Bob Woodward during an interview for the book Rage. “It’s funny, the relationships I have, the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them,” Trump told Woodward about his relationships with authoritarian leaders, including Erdoğan. “Explain that to me someday, okay?”
Perhaps also smoothing the way, as the New York Times notes, other nations have placed former Trump associates into positions of power. For instance, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made the businessman behind the Trump Tower in Manila a special trade envoy to the US, and Argentina’s government named someone instrumental in Trump’s licensing deal in Uruguay to a cabinet post.
The implication of such moves is some foreign governments altered their operations and staffing just to appeal to the president (as the saying goes: personnel is policy). And these decisions make clear Trump’s businesses aren’t just a side nuisance and ethical dilemma — they are central to how parts of the world interact with the US during this administration.
All of this is a problem. Yes, foreign governments funneling money into business linked with the president goes against federal law. But since such rule-breaking hasn’t — and likely won’t — lead to immediate action, the biggest concern is this: If the president makes decisions based on his private interests, and not the public’s, then he’s subjugating the demands of US foreign policy for the bottom line of his family’s business.
That issue becomes more acute when you factor in Trump’s $421 million in debt, much of it owed in the next four years. It’s unclear exactly who he owes that money to, but it’s not unreasonable given the scope of the Trump Organization’s foreign business to assume some of the debt is held by foreign lenders like Deutsche Bank, which has loaned Trump’s businesses several hundred million dollars in recent years. These debts could mean Trump has financial concerns on his mind during officials chats with his counterparts.
"We don't know where Donald Trump has borrowed that money from," says Andrew McCabe. "If that money is from foreign sources then it really opens a Pandora's box about foreign influence issues with the President of the US. It does not get any more serious than that." — Kylie Atwood (@kylieatwood) September 28, 2020
Ensuring foreign powers don’t have financial leverage over government officials is why, as Eoyang pointed out on Twitter, “Debt is one of the factors that goes into the denial of a security clearance. Foreign Indebtedness is a red flag.”
Due to the New York Times, that red flag — among others — is waving wildly.


vox--2020-09-28--Miranda July’s enduring love for the weirdo in all of us

One night in October 2015 — an entire world ago — I thought I was going to the theater , but it turned out I was joining a new society .
That phrase , “ New Society , ” was the title of the show I was planning to see at the Brooklyn Academy of Music , in an intimate experimental space .
The show ’ s creator — and , I thought , sole performer — was the artist Miranda July .
But once it began I realized that actually , we in the audience were the performers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ told us that she ’ d forgotten all her lines and we ’ d have to collaborate to do something else .
We ’ d participate in a kind of thought experiment but pretend it was real : What if we were all locked inside this theater , with an apocalypse raging outside , and had to build a new society ?
Everyone was a little surprised by this development .
But we quickly accepted it and got to work .
After all , people who buy tickets to a Miranda July show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know Miranda July shows are bound to be unusual .
Over the next two hours , with July ’ s guidance and prompting , we wrote a constitution , came up with laws , composed and learned a national anthem , and created a flag .
We learned rituals for our new society .
July had one audience member come to the stage and cut strips off of July ’ s silky green shirt , to use as bandages “ in case anyone got hurt.
” We thought together about what was happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be inside .
During intermission , July asked audience members to volunteer to share skills , and someone taught a yoga class .
July offered couples counseling to several real-life couples in the audience , who kissed onstage later and were met with applause .
At some point , July broke one of our rules , and we had to “ kick her out ” and elect a new mayor , who then , through a series of pre-scripted questions , restored her back to the community .
It was super weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left having thought about the social bonds of our group , an audience that was more than just people all watching the same performer .
We ’ d seen each other in a way that ’ s unusual for a night at the theater .
I thought about that night while watching Kajillionaire , July ’ s delightfully titled new movie , which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January and opened in theaters on September 25 , with a digital rollout coming soon .
Something about Kajillionaire stuck to my insides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aesthetically , but one with what seems like a silly premise : A family of mostly incompetent , eccentric , small-time con artists ( played by Evan Rachel Woods , Richard Jenkins , and Debra Winger ) pull a scam involving lost luggage and travel insurance .
But their lives change radically when their scam puts them in touch with a buoyant and friendly young woman named Melanie ( Gina Rodriguez ) , who upends their insular — but definitely not close-knit — way of life .
Unconventional and off-kilter people populate July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re usually very self-conscious about it , aware that the glasses through which they view life are not quite the same prescription as everyone else ’ s .
The resulting funhouse mirror effect means they often reach out to touch one another , but usually flail and miss — which doesn ’ t mean they stop trying .
July ’ s 2005 debut film Me and You and Everyone We Know is a story of awkward people having awkward social , romantic , and sexual encounters with other awkward people , which makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good way .
Her 2011 follow-up The Future centers on two people whose quirks would seem to make them a good match , except their lives are going nowhere .
Their trajectory changes when they adopt a sick cat named PawPaw , who then becomes one of the film ’ s narrators .
Kajillionaire follows in those predecessors ’ footsteps , with the con artist daughter — saddled with the name Old Dolio by her parents — living a stunted life governed by strange rules her parents taught her .
Melanie ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life rearranges her emotional furniture and makes her feel things she hasn ’ t before , chief among them the unsettling sensation of having someone see her as an individual worthy of attention and affection .
Old Dolio ’ s parents haven ’ t been very parent-ly ; they didn ’ t give her birthday gifts , they rarely touch her , and they never tell her they love her .
They live in an abandoned office where they sleep in cubicles and scrape soap off the wall that bleeds in from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three ways and speak in monotones and don ’ t smile much unless they ’ ve pulled a scam .
Melanie represents something altogether different .
Kajillionaire is July ’ s best and most accomplished movie as a director thus far — and probably her most accessible , too .
Visually , it ’ s both recognizable and a little strange ; ordinary settings like fluorescent-lit rooms and department stores and the post office are the backdrop for a collection of characters with thoroughly odd mannerisms .
It ’ s rich in July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not inscrutable .
Kajillionaire is a movie about love , and loneliness , and it ’ s funny and bittersweet and beautiful .
As in July ’ s previous films , Kajillionaire feels like it dwells in a slightly uncanny valley , or maybe is governed by a not-quite-discernible dream logic that is July ’ s alone .
None of her characters are her , but it ’ s easy to believe they are part of her , little bits of her psyche she plucks out and spins into life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing have the same quality , noticeable in her 2015 novel The First Bad Man , as well as short stories frequently published in major magazines and in the 2007 collection with the revealing title No one belongs here more than you .
We ’ re usually in their headspace , hearing their thoughts , which are delivered with a cadence that ’ s open , almost childlike , totally lacking in guile .
For the most part , they have not found the world to be entirely hospitable — but they approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July ’ s work , and probably contributes , a little , to the bafflement people seem to feel when they encounter it .
“ Miranda July Called Before Congress to Explain Exactly What Her Whole Thing Is ” an Onion headline announced in 2012 .
The story describes a group of senators who grows increasingly frustrated while trying to discern what July is on about as she makes banners and crafts and tells them to look at a candle .
“ Now , when you wake up in the morning , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell says .
“ What is it that compels you to do all these things that you do ?
” The joke , eight years ago , was that July is a weirdo — and indeed , she ’ s done little to dispel that notion ; in fact , she clearly likes it .
