vox--2020-09-14--Trump insists absentee ballots are fair but mail voting is corrupt. That’s nonsense.

Throughout the 2020 presidential election , as President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail as prone to fraud ( it ’ s not ) , he has also taken pains to distinguish between “ voting by mail ” and “ absentee voting.
” Given that Trump himself is voting absentee in 2020 , this hair-splitting on his part isn ’ t exactly shocking .
But Trump ’ s specific claims — that absentee voting and “ voting by mail ” are somehow different , and that absentee voters “ have to go through a whole process ” different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth addressing .
The short version is that there ’ s no firm distinction between absentee voting and voting by mail .
There ’ s a colloquial distinction between the two , but not a legal one .
And there ’ s no reason to think “ voting by mail , ” insofar as it informally refers to something different from “ absentee voting , ” is prone to fraud or other problems .
The difference between voting by mail and absentee voting “ Voting by mail ” is typically used to refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , and Utah — where all elections are conducted entirely by mail , and in the states of California , Nebraska , and North Dakota , where counties have the option to choose to conduct elections entirely by mail .
This year , California is going a step further due to Covid-19 and mailing ballots to every eligible voter , though some polling places will remain open .
Nebraska will be mailing absentee ballot applications to all voters , in addition to its normal all-mail elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that are not traditionally vote-by-mail states are sending out ballots to all registered and/or eligible voters this year due to the unique circumstances of the pandemic .
These states are New Jersey , Vermont , and Nevada , plus the District of Columbia .
Montana is allowing counties to decide whether to mail ballots to all .
“ Absentee voting , ” by contrast , tends to be used to refer to voting by mail in states or counties where the practice is not already universal .
In most states where voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee voting is available for any reason — that is , voters do not need to provide an excuse for why they aren ’ t voting in person — at least in the 2020 election , due to the pandemic .
This no-excuse absentee voting is available in major swing states like Florida , Pennsylvania , and Ohio .
In 10 states — Wisconsin , Michigan , Iowa , Nebraska ( as mentioned above ) , Massachusetts , Maryland , Delaware , Illinois , Connecticut , and New Mexico — every registered voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , making them similar to the states mailing actual ballots to everyone , albeit with an extra step in the process .
But some states require excuses to vote absentee .
The New York Times ’ s Juliette Love , Matt Stevens , and Lazaro Gamio looked up the state laws on this and note that Texas , Indiana , South Carolina , Louisiana , and Mississippi all require certain excuses for voters to receive absentee ballots .
New York did too until recently , but Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballots if they cite Covid-19 as a reason .
The excuses the states will accept vary widely , per the National Council of State Legislatures .
For instance , having a work shift during voting hours is a valid reason to request an absentee ballot in South Carolina and Louisiana , but not in Texas or New York .
South Carolina , Texas , Mississippi , Louisiana , and Indiana allow people above a certain age ( usually 65 ) to request absentee ballots without needing another excuse .
Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are incorrect In both absentee voting and “ vote by mail , ” insofar as they ’ re at all different , voter fraud is rare .
One reason for this is the steps states take to make fraud all but impossible .
For example , back in 2019 , the Pacific Standard ’ s Spenser Mestel explained Oregon ’ s process for verifying ballots in its all-mail system : In Oregon , both the absentee envelope and ballot have a barcode unique to each voter , and in the larger counties , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any discrepancies between the two , or any duplicate barcodes .
Then , a team of election workers trained in forensic handwriting analyzes the ballot signatures to verify the identification of the voter , who has two weeks to prove her identity should the signature be contested .
During this process , “ everything that is happening is on camera at all times , ” says Tayleranne Gillespie , the communications director for the Oregon Secretary of State .
“ No one ’ s ever by themselves counting ballots .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also important to note that , contrary to popular belief , absentee ballots don ’ t “ only count ” if an election is close .
They are often the last ballots to be counted , so often blowout elections are “ called ” by news services before every absentee ballot is tallied up .
But all votes are counted eventually .
Ballots that might have eligibility problems ( if , say , poll workers can ’ t confirm a voter is registered to vote ) are sometimes classified as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after being investigated .
But that ’ s a distinct issue from absentee ballots .
In short : Absentee and vote-by-mail are basically the same thing , both have low rates of fraud , and one of the two will be available to the vast majority of American voters on November 3 , 2020 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 today from as little as $ 3 .

Throughout the 2020 presidential election, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail as prone to fraud (it’s not), he has also taken pains to distinguish between “voting by mail” and “absentee voting.”
Given that Trump himself is voting absentee in 2020, this hair-splitting on his part isn’t exactly shocking. But Trump’s specific claims — that absentee voting and “voting by mail” are somehow different, and that absentee voters “have to go through a whole process” different from that for mail voters — are worth addressing.