One of her projects last year was an Instagram-mediated art project in which she and actress Margaret Qualley seemingly litigated their crumbling relationship , posting videos recorded from parties and homes and press junkets that made audiences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to something very personal .
They were play-acting at reaching out across a vast virtual divide , although the two share an intense relationship in real life as well .
The project wasn ’ t stagey or extremely thought out ahead of time ; there was no team of writers pitching storylines ; and they weren ’ t trying to sell anything .
It was just a piece of delight that tried to get at something real about being human .
That complicated concept , “ being human , ” is easy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It encompasses everything .
But watching Kajillionaire , I realized what sets July ’ s work apart , at least for me , is that she really seems to love people .
While working on the screenplay for The Future , she got obsessed with the people who sell things in the Penny Saver — that little classified ads circular — and ended up working with a photographer to create a book of portraits of 13 of them , fixing ordinary and slightly eccentric individuals in time , telling us they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone else .
The characters in July ’ s films and stories are strange , and at times they ’ re actually bad people .
But her work doesn ’ t try to divide all of these flawed people into categories — the good ones and the bad ones , the villains and the heroes , the weirdos and the normals .
They ’ re just people in a society .
The result is that if you , too , feel like a weirdo peeking in at the world ( and I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July ’ s work — if you can get on her wavelength — can make you feel as included in her society of oddballs as I did that night at the Brooklyn Academy of Music .
Everybody gets to bring their own pair of glasses to the party , and sometimes we fail to connect with one another the way we want to , but eventually we might get it .
The people of Kajillionaire are never going to be the coolest or have their lives all together , but they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so July likes to make the audience feel a little uncomfortable .
Weird sex , scatological fixations , and contact embarrassment comes with the territory , because it ’ s the stuff of existence .
People swing and miss , or do things they don ’ t even understand ; we get a little nervous because it is just a little too real .
But that is , of course , the point .
The first story in 2007 ’ s No one belongs here more than you .
is written in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upstairs from a man who has epilepsy and , at a moment when she should have helped him , falls asleep next to him in the yard instead .
It feels like an attempt to explain an inexplicable action from inside the person who did something odd and dangerous .
The narrator ’ s job is partly to write little inspirational pep talks to the readers of a magazine she works at , Positive , meant to be read by people with HIV .
And the story is peppered with snippets of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for sure ; that ’ s kind of the point .
But as the narrator reveals her life to us , we get a glimpse of something else — an optimism that seems ridiculous .
Life disappoints the optimistic .
But rather than ridiculing her narrator , July honors her , and gives her — by way of a silly pep talk in a fictional newspaper — the final word : The narrator ’ s sweetly sentimental encouragements to her unknown reader are a kind of key to unlocking Miranda July ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midst of the weirdness of life .
They ’ re a bit of benediction .
The world is for us , and we are here for each other .
It ’ s okay to feel awkward and out of place , but you are loved .
Kajillionaire opens in select theaters on September 25 .
It will open on digital platforms this fall .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

One night in October 2015 — an entire world ago — I thought I was going to the theater, but it turned out I was joining a new society.
That phrase, “New Society,” was the title of the show I was planning to see at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, in an intimate experimental space. The show’s creator — and, I thought, sole performer — was the artist Miranda July.
But once it began I realized that actually, we in the audience were the performers. July came out onstage and in consternation told us that she’d forgotten all her lines and we’d have to collaborate to do something else. We’d participate in a kind of thought experiment but pretend it was real: What if we were all locked inside this theater, with an apocalypse raging outside, and had to build a new society?
Everyone was a little surprised by this development. But we quickly accepted it and got to work. After all, people who buy tickets to a Miranda July show tend to be the type who already know Miranda July shows are bound to be unusual.
Over the next two hours, with July’s guidance and prompting, we wrote a constitution, came up with laws, composed and learned a national anthem, and created a flag. We learned rituals for our new society. July had one audience member come to the stage and cut strips off of July’s silky green shirt, to use as bandages “in case anyone got hurt.” We thought together about what was happening outside the walls, and were thankful to be inside.
During intermission, July asked audience members to volunteer to share skills, and someone taught a yoga class. July offered couples counseling to several real-life couples in the audience, who kissed onstage later and were met with applause. At some point, July broke one of our rules, and we had to “kick her out” and elect a new mayor, who then, through a series of pre-scripted questions, restored her back to the community.
It was super weird, but super fun, and we left having thought about the social bonds of our group, an audience that was more than just people all watching the same performer. We’d seen each other in a way that’s unusual for a night at the theater.
I thought about that night while watching Kajillionaire, July’s delightfully titled new movie, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January and opened in theaters on September 25, with a digital rollout coming soon. Something about Kajillionaire stuck to my insides. It’s a bold film aesthetically, but one with what seems like a silly premise: A family of mostly incompetent, eccentric, small-time con artists (played by Evan Rachel Woods, Richard Jenkins, and Debra Winger) pull a scam involving lost luggage and travel insurance. But their lives change radically when their scam puts them in touch with a buoyant and friendly young woman named Melanie (Gina Rodriguez), who upends their insular — but definitely not close-knit — way of life.
Unconventional and off-kilter people populate July’s work, and they’re usually very self-conscious about it, aware that the glasses through which they view life are not quite the same prescription as everyone else’s. The resulting funhouse mirror effect means they often reach out to touch one another, but usually flail and miss — which doesn’t mean they stop trying.
July’s 2005 debut film Me and You and Everyone We Know is a story of awkward people having awkward social, romantic, and sexual encounters with other awkward people, which makes the audience feel awkward, maybe in a good way. Her 2011 follow-up The Future centers on two people whose quirks would seem to make them a good match, except their lives are going nowhere. Their trajectory changes when they adopt a sick cat named PawPaw, who then becomes one of the film’s narrators.
Kajillionaire follows in those predecessors’ footsteps, with the con artist daughter — saddled with the name Old Dolio by her parents — living a stunted life governed by strange rules her parents taught her. Melanie’s arrival in Old Dolio’s life rearranges her emotional furniture and makes her feel things she hasn’t before, chief among them the unsettling sensation of having someone see her as an individual worthy of attention and affection. Old Dolio’s parents haven’t been very parent-ly; they didn’t give her birthday gifts, they rarely touch her, and they never tell her they love her. They live in an abandoned office where they sleep in cubicles and scrape soap off the wall that bleeds in from the laundromat next door. They split everything three ways and speak in monotones and don’t smile much unless they’ve pulled a scam. Melanie represents something altogether different.
Kajillionaire is July’s best and most accomplished movie as a director thus far — and probably her most accessible, too. Visually, it’s both recognizable and a little strange; ordinary settings like fluorescent-lit rooms and department stores and the post office are the backdrop for a collection of characters with thoroughly odd mannerisms. It’s rich in July’s signature quirk, but it’s not inscrutable. Kajillionaire is a movie about love, and loneliness, and it’s funny and bittersweet and beautiful.
As in July’s previous films, Kajillionaire feels like it dwells in a slightly uncanny valley, or maybe is governed by a not-quite-discernible dream logic that is July’s alone. None of her characters are her, but it’s easy to believe they are part of her, little bits of her psyche she plucks out and spins into life.
The characters in July’s fiction writing have the same quality, noticeable in her 2015 novel The First Bad Man, as well as short stories frequently published in major magazines and in the 2007 collection with the revealing title No one belongs here more than you. We’re usually in their headspace, hearing their thoughts, which are delivered with a cadence that’s open, almost childlike, totally lacking in guile. For the most part, they have not found the world to be entirely hospitable — but they approach it wholeheartedly anyhow.
That open-heartedness marks July’s work, and probably contributes, a little, to the bafflement people seem to feel when they encounter it. “Miranda July Called Before Congress to Explain Exactly What Her Whole Thing Is” an Onion headline announced in 2012. The story describes a group of senators who grows increasingly frustrated while trying to discern what July is on about as she makes banners and crafts and tells them to look at a candle. “Now, when you wake up in the morning, what do you say to yourself?” Mitch McConnell says. “What is it that compels you to do all these things that you do?”
The joke, eight years ago, was that July is a weirdo — and indeed, she’s done little to dispel that notion; in fact, she clearly likes it. One of her projects last year was an Instagram-mediated art project in which she and actress Margaret Qualley seemingly litigated their crumbling relationship, posting videos recorded from parties and homes and press junkets that made audiences feel as if they were listening in to something very personal. They were play-acting at reaching out across a vast virtual divide, although the two share an intense relationship in real life as well. The project wasn’t stagey or extremely thought out ahead of time; there was no team of writers pitching storylines; and they weren’t trying to sell anything. It was just a piece of delight that tried to get at something real about being human.
That complicated concept, “being human,” is easy for artists to say they want to explore. It encompasses everything. But watching Kajillionaire, I realized what sets July’s work apart, at least for me, is that she really seems to love people. While working on the screenplay for The Future, she got obsessed with the people who sell things in the Penny Saver — that little classified ads circular — and ended up working with a photographer to create a book of portraits of 13 of them, fixing ordinary and slightly eccentric individuals in time, telling us they’re worth looking at, just like anyone else. The characters in July’s films and stories are strange, and at times they’re actually bad people. But her work doesn’t try to divide all of these flawed people into categories — the good ones and the bad ones, the villains and the heroes, the weirdos and the normals. They’re just people in a society.
The result is that if you, too, feel like a weirdo peeking in at the world (and I think a lot of us do), July’s work — if you can get on her wavelength — can make you feel as included in her society of oddballs as I did that night at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Everybody gets to bring their own pair of glasses to the party, and sometimes we fail to connect with one another the way we want to, but eventually we might get it. The people of Kajillionaire are never going to be the coolest or have their lives all together, but they’re awfully lucky to have each other.
And so July likes to make the audience feel a little uncomfortable. Weird sex, scatological fixations, and contact embarrassment comes with the territory, because it’s the stuff of existence. People swing and miss, or do things they don’t even understand; we get a little nervous because it is just a little too real. But that is, of course, the point.
The first story in 2007’s No one belongs here more than you. is written in the voice of a woman who lives upstairs from a man who has epilepsy and, at a moment when she should have helped him, falls asleep next to him in the yard instead. It feels like an attempt to explain an inexplicable action from inside the person who did something odd and dangerous.
The narrator’s job is partly to write little inspirational pep talks to the readers of a magazine she works at, Positive, meant to be read by people with HIV. And the story is peppered with snippets of those pep talks, which are corny, for sure; that’s kind of the point. But as the narrator reveals her life to us, we get a glimpse of something else — an optimism that seems ridiculous. Life disappoints the optimistic. But rather than ridiculing her narrator, July honors her, and gives her — by way of a silly pep talk in a fictional newspaper — the final word:
Do you have doubts about life? Are you unsure if it is worth the trouble? Look at the sky: that is for you. Look at each person’s face as you pass on the street: those faces are for you. And the street itself, and the ground under the street, and the ball of fire underneath the ground: all these things are for you. They are as much for you as they are for other people. Remember this when you wake up in the morning and think you have nothing. Stand up and face the east. Now praise the sky and praise the light within each person under the sky. It’s okay to be unsure. But praise, praise, praise.
The narrator’s sweetly sentimental encouragements to her unknown reader are a kind of key to unlocking Miranda July’s work, a note of grace in the midst of the weirdness of life. They’re a bit of benediction. The world is for us, and we are here for each other. It’s okay to feel awkward and out of place, but you are loved.
Kajillionaire opens in select theaters on September 25. It premiered on digital platforms on October 16.


vox--2020-09-28--The rise in murders in the US, explained

As if the Covid-19 pandemic wasn ’ t bad enough , America is also seeing a big surge in homicides this year .
A new report , by the Council on Criminal Justice , found that the homicide rate increased sharply this summer across 27 US cities : “ Homicide rates between June and August of 2020 increased by 53 % over the same period in 2019 , and aggravated assaults went up by 14 % .
” Other data , from crime analyst Jeff Asher , found that murder is up 28 percent throughout the year so far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a sample of 59 US cities .
A preliminary FBI report also found murders up 15 percent nationwide in the first half of 2020 .
The increase in homicides is large and widespread enough to raise serious alarms for criminologists and other experts — and a trend that ’ s likely to come up in this week ’ s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden .
So what ’ s going on ?
Some experts have cited the protests over the police killings of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a range of effects , from officers pulling back from their duties to greater community distrust in police , leading to more unchecked violence .
Others point to the bad economy .
Another potential factor is a huge increase in gun purchases this year .
Still others posit boredom and social displacement as a result of physical distancing leading people to cause more trouble .
Above all , though , experts caution it ’ s simply been a very unusual year with the Covid-19 pandemic .
That makes it difficult to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime rates .
“ The current year , 2020 , is an extreme deviation from baseline — extreme , ” Tracey Meares , founding director at the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School , told me .
That offers a bit of good news : It ’ s possible that the end of the pandemic will come and homicide rates will fall again , as they generally have for the past few decades in the US .
But no one knows for sure if that will happen , or if we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Uncertainty about what ’ s going on isn ’ t exactly new in the field of criminal justice .
Rates of crime and violence have plummeted over the past few decades in the US , yet there is no agreed-upon explanation for why .
There are theories applying the best evidence , research , and data available , ranging from changes in policing to a drop in lead exposure to the rise of video games .
But there ’ s no consensus .
That a decades-long phenomenon is still so hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumping to conclusions about the current trends .
“ We don ’ t know nearly enough to know what ’ s going on at the given moment , ” Jennifer Doleac , director of the Justice Tech Lab , told me .
“ The current moment is so unusual for so many different reasons that … it ’ s really hard to speculate about broad phenomena that are driving these trends when we ’ re not even sure if there ’ s a trend yet.
” All of that said , here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are up in the US this year There are several good sources , from criminologists , economists , and other data analysts , for what ’ s happened with crime and violence so far this year : an analysis by Jeff Asher ; a Council on Criminal Justice report written by Richard Rosenfeld and Ernesto Lopez ; City Crime Stats , a website from the University of Pennsylvania set up by David Abrams , Priyanka Goonetilleke , Elizabeth Holmdahl , and Kathy Qian ; and a preliminary report from the FBI .
Crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data , looking at crime trends in 59 US cities in 2020 so far compared to 2019 .
He found murders are up 28 percent .