Related How to vote by mail in 2020
The short version is that there’s no firm distinction between absentee voting and voting by mail. There’s a colloquial distinction between the two, but not a legal one. And there’s no reason to think “voting by mail,” insofar as it informally refers to something different from “absentee voting,” is prone to fraud or other problems.
The difference between voting by mail and absentee voting
“Voting by mail” is typically used to refer to voting in the five states — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah — where all elections are conducted entirely by mail, and in the states of California, Nebraska, and North Dakota, where counties have the option to choose to conduct elections entirely by mail.
This year, California is going a step further due to Covid-19 and mailing ballots to every eligible voter, though some polling places will remain open. Nebraska will be mailing absentee ballot applications to all voters, in addition to its normal all-mail elections in certain rural counties.
A few states that are not traditionally vote-by-mail states are sending out ballots to all registered and/or eligible voters this year due to the unique circumstances of the pandemic. These states are New Jersey, Vermont, and Nevada, plus the District of Columbia. Montana is allowing counties to decide whether to mail ballots to all.
“Absentee voting,” by contrast, tends to be used to refer to voting by mail in states or counties where the practice is not already universal. In most states where voting by mail isn’t universal, absentee voting is available for any reason — that is, voters do not need to provide an excuse for why they aren’t voting in person — at least in the 2020 election, due to the pandemic.
This no-excuse absentee voting is available in major swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In 10 states — Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska (as mentioned above), Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut, and New Mexico — every registered voter is getting mailed an absentee ballot application, making them similar to the states mailing actual ballots to everyone, albeit with an extra step in the process.
But some states require excuses to vote absentee. The New York Times’s Juliette Love, Matt Stevens, and Lazaro Gamio looked up the state laws on this and note that Texas, Indiana, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi all require certain excuses for voters to receive absentee ballots. New York did too until recently, but Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed legislation making all voters eligible for absentee ballots if they cite Covid-19 as a reason.
The excuses the states will accept vary widely, per the National Council of State Legislatures. For instance, having a work shift during voting hours is a valid reason to request an absentee ballot in South Carolina and Louisiana, but not in Texas or New York. South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Indiana allow people above a certain age (usually 65) to request absentee ballots without needing another excuse.
Trump’s claims about absentee voting and vote-by-mail fraud are incorrect
In both absentee voting and “vote by mail,” insofar as they’re at all different, voter fraud is rare. One reason for this is the steps states take to make fraud all but impossible. For example, back in 2019, the Pacific Standard’s Spenser Mestel explained Oregon’s process for verifying ballots in its all-mail system:
In Oregon, both the absentee envelope and ballot have a barcode unique to each voter, and in the larger counties, like Marion, a machine scans for any discrepancies between the two, or any duplicate barcodes. Then, a team of election workers trained in forensic handwriting analyzes the ballot signatures to verify the identification of the voter, who has two weeks to prove her identity should the signature be contested. During this process, “everything that is happening is on camera at all times,” says Tayleranne Gillespie, the communications director for the Oregon Secretary of State. “No one’s ever by themselves counting ballots. It’s always done in bipartisan teams.”
It’s also important to note that, contrary to popular belief, absentee ballots don’t “only count” if an election is close. They are often the last ballots to be counted, so often blowout elections are “called” by news services before every absentee ballot is tallied up. But all votes are counted eventually. Ballots that might have eligibility problems (if, say, poll workers can’t confirm a voter is registered to vote) are sometimes classified as “provisional ballots,” which are counted after being investigated. But that’s a distinct issue from absentee ballots.
In short: Absentee and vote-by-mail are basically the same thing, both have low rates of fraud, and one of the two will be available to the vast majority of American voters on November 3, 2020.


vox--2020-09-14--Congress’s failure to pass stimulus has had a devastating — and predictable — effect on minority gro

Congress’s failure to pass stimulus has had a devastating — and predictable — effect on minority groups

With white unemployment in single digits , minority unemployment in double digits , and policymakers cutting federal unemployment insurance by triple digits , the country finds itself in a situation similar to the one it faced during the Great Recession .
Now , just as then , minorities are bearing the brunt of the recession .
Now , just as then , policymakers are failing to account for that fact — and in doing so , are threatening to reinforce the United States ’ long-simmering racial inequalities .
The national unemployment rate fell to single digits in August , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conceals America ’ s racially stratified economy .
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , while white unemployment fell to 7.3 percent in August , the Black unemployment rate was at 13.0 percent , the Hispanic rate at 10.5 percent , and the rate for Asian Americans was 10.7 percent .
With unemployment of people of color still incredibly high , Congress has yet to approve another round of stimulus funding .