Despite previous comments by Trump blaming the increase on Democratic-run cities , Asher found murders are up 29 percent and 26 percent , respectively , in cities with Democratic mayors and those with Republican mayors .
In a smaller sample of US cities , he found that violent crime overall is flat and property crimes are down .
The Council on Criminal Justice report , updated this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US cities , ranging in size from Los Angeles to St. Petersburg , Florida , through August .
The authors looked for “ structural breaks , ” in which reported crime increased or decreased more than would be expected , based on data from previous years .
They found structural breaks in homicide and aggravated assault increases starting in late May and early June .
There were also increases in the spring or summer in gun assaults , domestic violence , and robbery , but they weren ’ t up much , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although the data for domestic violence is fairly limited ) .
Other kinds of crime , including larceny and drug offenses , decreased .
That certainly suggests there were more homicides .
But it ’ s hard to say if that ’ s a result of more shootings , as some news reports have suggested , given that numbers of reported gun assaults weren ’ t significantly different .
It ’ s unclear what could be driving the increase in homicides if more shootings aren ’ t .
It ’ s possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while homicides aren ’ t .
“ It does look like violence is up in a number of cities , ” Rosenfeld , one of the report authors , told me .
City Crime Stats ’ data complicates matters a bit , comparing the 2020 crime trends in 28 major cities to a five-year baseline .
With this approach , the homicide increases don ’ t seem quite as dramatic in many cities , and other types of crime appear to be mostly down as well .
Still , homicides do seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities included in the City Crime Stats data set .
Here , for example , is Chicago , which shows this year ’ s rate ( the red line ) rising above the five-year baseline ( the gray line and shading ) at several points throughout the year : There ’ s a lot of variation from city to city .
Minneapolis , Milwaukee , New York City , and Philadelphia are on the high end of homicides or seeing a flat-out increase .
Baltimore , Boston , and Columbus are in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , though , Abrams said that his data suggests there was a significant increase in homicides from May to June : “ We did find a statistically significant increase in homicides — about 21 percent — in aggregate in the cities we looked at in the month after versus before those protests , ” he told me , cautioning that we can ’ t say with any confidence if the protests were the cause .
“ Same for shootings , but that ’ s from a smaller number of cities.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ findings for the first half of 2020 .
It found a 15 percent increase in murders , a 5 percent increase in aggravated assaults , and an 8 percent decrease in property crime nationwide from January through June , compared to the same time period in 2019 .
The FBI will likely release a report for all of 2020 later in 2021 .
In Chicago , as well as some other cities , the apparent increase in homicides began before the protests over the police killing of George Floyd .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spike abruptly ended almost as quickly as it started , only to surge again weeks later , after the protests had died down .
So it ’ s hard to blame only the protests for a spike — especially because we know that other factors likely played a role , such as the start of summer , when crime tends to go up , and the end of stay-at-home orders .
City-by-city variation isn ’ t unique to 2020 .
It ’ s expected , even when talking about national crime waves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go up and others go down for different kinds of crime .
The US is a big country , and a range of local factors can affect different kinds of crime .
Still , there ’ s enough in the four data sets to draw some conclusions : Homicides are up overall this year — in some cities , significantly higher .
But other kinds of crime , including violent crime overall , aren ’ t up and may actually have decreased so far this year .
There was also a brief spike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late May — an increase that was so brief and contained to specific cities that experts told me it was likely due to riots and looting surrounding some Black Lives Matter protests .
As Asher noted on Twitter , a disconnect between murders and other crimes would be odd : “ Violent crime and murder almost always move in the same direction and they are never this far apart nationally.
” One way to reconcile this may be the nature of crime reporting .
All of this data is based on reports to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But with people stuck at home , and no government agency operating normally this year , perhaps these reports are just less likely to happen or get picked up this year , especially lower-level crimes involving drugs or stolen property .
At the same time , it ’ s far harder for a homicide to go completely unreported — it ’ s difficult to ignore a dead person .
This is why , for much of US history , the homicide rate has been used as a proxy for violent crime overall : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more reliable metric than others for crime .
In other words , it ’ s possible that other kinds of crime are up this year , but they ’ re simply going unreported .
At any rate , homicide does seem to be up overall .
One note on domestic violence : Some activists and experts worried it would increase this year as people were forced to stay home more often .
The Council on Criminal Justice report and City Crime Stats ’ analysis suggest that ’ s not the case , showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some places .
But there ’ s reason for skepticism : Both sources are pulling data from a limited number of cities .
And reporting limitations may especially apply to domestic violence , since this year victims are potentially more likely to be trapped with their abusers and unable to make a phone call for help .
There are plenty of caveats to all this data .
Much of it only represents trends in large US cities , which means it might not be representative of the country as a whole .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August , or part of September , depending on the report .
But the trends , particularly with homicides , are alarming .
We know less about why there ’ s a spike , but there are some theories So why are homicides up ?
When I posed this question to experts , they again cautioned that no one can say with certainty what ’ s going on .
That said , they offered some possible explanations , based on the limited information we have so far : 1 ) The pandemic has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely every discussion about 2020 is the Covid-19 pandemic .
That ’ s no different for discussions about crime and violence .
This year is very unusual , with many forced to stay at home and living in fear of a new , deadly virus .
That could lead to all sorts of unpredictable behaviors that experts don ’ t understand yet , and that might take us years to explain .
2 ) Depolicing led to more violence : In response to the 2014 and 2015 waves of Black Lives Matter protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities pulled back , either out of fear that any act of aggressive policing could get them in trouble or in a counterprotest against Black Lives Matter .
While protesters have challenged the crime-fighting effectiveness of police , there is a sizable body of evidence that more , and certain kinds of , policing do lead to less crime .
Given that , some experts said that depolicing in response to protests could have led to more violence — what some in years past called the “ Ferguson effect , ” after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the police shooting of Michael Brown , and also seen in Baltimore after the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray .
3 ) Lack of trust in police led to more violence : In response to the “ Ferguson effect ” in 2015 , some experts offered a different view of what was happening : Maybe people had lost trust in the police and , as a result , they relied more on street justice and other illegal activities to resolve interpersonal disputes — an interpretation of “ legal cynicism , ” explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and supported by some empirical research .
Perhaps Floyd ’ s killing and the ensuing protests led to a similar phenomenon this year .
4 ) More guns led to more gun violence : There ’ s been a massive surge in gun buying this year , seemingly in response to concerns about personal safety during a pandemic .
And as the research has shown time and time again , more guns mean more gun violence .
A recent , preliminary study from researchers at UC Davis already concluded that gun purchases led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be otherwise through May this year .
That could have further exacerbated homicide increases .
5 ) Overwhelmed hospitals led to more deaths : One way to explain a flat or dropping violent crime rate as homicides rise is that the violent crime was deadlier than usual .
With health care systems across the US at times close to capacity or at capacity due to Covid-19 , maybe hospitals and their staff had less ability to treat violent crime victims — increasing the chances they died this year .
That could translate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if violent crime remained flat or declined .
6 ) Idle hands led to more violence : Throughout the pandemic , a lot of people have been bored — with forms of entertainment , from restaurants to movie theaters , closed down .
Schools are shut down too , and millions are newly unemployed .
Other support programs that can prevent violence were shuttered due to the lockdowns .
All of that could have led to conflict , and possibly more crime and violence .
But , experts cautioned , this is speculative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support it .
7 ) A bad economy led to more violence : With the economy tanking this year , some people may have been pushed to desperate acts to make ends meet .
Disruptions in the drug market , as product and customers dried up in a bad economy , may have led to more violent competition over what ’ s left .
The bad economy also left local and state governments with less funding for social supports that can keep people out of trouble .
All of that , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and violence , but this , too , is still very speculative .
Another possibility : None of these explanations is right .
With limited data in strange times , it wouldn ’ t be surprising if it turns out we have no idea what ’ s going on right now .
“ We can bet on it being unpredictable , ” Doleac said .
Again , there ’ s still no consensus about what ’ s caused crime to decline since the 1990s .
In that context , it ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus as to why a homicide spike has occurred so far this year .
The trends could change after a strange 2020 It ’ s possible that before we understand why it ’ s happening , the year ’ s alarming homicide trends could recede .
It ’ s happened before : In 2005 and 2006 , the homicide rate briefly increased , only to start declining again before hitting record lows in 2014 .
In 2015 and 2016 , the rates also spiked again only to start to dip after .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blips and the overall crime decline America has seen for the past three decades continued .
Maybe after this very weird year ends , crime and violence trends will , similarly , go back to the previous normal .
But that ’ s not a guarantee — and it ’ s not something we should rely on , experts said .
“ We don ’ t really understand why crime and violence went down , ” John Roman , a criminal justice expert at NORC at the University of Chicago , told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should expect this unexplained phenomenon to continue strikes me as sort of irrational.
” Even if we can ’ t explain what may be causing a homicide spike , there are certain strategies that might help fight crime in the short term — such as deploying police in crime hot spots ( though that would have to be done carefully and with reforms , given the current political climate around policing ) , a “ focused deterrence ” program that targets the few people in a community engaging in violence with a mix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilian “ interrupters ” to personally intervene in cases in which violence seems likely to break out .
Notably , a lot of this work is done at the local and state level , where the vast majority of police departments are based .
The federal government can incentivize certain practices , like Biden has proposed doing , but it ultimately falls on cities , counties , and states to carry out new or revised approaches .
Many of the evidence-based approaches rely on in-person contact , which requires ending the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and community approaches to violence reduction require that people meet face-to-face ; they can not be replaced by Zoom , ” Rosenfeld and Lopez wrote in one of their reports .
“ An underappreciated consequence of the pandemic is how social-distancing requirements have affected outreach to high-risk individuals.
” So the first priority should be to end the pandemic — ending its potential ripple effects on crime and enabling evidence-based approaches that can help reduce crime .
But to do that , the US public and governments will need to truly embrace strategies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea and Germany against Covid-19 : physical distancing , masking , and testing , tracing , and isolating the sick .
In this sense , Trump ’ s failures to address Covid-19 may be leading to more violence .
“ Seeing what ’ s happening with these [ crime ] numbers can point us to or at least get us thinking about what potential policy levers we could employ that would be helpful , ” Doleac said .
“ Otherwise , our attention is probably better focused on making sure we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , police are going to have more trouble fighting crime — including any current or future spikes — if large segments of the community don ’ t trust them .
That ’ s where police reform comes into play .
It ’ s a complicated topic , separate from a possible spike in violence this year .
But , in short , experts say police should , at a minimum , show the communities they serve that they understand the concerns , acknowledge mistakes , and will change how officers are trained and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good chance that protests against police will flare up , just as they did from 2014 to 2016 and have again this year .
If protests lead to more violence — whether by leading to depolicing , or sowing and exposing distrust in law enforcement — that ’ s going to create public safety problems .
To put it another way : There ’ s a lot we don ’ t know about crime , why it happens , and how to stop it .
But it ’ s going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these issues once things get closer to how they should be — and that means seriously addressing the pandemic and protests against police brutality .
Unfortunately , the US is going in the opposite direction , with a potential resurgence of the coronavirus this fall and winter and Trump exacerbating police-community tensions with his rhetoric and push to deploy unsolicited federal agents in some US cities .
“ How optimistic should we be for the rest of the summer ?
” Roman said .
“ I think the answer is not terribly optimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be abating with the return of Covid.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

As if the Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t bad enough, America is also seeing a surge in homicides this year.
A new report, by the Council on Criminal Justice, found homicides have increased sharply this year across 21 US cities with relevant data: “Homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer and 34% in the fall over the summer and fall of 2019.” Other data, from crime analyst Jeff Asher, found murder is up 36 percent throughout the year so far, compared to the same period in 2019, in a sample of 51 US cities. A preliminary FBI report also found murders up 15 percent nationwide in the first half of 2020.
The increase in homicides is large and widespread enough to raise serious alarms for criminologists and other experts. So what’s going on?
Some experts have cited the protests this summer over the police killings of George Floyd and others — which could’ve had a range of effects, from officers pulling back from their duties to greater community distrust in police, leading to more unchecked violence. Others point to the bad economy. Another potential factor is a huge increase in gun purchases this year. Still others posit boredom and social displacement as a result of physical distancing leading people to cause more trouble.
Above all, though, experts caution it’s simply been a very unusual year with the Covid-19 pandemic. That makes it difficult to say what, exactly, is happening with crime rates. “The current year, 2020, is an extreme deviation from baseline — extreme,” Tracey Meares, founding director at the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School, previously told me.
That offers a bit of good news: It’s possible that the end of the pandemic will come and homicide rates will fall again, as they generally have for the past few decades in the US. But no one knows for sure if that will happen, or if we’re now seeing a shift in long-term trends.
Uncertainty about what’s going on isn’t exactly new in the field of criminal justice. Rates of crime and violence have plummeted over the past few decades in the US, yet there is no agreed-upon explanation for why. There are theories applying the best evidence, research, and data available, ranging from changes in policing to a drop in lead exposure to the rise of video games. But there’s no consensus.
That a decades-long phenomenon is still so hard to explain shows the need for humility before jumping to conclusions about the current trends.
“We don’t know nearly enough to know what’s going on at the given moment,” Jennifer Doleac, director of the Justice Tech Lab, previously told me. “The current moment is so unusual for so many different reasons that … it’s really hard to speculate about broad phenomena that are driving these trends when we’re not even sure if there’s a trend yet.”
All of that said, here’s what we do know.
Homicides are up in the US this year
There are several good sources, from criminologists, economists, and other data analysts, for what’s happened with crime and violence so far this year: an analysis by Jeff Asher; a Council on Criminal Justice report written by Richard Rosenfeld and Ernesto Lopez; City Crime Stats, a website from the University of Pennsylvania set up by David Abrams, Priyanka Goonetilleke, Elizabeth Holmdahl, and Kathy Qian; and a preliminary report from the FBI.
Crime analyst Jeff Asher offers the most recent data, looking at crime trends in 51 US cities in 2020 so far compared to 2019. He found murders are up 36 percent. Despite previous comments by President Donald Trump blaming the increase on Democrat-run cities, Asher found murders are up about 36 percent in both cities with Democratic mayors and those with Republican mayors. In a smaller sample of US cities, he found violent crime overall is flat and property crimes are down.
Analysis of 51 cities with murder data through at least September shows murder up 35.7% YTD relative to 2019.