And the terms lawmakers are discussing would be less generous than earlier rounds of stimulus .
In their “ skinny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal unemployment insurance benefit — which gave Americans receiving unemployment an extra $ 600 a week , before the program expired in August — to $ 300 .
Congressional Democrats have remained adamant that a $ 600 per week benefit is necessary .
Meanwhile , some Democratic policy advisers , like former Obama economic council chair Jason Furman , have pushed Democratic lawmakers to compromise , suggesting that an extended unemployment program be reinstated at $ 400 per week .
“ The $ 600 a week boost to weekly unemployment checks may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutdown , ” Furman wrote on Twitter .
“ But with an [ unemployment rate ] of 8.4 % , it should change .
The President ’ s $ 400 is reasonable—but the Senate needs to actually pass it for it to be real.
” However , other experts — pointing to the higher unemployment rate for people of color — disagree .
“ Jason ’ s call is tone-deaf , ” William Spriggs , chief economist for the union group AFL-CIO , wrote in an email to Vox .
Spriggs noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color , but that a growing number of job losses are permanent , “ signaling the labor market is going to be very slow in recovering.
” That , coupled with the fact families of color have fewer liquid assets than white families , “ make the $ 600 necessary , ” Spriggs said .
For many Americans living this reality , the combination of absent government stimulus and financial hardship is crushing .
Just last week , a new NPR poll found “ 70 percent of Latinos in Los Angeles have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job losses and other economic impacts during the pandemic.
” To minority communities like these , and policymakers concerned about them , one thing is clear : Top-line statistics fail to capture all the events happening in a racially stratified economy , and policymakers should consider that in their stimulus .
The Covid-19 stimulus was generous until it wasn ’ t In the early days of the coronavirus recession , it seemed that American policymakers had learned from their Great Recession mistakes .
As researchers for the ACLU and the Social Science Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession and recovery had a racial slant .
Their “ Impact of the US Housing Crisis on the Racial Wealth Gap Across Generations ” report outlined “ a tale of two recoveries , ” noting that “ white households have started to rebound from the worst effects of the Great Recession while Black households are still struggling to make up lost ground.
” “ The divergent recoveries are important in the immediate term , but they are also an especially ominous sign for the future , ” the report ’ s co-authors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Unequal opportunity to rebuild wealth coming out of the crisis is leading to widening racial disparities.
” This time around , the expanded unemployment benefit appeared to be the type of recessionary policy that economists had long been calling to provide everyday Americans , particularly working-class people of color , a foothold in the economy .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Matthews notes , the $ 600 a week bump was “ a massive expansion in the generosity of the program , ” and it pushed the wage “ replacement rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wages below $ 600.
” But now , as the top-line unemployment numbers have come down , Congress has failed to come to any consensus on aid for its most vulnerable citizens , particularly minorities .
And this failure has left these Americans with no aid at all , abandoning them to suffer the effects of high unemployment in this unprecedented recession .
And despite past warnings about the difficulty people of color have in recovering from recessions , lawmakers are repeating the mistakes .
America fails to account for the disparate impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Economists like Michelle Holder , an assistant professor of economics at John Jay College , argue policymakers failed to address the specific and predictable economic hurdles minorities faced in the last recession , and that in not extending unemployment benefits with an extra $ 600 a week , they are threatening to do so again .
“ The unfortunate thing is that when our policymakers are proposing policies to deal with an economic and cyclical downturn , their approach is always a colorblind one , even under Obama , ” Holder says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic disparities for African Americans and other minority groups during the last recession .
Its $ 787 billion stimulus package was a contributing factor in Black Americans ’ prolonged double-digit unemployment during the last downturn , Holder notes .
Overall , providing insufficient stimulus during a time of great financial crisis has become a key criticism of the Obama administration , with scholars like Princeton ’ s Eddie Glaude Jr. going so far as to describe the Great Recession as the “ Great Black Depression.
” It ’ s based on these sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments against the reduction of the expanded unemployment insurance program pushed by many Republicans and some Democrats .
And it is important lawmakers keep in mind this recent history , and the mistakes that need to be avoided in designing future pandemic stimulus .
As Holder says , “ Those calling for the scaling back , for the elimination of unemployment insurance , are missing the reality , which is in this country , the burden of the recession is not equally distributed.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

With white unemployment in single digits, minority unemployment in double digits, and policymakers cutting federal unemployment insurance by triple digits, the country finds itself in a situation similar to the one it faced during the Great Recession. Now, just as then, minorities are bearing the brunt of the recession. Now, just as then, policymakers are failing to account for that fact — and in doing so, are threatening to reinforce the United States’ long-simmering racial inequalities.
The national unemployment rate fell to single digits in August, at 8.4 percent. However, that number conceals America’s racially stratified economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while white unemployment fell to 7.3 percent in August, the Black unemployment rate was at 13.0 percent, the Hispanic rate at 10.5 percent, and the rate for Asian Americans was 10.7 percent.
With unemployment of people of color still incredibly high, Congress has yet to approve another round of stimulus funding. And the terms lawmakers are discussing would be less generous than earlier rounds of stimulus. In their “skinny” stimulus bill, Republicans suggest setting the federal unemployment insurance benefit — which gave Americans receiving unemployment an extra $600 a week, before the program expired in August — to $300.
Congressional Democrats have remained adamant that a $600 per week benefit is necessary. Meanwhile, some Democratic policy advisers, like former Obama economic council chair Jason Furman, have pushed Democratic lawmakers to compromise, suggesting that an extended unemployment program be reinstated at $400 per week.
“The $600 a week boost to weekly unemployment checks may have made sense when the economy has shutdown,” Furman wrote on Twitter. “But with an [unemployment rate] of 8.4%, it should change. The President’s $400 is reasonable—but the Senate needs to actually pass it for it to be real.”
However, other experts — pointing to the higher unemployment rate for people of color — disagree.
“Jason’s call is tone-deaf,” William Spriggs, chief economist for the union group AFL-CIO, wrote in an email to Vox.
Spriggs noted that not only is unemployment high for people of color, but that a growing number of job losses are permanent, “signaling the labor market is going to be very slow in recovering.” That, coupled with the fact families of color have fewer liquid assets than white families, “make the $600 necessary,” Spriggs said.
For many Americans living this reality, the combination of absent government stimulus and financial hardship is crushing. Just last week, a new NPR poll found “70 percent of Latinos in Los Angeles have experienced serious financial problems because of the job losses and other economic impacts during the pandemic.” To minority communities like these, and policymakers concerned about them, one thing is clear: Top-line statistics fail to capture all the events happening in a racially stratified economy, and policymakers should consider that in their stimulus.
The Covid-19 stimulus was generous until it wasn’t
In the early days of the coronavirus recession, it seemed that American policymakers had learned from their Great Recession mistakes.
As researchers for the ACLU and the Social Science Research Council noted in 2015, the last recession and recovery had a racial slant. Their “Impact of the US Housing Crisis on the Racial Wealth Gap Across Generations” report outlined “a tale of two recoveries,” noting that “white households have started to rebound from the worst effects of the Great Recession while Black households are still struggling to make up lost ground.”
“The divergent recoveries are important in the immediate term, but they are also an especially ominous sign for the future,” the report’s co-authors, Sarah Burd-Sharps and Rebecca Rasch, wrote. “Unequal opportunity to rebuild wealth coming out of the crisis is leading to widening racial disparities.”
This time around, the expanded unemployment benefit appeared to be the type of recessionary policy that economists had long been calling to provide everyday Americans, particularly working-class people of color, a foothold in the economy. As Vox’s Dylan Matthews notes, the $600 a week bump was “a massive expansion in the generosity of the program,” and it pushed the wage “replacement rate beyond 100 percent for workers with weekly wages below $600.”
But now, as the top-line unemployment numbers have come down, Congress has failed to come to any consensus on aid for its most vulnerable citizens, particularly minorities. And this failure has left these Americans with no aid at all, abandoning them to suffer the effects of high unemployment in this unprecedented recession. And despite past warnings about the difficulty people of color have in recovering from recessions, lawmakers are repeating the mistakes.
America fails to account for the disparate impact of a downturn on communities of color
Economists like Michelle Holder, an assistant professor of economics at John Jay College, argue policymakers failed to address the specific and predictable economic hurdles minorities faced in the last recession, and that in not extending unemployment benefits with an extra $600 a week, they are threatening to do so again.
“The unfortunate thing is that when our policymakers are proposing policies to deal with an economic and cyclical downturn, their approach is always a colorblind one, even under Obama,” Holder says.
The Obama administration largely failed to address economic disparities for African Americans and other minority groups during the last recession. Its $787 billion stimulus package was a contributing factor in Black Americans’ prolonged double-digit unemployment during the last downturn, Holder notes. Overall, providing insufficient stimulus during a time of great financial crisis has become a key criticism of the Obama administration, with scholars like Princeton’s Eddie Glaude Jr. going so far as to describe the Great Recession as the “Great Black Depression.”
It’s based on these sharp disparities that economists like Holder make their arguments against the reduction of the expanded unemployment insurance program pushed by many Republicans and some Democrats. And it is important lawmakers keep in mind this recent history, and the mistakes that need to be avoided in designing future pandemic stimulus.