Big cities tend to overstate national trends in crime, but the national change in murder in 2020 will be historically awful.
D cities +36.2%
R cities +35.6% pic.twitter.com/fnRsCYxkMT — Jeff Asher (@Crimealytics) November 23, 2020
The Council on Criminal Justice report, updated in November, analyzed crime in 28 US cities, ranging in size from Los Angeles to St. Petersburg, Florida, through October. The authors looked for “structural breaks,” in which reported crime increased or decreased more than would be expected, based on data from previous years.
They found structural breaks in homicide, aggravated assault, and gun assault increases, particularly starting in the summer. There weren’t significant increases in domestic assault (although the data for domestic violence is fairly limited), and robbery was actually down. Other kinds of crime, including larceny and drug offenses, largely decreased.
Here’s the graph for homicide increases:
“There were 610 more homicides in the 21 cities in the summer and fall of 2020 than during the same period in 2019,” the report found.
City Crime Stats’ data complicates matters a bit, comparing the 2020 crime trends in 28 major cities to a five-year baseline. With this approach, the homicide increases don’t seem quite as dramatic in many cities, and other types of crime appear to be mostly down as well. Still, homicides do seem to be significantly up in many of the cities included in the City Crime Stats data set.
Here, for example, is Chicago’s homicide trend, which shows this year’s rate (the red line) rising above the five-year baseline (the gray line and shading) at several points throughout the year:
There’s a lot of variation from city to city. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, New York City, and Philadelphia are on the high end of homicides or seeing a flat-out increase. Baltimore, Boston, and Columbus are close to historical trends or actually down.
Overall, though, Abrams said that his data suggests there was a significant increase in homicides from May to June: “We did find a statistically significant increase in homicides — about 21 percent — in aggregate in the cities we looked at in the month after versus before those protests,” he previously told me, cautioning we can’t say with any confidence if the protests were the cause. “Same for shootings, but that’s from a smaller number of cities.”
A preliminary FBI report confirmed these other reports’ findings for the first half of 2020. It found a 15 percent increase in murders, a 5 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and an 8 percent decrease in property crime nationwide from January through June, compared to the same time period in 2019. The FBI will likely release a report for all of 2020 later in 2021.
In Chicago, as well as some other cities, the apparent increase in homicides began before the protests over the police killing of George Floyd. And in some cases, as in Chicago, the spike abruptly ended almost as quickly as it started, only to surge again weeks later, after the protests had calmed. So it’s hard to blame only the protests for a spike — especially because we know that other factors likely played a role, such as the start of summer, when crime tends to go up, and the end of stay-at-home orders.
City-by-city variation isn’t unique to 2020. It’s expected, even when talking about national crime waves or declines, to see some places go up and others go down for different kinds of crime. The US is a big country, and a range of local factors can affect different kinds of crime.
Still, there’s enough in the four data sets to draw some conclusions: Homicides are up significantly this year. But other kinds of crime, including violent crime overall, aren’t up and may actually have decreased so far this year. There was also a brief spike in burglaries in major cities starting in late May — an increase that was so brief and contained to specific cities that experts told me it was almost certainly due to the riots and looting surrounding some Black Lives Matter protests.
As Asher noted on Twitter, a disconnect between murders and other crimes would be odd: “Violent crime and murder almost always move in the same direction and they are never this far apart nationally.”
One way to reconcile this may be the nature of crime reporting. All of this data is based on reports to governments, typically local police departments. But with people stuck at home, and no government agency operating normally this year, perhaps these reports are just less likely to happen or get picked up, especially lower-level crimes involving drugs or stolen property.
At the same time, it’s far harder for a homicide to go completely unreported — it’s difficult to ignore a dead person. This is why, for much of US history, the homicide rate has been used as a proxy for violent crime overall: The nature of homicide made it a more reliable metric than others for crime.
In other words, it’s possible that other kinds of crime are up this year, but they’re simply going unreported. At any rate, homicides are up significantly.
One note on domestic violence: Some activists and experts worried it would increase this year as people were forced to stay home more often. The Council on Criminal Justice report and City Crime Stats’ analysis suggest that’s not the case, showing no significant change or a drop in some places. But there’s reason for skepticism: Both sources are pulling data from a limited number of cities. And reporting limitations may especially apply to domestic violence, since this year victims are potentially more likely to be trapped with their abusers and unable to make a phone call for help.
There are plenty of caveats to all this data. Much of it only represents trends in large US cities, which means it might not be representative of the country as a whole. And it only covers 2020 through November at the latest.
But the trends, particularly with homicides, are very alarming.
We know less about why there’s a spike, but there are some theories
So why are homicides up?
When I posed this question to experts, they again cautioned that no one can say with certainty what’s going on. That said, they offered some possible explanations, based on the limited information we have so far:
1) The pandemic has really messed things up: Looming over absolutely every discussion about 2020 is the Covid-19 pandemic. That’s no different for discussions about crime and violence. This year is very unusual, with many forced to stay at home and living in fear of a new, deadly virus. That could lead to all sorts of unpredictable behaviors that experts don’t understand yet and might take years to explain.
2) Depolicing led to more violence: In response to the 2014 and 2015 waves of Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality, officers in some cities pulled back, either out of fear that any act of aggressive policing could get them in trouble or in a counterprotest against Black Lives Matter. While protesters have challenged the crime-fighting effectiveness of police, there is a sizable body of evidence that more, and certain kinds of, policing do lead to less crime. Given that, some experts said that depolicing in response to protests could have led to more violence — what some in years past called the “Ferguson effect,” after the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting of Michael Brown, and also seen in Baltimore after the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray.
3) Lack of trust in police led to more violence: In response to the “Ferguson effect” in 2015, some experts offered a different view of what was happening: Maybe people had lost trust in the police and, as a result, they relied more on street justice and other illegal activities to resolve interpersonal disputes — an interpretation of “legal cynicism,” explained well in Jill Leovy’s Ghettoside and supported by some empirical research. Perhaps Floyd’s killing and the ensuing protests led to a similar phenomenon this year.
4) More guns led to more gun violence: There’s been a big surge in gun buying this year, seemingly in response to concerns about personal safety during a pandemic. And as the research has shown time and time again, more guns mean more gun violence. A recent, preliminary study from researchers at UC Davis already concluded that gun purchases led to more gun violence than there would be otherwise through May this year. That could have further exacerbated homicide increases.
5) Overwhelmed hospitals led to more deaths: One way to explain a flat or dropping violent crime rate as homicides rise is that the violent crime was deadlier than usual. With health care systems across the US at times close to capacity or at capacity due to Covid-19, maybe hospitals and their staff couldn’t treat violent crime victims as well — increasing the chances they died this year. That could translate to more deaths, and homicides, even if violent crime remained flat or declined.
6) Idle hands led to more violence: Throughout the pandemic, a lot of people have been bored — with forms of entertainment, from restaurants to movie theaters, closed down. Schools are limited or closed too, and millions have been newly unemployed. Other support programs that can prevent violence were shuttered due to the closures. All of that could have led to conflict, and possibly more crime and violence. But, experts cautioned, this is speculative, with little evidence so far to support it.