As Holder says, “Those calling for the scaling back, for the elimination of unemployment insurance, are missing the reality, which is in this country, the burden of the recession is not equally distributed.”


vox--2020-09-15--This week in TikTok: And the song of summer is ...

Hello from The Goods ’ twice-weekly newsletter !
On Tuesdays , internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what ’ s been going on in the world of TikTok .
Is there something you want to see more of ?
Less of ?
Different of ?
Email rebecca.jennings @ vox.com , and subscribe to The Goods ’ newsletter here .
I spent the majority of the past week on TikTok , for reasons having mostly to do with existential dread about the orange sky over half of the country among other national emergencies ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TikTok will exist in its current format — more on that later ) .
So instead of having one big section explaining one specific meme , today I ’ m just going to do a power ranking of the memes that keep showing up on my feed .
Let ’ s enjoy the inanity while we can !
• Coming in at No .
1 one : the song of summer , “ M to the B ” by British icon Millie B.
That ’ s not actually the name of the song @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grime artist went viral in 2016 and blew up on TikTok in August after famous e-girl Bella Poarch posted a video of herself head-bopping to it .
Hers is now the most-liked TikTok of all time ( 32 million ! )
, thanks to the hypnotizing zoom-in effect and Bella ’ s photogenic self , but most of all because of the absolute banger that is “ M to the B.
” It ’ s also caused a minor scandal among TikTokers who are angry because , they say , if their video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Bella ’ s , they ’ d be able to pay off their student loans or buy a car ( it ’ s unclear whether Bella has made any money directly from the video ) .
Algorithms , of course , are never fair and greatly privilege the beautiful .
Now , Millie herself wants a piece of the action — she ’ s joined TikTok and made a joke that it ’ s now “ her turn ” to profit off of the meme .
• Remember when teens were making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loving Harry Potter ?
This , as it turns out , is not a generational flaw but an internet-wide one .
Harry Potter — specifically fanfic about a love triangle involving Hogwarts hunks Cedric Diggory and Draco Malfoy — is all over TikTok , where users are inserting themselves into the Potterverse using clever editing tactics or creating aesthetics inspired by each house ( Slytherin is “ alt baddie , ” while Hufflepuff is “ soft arthoe , ” naturally ) .
It ’ s a very delightful mix of fashion month and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cringeworthy cosplay .
• Dr. Phil is begging you to stop calling him “ daddy.
” Using the popular meme format “ You have to stop , ” the founding father of daytime television pleads with the app ’ s legions of dark-humored horny 21-year-olds who have become ironically obsessed with him .
Which , fair .
• Send thoughts and prayers to your local McDonald ’ s workers this week : TikTokers are filming themselves at the drive-through ordering the new limited edition Travis Scott-branded burger by blasting the opening bars of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chagrin of exhausted cashiers .
Unfortunately for them , the videos are absolutely hysterical and are unlikely to stop until the promotion ends .
• A physics professor whose content mostly revolves around roasting students has totally taken over TikTok ’ s For You page .
It ’ s hard to explain exactly what Chris Sutherland does that makes him so watchable — there ’ s the fact that he only ever wears the same red button down shirt or his frequent use of the face stretch effect — but his videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some students do bad on tests ... just answer the questions lol ... ” reads the caption on one of his most-liked videos .
Commenters , meanwhile , respond with the same amount of vitriol ( e.g .
“ this man live on my fyp rent free go grade a paper or sum ” ) .
It ’ s almost like that very specific kind of dual respect and animosity you only have with really good teachers who teach really difficult things .
• There ’ s a guy on TikTok whose whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries ’ flags .
I know this sounds extremely silly , and it is .
Each video is set to the techno anthem “ I Love Poland , ” and over the past few weeks of its existence , the meme has spread and only become more absurd : People are now trying to find the Polish flag in other random JPGs , like a Snapchat screenshot of a girl crying because she walked in on her boyfriend cheating .
Now for the real news : • TikTok has a new owner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
The software company Oracle beat out Microsoft for the ultimate prize of Gen Z ’ s favorite app , although it ’ s not actually a sale — Oracle will be a “ trusted tech partner ” in the US , according to the WSJ , and the proposal will be reviewed by the US government this week .
Whether it will be enough to stave off a full TikTok ban in the US is still up in the air , and ditto whether Oracle will get its hands on the all-powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Yorker delves into how TikTokers are whitewashing Black music .
• Here ’ s the story of how a graphic suicide went viral on TikTok , and how difficult it can be to scrub horrifying videos like it from social platforms .
• The latest viral hit to spike on the platform : “ Mad at Disney , ” a cutesy song about how Disney movies create unrealistic expectations of romance .
Rolling Stone has the inside story of how the 21-year-old artist and her managers leveraged the platform to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All That is getting a remake .
It ’ s called He ’ s All That .
It ’ s starring a TikToker .
This parody of an influencer taste-testing overnight oats will trigger your fight-or-flight response !
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Hello from The Goods’ twice-weekly newsletter! On Tuesdays, internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what’s been going on in the world of TikTok. Is there something you want to see more of? Less of? Different of? Email rebecca.jennings@vox.com, and subscribe to The Goods’ newsletter here.
I spent the majority of the past week on TikTok, for reasons having mostly to do with existential dread about the orange sky over half of the country among other national emergencies (and also because who knows how long TikTok will exist in its current format — more on that later). So instead of having one big section explaining one specific meme, today I’m just going to do a power ranking of the memes that keep showing up on my feed. Let’s enjoy the inanity while we can!
Coming in at No. 1 one: the song of summer, “M to the B” by British icon Millie B. That’s not actually the name of the song; the diss track from the Blackpool grime artist went viral in 2016 and blew up on TikTok in August after famous e-girl Bella Poarch posted a video of herself head-bopping to it. Hers is now the most-liked TikTok of all time (32 million!), thanks to the hypnotizing zoom-in effect and Bella’s photogenic self, but most of all because of the absolute banger that is “M to the B.”
It’s also caused a minor scandal among TikTokers who are angry because, they say, if their video lip-syncing to a song went as viral as Bella’s, they’d be able to pay off their student loans or buy a car (it’s unclear whether Bella has made any money directly from the video). Algorithms, of course, are never fair and greatly privilege the beautiful. Now, Millie herself wants a piece of the action — she’s joined TikTok and made a joke that it’s now “her turn” to profit off of the meme.
Remember when teens were making fun of millennials whose whole personality is loving Harry Potter? This, as it turns out, is not a generational flaw but an internet-wide one. Harry Potter — specifically fanfic about a love triangle involving Hogwarts hunks Cedric Diggory and Draco Malfoy — is all over TikTok, where users are inserting themselves into the Potterverse using clever editing tactics or creating aesthetics inspired by each house (Slytherin is “alt baddie,” while Hufflepuff is “soft arthoe,” naturally). It’s a very delightful mix of fashion month and back-to-school, with a healthy dose of cringeworthy cosplay.
Dr. Phil is begging you to stop calling him “daddy.” Using the popular meme format “You have to stop,” the founding father of daytime television pleads with the app’s legions of dark-humored horny 21-year-olds who have become ironically obsessed with him. Which, fair.
Send thoughts and prayers to your local McDonald’s workers this week: TikTokers are filming themselves at the drive-through ordering the new limited edition Travis Scott-branded burger by blasting the opening bars of “Sicko Mode,” much to the chagrin of exhausted cashiers. Unfortunately for them, the videos are absolutely hysterical and are unlikely to stop until the promotion ends.
A physics professor whose content mostly revolves around roasting students has totally taken over TikTok’s For You page. It’s hard to explain exactly what Chris Sutherland does that makes him so watchable — there’s the fact that he only ever wears the same red button down shirt or his frequent use of the face stretch effect — but his videos are surreally antagonistic. “Why do some students do bad on tests ... just answer the questions lol ...” reads the caption on one of his most-liked videos. Commenters, meanwhile, respond with the same amount of vitriol (e.g. “this man live on my fyp rent free go grade a paper or sum”). It’s almost like that very specific kind of dual respect and animosity you only have with really good teachers who teach really difficult things.
There’s a guy on TikTok whose whole thing is finding the Polish flag within other countries’ flags. I know this sounds extremely silly, and it is. Each video is set to the techno anthem “I Love Poland,” and over the past few weeks of its existence, the meme has spread and only become more absurd: People are now trying to find the Polish flag in other random JPGs, like a Snapchat screenshot of a girl crying because she walked in on her boyfriend cheating.
Now for the real news:
TikTok in the news
TikTok has a new owner! Sort of! But not really! The software company Oracle beat out Microsoft for the ultimate prize of Gen Z’s favorite app, although it’s not actually a sale — Oracle will be a “trusted tech partner” in the US, according to the WSJ, and the proposal will be reviewed by the US government this week. Whether it will be enough to stave off a full TikTok ban in the US is still up in the air, and ditto whether Oracle will get its hands on the all-powerful For You page algorithm.
The New Yorker delves into how TikTokers are whitewashing Black music.
Here’s the story of how a graphic suicide went viral on TikTok, and how difficult it can be to scrub horrifying videos like it from social platforms.
The latest viral hit to spike on the platform: “Mad at Disney,” a cutesy song about how Disney movies create unrealistic expectations of romance. Rolling Stone has the inside story of how the 21-year-old artist and her managers leveraged the platform to make it a hit.