7) A bad economy led to more violence: With the economy tanking this year, some people may have been pushed to desperate acts to make ends meet. Disruptions in the drug market, as product and customers dried up in a bad economy, may have led to more violent competition over what’s left. The bad economy also left local and state governments with less funding for social supports that can keep people out of trouble. All of that, and more, could have contributed to more crime and violence — but this, too, is still very speculative.
Another possibility: None of these explanations is right. With limited data in strange times, it wouldn’t be surprising if it turns out we have no idea what’s going on right now. “We can bet on it being unpredictable,” Doleac said.
Again, there’s still no consensus about what’s caused crime to decline since the 1990s. In that context, it’s no surprise there’s nowhere near a consensus as to why a homicide spike has occurred so far this year.
The trends could change after a strange 2020
It’s possible that before we understand why it’s happening, the year’s alarming homicide trends could recede. It’s happened before: In 2005 and 2006, the homicide rate briefly increased, only to start declining again before hitting record lows in 2014. In 2015 and 2016, the rates also spiked again only to start to dip after. In both instances, these years were effectively blips and the overall crime decline America has seen for the past three decades continued.
Maybe after this very weird year ends, crime and violence trends will, similarly, go back to the previous normal.
But that’s not a guarantee — and it’s not something we should rely on, experts said. “We don’t really understand why crime and violence went down,” John Roman, a criminal justice expert at NORC at the University of Chicago, previously told me. “Being able to say we should expect this unexplained phenomenon to continue strikes me as sort of irrational.”
Even if we can’t explain what may be causing a homicide spike, there are certain strategies that might help fight crime in the short term — such as deploying police in crime hot spots (though that would have to be done carefully and with reforms, given the current political climate around policing), a “focused deterrence” program that targets the few people in a community engaging in violence with a mix of support and sanctions, and using civilian “interrupters” to personally intervene in cases in which violence seems likely to break out.
Notably, a lot of this work is done at the local and state level, where the vast majority of police departments are based. The federal government can incentivize certain practices, like President-elect Joe Biden has proposed doing, but it ultimately falls on cities, counties, and states to carry out new or revised approaches.
Many of the evidence-based approaches rely on in-person contact, which requires ending the pandemic. “The police, public health, and community approaches to violence reduction require that people meet face-to-face; they cannot be replaced by Zoom,” Rosenfeld and Lopez wrote in one of their reports. “An underappreciated consequence of the pandemic is how social-distancing requirements have affected outreach to high-risk individuals.”
So the first priority should be to end the pandemic — ending its potential ripple effects on crime and enabling evidence-based approaches that can help reduce crime. But to do that, the US public and governments will need to truly embrace strategies that have worked for countries like South Korea and Germany against Covid-19: physical distancing, masking, and testing, tracing, and isolating the sick. In this sense, Trump’s failures to address Covid-19 may be leading to more violence.
“Seeing what’s happening with these [crime] numbers can point us to or at least get us thinking about what potential policy levers we could employ that would be helpful,” Doleac said. “Otherwise, our attention is probably better focused on making sure we’re all wearing masks.”
Beyond the pandemic, police are going to have more trouble fighting crime — including any current or future spikes — if large segments of the community don’t trust them. That’s where police reform comes into play. It’s a complicated topic, separate from a possible spike in violence this year. But, in short, experts say police should, at a minimum, show the communities they serve that they understand the concerns, acknowledge mistakes, and will change how officers are trained and deployed.
Otherwise, there’s a good chance that protests against police will flare up, just as they did from 2014 to 2016 and have again this year. If protests lead to more violence — whether by leading to depolicing, or sowing and exposing distrust in law enforcement — that’s going to create public safety problems.
To put it another way: There’s a lot we don’t know about crime, why it happens, and how to stop it. But it’s going to be much easier to wrap our heads around these issues once things get closer to how they should be — and that means seriously addressing the pandemic and protests against police brutality.
Unfortunately, the US is going in the opposite direction, with a surge of Covid-19 this fall and winter and Trump exacerbating police-community tensions with his rhetoric and push to deploy unsolicited federal agents in some US cities.
“How optimistic should we be for the rest of the summer?” Roman said. “I think the answer is not terribly optimistic, because none of these factors seem to be abating with the return of Covid.”


vox--2020-09-28--Here’s how much you had to make in 2017 to pay more income tax than Donald Trump

On Sunday night , the New York Times revealed that it had obtained Donald Trump ’ s tax returns , and revealed that the president ( whose net worth Forbes estimates at $ 2.5 billion ) claimed to owe only $ 750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017 .
Obviously , the federal income tax is a tax on income , not wealth , but still — it seems odd that someone that rich would have only a $ 750 income tax burden .
Mark Mazur , the director of the Tax Policy Center ( America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a former assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department , told me that according to TPC ’ s models , about half of American tax units* paid more than $ 750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 .
The $ 750 number was especially striking to me given that I ’ ve done a little bit of volunteer tax preparation for low- and middle-income people , and prepared more than a few returns with a net amount owed higher than $ 750 .
So I knew that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of money to have an income tax burden that high — and I was curious exactly how much you had to make in 2017 to pay as much in taxes as Trump .
Taxes in the US depend heavily on your family structure , so I modeled three scenarios : a married couple with two kids ; a single parent with two kids ; and a single adult with no kids .
I assumed that each tax unit took the standard deduction , rather than deducting mortgage interest , charitable donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the best practice for most middle-class people .
I further assumed that families took advantage of the child tax credit and earned income tax credit ( EITC ) where possible .
I also double-checked each result with TAXSIM , a computer program from the National Bureau of Economic Research that replicates the federal tax code for every year from 1960 to 2023 .
A married couple with two children would have had to earn $ 53,450 or more in 2017 to pay $ 750 or more in federal income taxes that year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 12,700 , and each of the household ’ s four members would have received a $ 4,050 personal exemption , so the couple ’ s taxable income was $ 24,550 .
That puts them in the 15 percent tax bracket , with a tax liability of $ 2,750 .
They wouldn ’ t qualify for the EITC , which was only available to households with two kids making under $ 45,007 .
But they would qualify for the child tax credit of $ 1,000 for each child , resulting in a net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single parent situation is trickier because a single father or mother at the break-even point with Trump would receive a small EITC .
But assuming the single parent files as a head of household , she would have needed to earn $ 44,706 or more in 2017 to pay $ 750 or more in federal income taxes that year .
The head of household standard deduction ( reserved for single adults with a “ qualifying person ” like a child or parent whom they take care of ) was $ 9,350 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4,050 personal exemptions , one for herself and one for each of her kids .
That puts her taxable income at $ 23,206 , in the 15 percent bracket , for a tax burden before credits of $ 2,813 .
Her EITC would be $ 63 , and she would get $ 1,000 each in child tax credit benefits from her children , for a final burden of $ 750 .
A single adult with no children would have had to earn $ 17,900 or more in 2017 to pay $ 750 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the simplest calculation , as there are no applicable tax credits at all ( I ’ m assuming here the taxpayer did not have higher education expenses that would qualify for an American Opportunity or Lifelong Learning credit ) .
The single adult standard deduction was $ 6,350 , and the taxpayer would ’ ve gotten a single personal exemption of $ 4,050 , for a taxable income of $ 7,500 .
That ’ s still in the 10 percent tax bracket , for a tax burden of $ 750 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childless people with incomes below $ 15,010 in 2017 , so this taxpayer wouldn ’ t have been eligible .