She’s All That is getting a remake. It’s called He’s All That. It’s starring a TikToker.
One Last Thing
This parody of an influencer taste-testing overnight oats will trigger your fight-or-flight response!


vox--2020-09-15--Last week was a disaster for voting rights in the courts

We are now less than two months from Election Day , and the next several weeks are likely to bring a rush of court decisions determining who is actually able to vote .
Both sides are gearing up for litigation .
Last May , Republicans announced they have a $ 20 million legal war chest .
Democrats have assembled a small army of hundreds of lawyers — including two former US solicitors general and a former US attorney general — hoping to counter the GOP ’ s legal team in fights over how ballots will be cast and who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any indication , the right to vote is unlikely to fare well in a judiciary that is increasingly dominated by Republicans : Voting rights cases out of Florida and Texas handed important victories to the GOP .
At least one of those victories is likely to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters altogether .
( In Wisconsin , Democrats fared better this week in a ballot-printing case . )
The Florida case involves a long-standing dispute over individuals with felony convictions .
In 2018 , Florida voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the state ’ s Republican-controlled legislature almost immediately enacted legislation seeking to prevent most of these individuals from actually being able to vote .
On Friday , in a party-line vote on Jones v. Governor of Florida , the Republican-controlled United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit backed the state legislature ’ s play — effectively disenfranchising most of the people Floridians voted to reinfranchise .
One day earlier , a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows voters over the age of 65 to obtain an absentee ballot upon request — thus avoid voting in-person in the middle of a pandemic — but prevents most younger voters from voting absentee .
This kind of age discrimination is highly dubious under the 26th Amendment , which provides that “ the right of citizens of the United States , who are eighteen years of age or older , to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
” Nevertheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upheld Texas ’ s law in Texas Democratic Party .
Jones involves a 2018 state constitutional amendment intended to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions .
Prior to that amendment , Florida residents with felony convictions effectively had to beg the state governor to restore their right to vote .
But the 2018 amendment was poorly drafted .
It provides that “ any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP-controlled state legislature enacted a law interpreting the words “ upon completion of all terms of sentence ” to require payment of all fines , fees , or costs contained in the original sentencing document .
As an expert witness explained during the trial phase of the Jones case , of the more than 1 million people who would otherwise have their rights restored due to the 2018 amendment , 77.4 percent owe at least some money .
Many of these individuals are indigent and can not afford to pay these costs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ system for these fines and fees is so disorganized that many individuals who can afford to pay can ’ t even figure out how much money they owe .
Often , the only record of how much money an individual owes the state is the original sentencing document from a trial that may have occurred decades ago .
Many counties charge a fee for a copy of this judgment , thus forcing individuals to pay a fee just to learn how much money they owe .
And some of these documents are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — meaning that it may be impossible for some people with felony convictions to discover how much money they owe .
Meanwhile , even if an individual is able to obtain a copy of the judgment against them , it ’ s often unclear which fees they must pay in order to regain their voting rights .
A Florida resident convicted of one felony and two misdemeanors , for example , might receive a judgment informing them that they owe $ 5,000 in fines for all three offenses combined .
But , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this $ 5,000 arises from the felony , they can not know how much of it they must pay in order to restore their rights .
And then there are problems within the state ’ s own accounting system .
As Judge Adalberto Jordan explains in a dissenting opinion in Jones , “ Florida has no record of restitution payments at all , except in the smaller number of cases when restitution is payable to or through the Clerk of Courts or the Department of Corrections ” ( “ restitution ” means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime ) .
Thus , many individuals who have already paid restitution have no way to confirm that they ’ ve done so .
The state , meanwhile , is supposed to have a process that screens individuals with felony convictions and tells them whether they ’ ve met their obligations , but that process is so slow that it ’ s practically nonexistent .
As Judge Jordan writes , the state “ has processed 0 out of 85,000 pending registrations of felons ( that ’ s not a misprint—it really is 0 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicting ( and uncodified ) methods for determining how ... payments by felons should be credited.
” Given these facts , Florida residents who are unable to even determine how much they owe presented a very strong argument that they were denied constitutionally required due process .
As the Supreme Court held in Chicago v. Morales ( 1999 ) , a criminal law may be unconstitutionally vague for two reasons .
It “ may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
” A law that forces voters to guess whether they have complied with the law — and then potentially subjects those voters to criminal penalties if they guess wrong — rather obviously is likely to lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement .
How is a voter supposed to defend themselves if a prosecutor accuses them of voting illegally when no one knows if that voter has met their legal obligations in the first place ?
Nevertheless , the 11th Circuit ’ s Republican majority , in an opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida ’ s law is not unconstitutionally vague .