Tl ; dr : You don ’ t have to make a whole lot of money to pay more in taxes than Donald Trump That ’ s a lot of math , but the basic takeaway is this : $ 750 is not a whole lot of money to pay in federal income taxes .
It ’ s more than many people pay because the US has a highly progressive income tax that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , to be exact ) of the income distribution .
It ’ s normal for low-income , working-class people to pay $ 750 or less .
But it ’ s highly unusual for someone like Trump — who has a college degree , has served as a senior executive and investor for years , who has a net worth in the billions or at least hundreds of millions depending on who you ask — to only pay $ 750 .
And given the upward income skew of who actually votes in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly likely that most people voting on November 3 will have paid more in taxes in 2016 and 2017 than Donald Trump did .
That ’ s worth keeping in mind for political reasons .
People don ’ t like feeling like they ’ ve been cheated — and hearing that they paid more in taxes than a billionaire might trigger that feeling .
* A “ tax unit ” is the Tax Policy Center ’ s term for “ an individual , or a married couple , that files a tax return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their income were high enough , along with all dependents of that individual or married couple.
” As TPC explains , “ A tax unit is therefore different than a family or a household in certain situations .
For example , a cohabiting couple constitutes one household but if the individuals are not legally married , they would file separate tax returns and thus be considered two tax units.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as little as $ 3 .

On Sunday night, the New York Times revealed that it had obtained Donald Trump’s tax returns, and revealed that the president (whose net worth Forbes estimates at $2.5 billion) claimed to owe only $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017.
Obviously, the federal income tax is a tax on income, not wealth, but still — it seems odd that someone that rich would have only a $750 income tax burden. Mark Mazur, the director of the Tax Policy Center (America’s leading nonpartisan tax think tank) and a former assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department, told me that according to TPC’s models, about half of American tax units* paid more than $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.
The $750 number was especially striking to me given that I’ve done a little bit of volunteer tax preparation for low- and middle-income people, and prepared more than a few returns with a net amount owed higher than $750. So I knew that you didn’t necessarily need to make a lot of money to have an income tax burden that high — and I was curious exactly how much you had to make in 2017 to pay as much in taxes as Trump.
Taxes in the US depend heavily on your family structure, so I modeled three scenarios: a married couple with two kids; a single parent with two kids; and a single adult with no kids. I assumed that each tax unit took the standard deduction, rather than deducting mortgage interest, charitable donations, and other deductions, as this is the best practice for most middle-class people.
I further assumed that families took advantage of the child tax credit and earned income tax credit (EITC) where possible. I also double-checked each result with TAXSIM, a computer program from the National Bureau of Economic Research that replicates the federal tax code for every year from 1960 to 2023.
Here’s what I found:
Married couple, two kids
A married couple with two children would have had to earn $53,450 or more in 2017 to pay $750 or more in federal income taxes that year.
The married couple standard deduction was $12,700, and each of the household’s four members would have received a $4,050 personal exemption, so the couple’s taxable income was $24,550. That puts them in the 15 percent tax bracket, with a tax liability of $2,750. They wouldn’t qualify for the EITC, which was only available to households with two kids making under $45,007. But they would qualify for the child tax credit of $1,000 for each child, resulting in a net tax liability of $750.
Single parent, two kids
The single parent situation is trickier because a single father or mother at the break-even point with Trump would receive a small EITC. But assuming the single parent files as a head of household, she would have needed to earn $44,706 or more in 2017 to pay $750 or more in federal income taxes that year.
The head of household standard deduction (reserved for single adults with a “qualifying person” like a child or parent whom they take care of) was $9,350, and the single parent would get three $4,050 personal exemptions, one for herself and one for each of her kids. That puts her taxable income at $23,206, in the 15 percent bracket, for a tax burden before credits of $2,813. Her EITC would be $63, and she would get $1,000 each in child tax credit benefits from her children, for a final burden of $750.
Single adult, no kids
A single adult with no children would have had to earn $17,900 or more in 2017 to pay $750 or more in federal income taxes that year.
This is the simplest calculation, as there are no applicable tax credits at all (I’m assuming here the taxpayer did not have higher education expenses that would qualify for an American Opportunity or Lifelong Learning credit). The single adult standard deduction was $6,350, and the taxpayer would’ve gotten a single personal exemption of $4,050, for a taxable income of $7,500. That’s still in the 10 percent tax bracket, for a tax burden of $750. The EITC was only available to childless people with incomes below $15,010 in 2017, so this taxpayer wouldn’t have been eligible.
Tl;dr: You don’t have to make a whole lot of money to pay more in taxes than Donald Trump
That’s a lot of math, but the basic takeaway is this: $750 is not a whole lot of money to pay in federal income taxes. It’s more than many people pay because the US has a highly progressive income tax that largely exempts the bottom half (42.9 percent, to be exact) of the income distribution. It’s normal for low-income, working-class people to pay $750 or less.
But it’s highly unusual for someone like Trump — who has a college degree, has served as a senior executive and investor for years, who has a net worth in the billions or at least hundreds of millions depending on who you ask — to only pay $750. And given the upward income skew of who actually votes in America, relative to non-voters, it seems highly likely that most people voting on November 3 will have paid more in taxes in 2016 and 2017 than Donald Trump did.
That’s worth keeping in mind for political reasons. People don’t like feeling like they’ve been cheated — and hearing that they paid more in taxes than a billionaire might trigger that feeling.
* A “tax unit” is the Tax Policy Center’s term for “an individual, or a married couple, that files a tax return or would file a tax return if their income were high enough, along with all dependents of that individual or married couple.” As TPC explains, “A tax unit is therefore different than a family or a household in certain situations. For example, a cohabiting couple constitutes one household but if the individuals are not legally married, they would file separate tax returns and thus be considered two tax units.”


vox--2020-09-28--The stakes of the Senate, explained

The stakes of the Senate, explained

The battle for control of the US Senate is just as important as the one for the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ Biden becomes president , his chances of actually delivering on a bold agenda fall significantly @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
A gridlocked Congress has meant little progress on key issues like health @ @ @ @ @ and now economic recovery during the Covid-19 pandemic .
When it comes to this year @ @ @ @ @ multiple states look highly competitive for Democrats , including Colorado , Arizona , Maine , @ @ @ @ @ Montana , and Iowa .
Meanwhile , Republicans are on offense in two states : @ @ @ @ @ a large and expanding Senate map in 2020 , Vox is covering the key races @ @ @ @ @ explaining the policy implications if Democrats retake the Senate .
Here ’ s what you @ @ @ @ @ most important Senate races .

The battle for control of the US Senate is just as important as the one for the White House.
Even if Democratic nominee Joe Biden becomes president, his chances of actually delivering on a bold agenda fall significantly if Republicans retain control of the Senate. A gridlocked Congress has meant little progress on key issues like health care, climate change, and now economic recovery during the Covid-19 pandemic.
When it comes to this year’s Senate races, multiple states look highly competitive for Democrats, including Colorado, Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, Montana, and Iowa. Meanwhile, Republicans are on offense in two states: Alabama and Michigan. With a large and expanding Senate map in 2020, Vox is covering the key races, interviewing candidates, and explaining the policy implications if Democrats retake the Senate. Here’s what you need to know about the most important Senate races taking place across the nation this year.