The plaintiffs ’ concerns , Pryor wrote , “ arise not from a vague law but from factual circumstances that sometimes make it difficult to determine whether an incriminating fact exists.
” And that , according to Pryor and the five Trump appointees who joined his opinion , is sufficient reason to disenfranchise a huge swath of Florida voters .
The 85,000 new voters who ’ ve already registered are likely to be reluctant to cast a ballot for fear they may be prosecuted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fee .
And many thousands of other voters likely haven ’ t even bothered to register due to uncertainty about whether they may lawfully vote .
Most states permit all lawful voters to obtain an absentee ballot .
Texas is one of a handful of outlier states that only allows people to vote absentee if they provide a valid “ excuse , ” such as a claim that they will be away from their home county on Election Day .
In Texas , any voter over the age of 65 has a valid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee , but most younger voters must vote in person .
Texas Democratic Party challenges this age discrimination , citing the 26th Amendment ’ s statement that the right of citizens over the age of 18 “ shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
” A majority of the Fifth Circuit panel rejected this argument — somewhat surprisingly in an opinion joined by Judge Carolyn Dineen King , a left-leaning Carter appointee .
The majority opinion in Texas Democratic Party focuses largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment ’ s text — “ denied ” and “ abridged.
” Texas ’ s law does not “ deny ” voting rights to younger voters because they still have the option of voting in person .
More controversially , the majority defines the word “ abridged ” very narrowly .
“ We hold that an election law abridges a person ’ s right to vote for the purposes of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment only if it makes voting more difficult for that person than it was before the law was enacted or enforced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fifth Circuit .
The upshot of this holding is that Texas ’ s discriminatory law is constitutional because it did not take anything away from younger voters .
Prior to 1975 , the state treated older and younger voters the same .
In that year , the state enacted a law allowing voters over the age of 65 to vote absentee , while leaving younger voters in the same position they were in before .
Such a move , according to the Fifth Circuit , is fine .
The decision in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is acceptable under the 26th Amendment , just so long as a state doesn ’ t enact a law that makes younger voters worse off than they were before the law was enacted .
The partisan implications of this decision could be profound .
In recent elections , older voters have tended to prefer Republicans to Democrats — although recent polls show Democrat Joe Biden performing well among older voters .
If past trends hold , however , a law making it easier for older voters to cast their ballots is likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

We are now less than two months from Election Day, and the next several weeks are likely to bring a rush of court decisions determining who is actually able to vote.
Both sides are gearing up for litigation. Last May, Republicans announced they have a $20 million legal war chest. Democrats have assembled a small army of hundreds of lawyers — including two former US solicitors general and a former US attorney general — hoping to counter the GOP’s legal team in fights over how ballots will be cast and who will be counted.
If last week is any indication, the right to vote is unlikely to fare well in a judiciary that is increasingly dominated by Republicans: Voting rights cases out of Florida and Texas handed important victories to the GOP. At least one of those victories is likely to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters altogether. (In Wisconsin, Democrats fared better this week in a ballot-printing case.)
The Florida case involves a longstanding dispute over individuals with felony convictions. In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment intended to restore felons’ voting rights. But the state’s Republican-controlled legislature almost immediately enacted legislation seeking to prevent most of these individuals from actually being able to vote.
On Friday, in a party-line vote on Jones v. Governor of Florida, the Republican-controlled United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit backed the state legislature’s play — effectively disenfranchising most of the people Floridians voted to reinfranchise.
One day earlier, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott. That case involves an unusual Texas law that allows voters over the age of 65 to obtain an absentee ballot upon request — thus avoid voting in-person in the middle of a pandemic — but prevents most younger voters from voting absentee.
This kind of age discrimination is highly dubious under the 26th Amendment, which provides that “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” Nevertheless, a majority of the Fifth Circuit panel upheld Texas’s law in Texas Democratic Party.
The Florida case
Jones involves a 2018 state constitutional amendment intended to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions. Prior to that amendment, Florida residents with felony convictions effectively had to beg the state governor to restore their right to vote.
But the 2018 amendment was poorly drafted. It provides that “any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” Shortly after it took effect, the GOP-controlled state legislature enacted a law interpreting the words “upon completion of all terms of sentence” to require payment of all fines, fees, or costs contained in the original sentencing document.
As an expert witness explained during the trial phase of the Jones case, of the more than 1 million people who would otherwise have their rights restored due to the 2018 amendment, 77.4 percent owe at least some money. Many of these individuals are indigent and cannot afford to pay these costs.
Worse, the state’s record-keeping system for these fines and fees is so disorganized that many individuals who can afford to pay can’t even figure out how much money they owe.
Often, the only record of how much money an individual owes the state is the original sentencing document from a trial that may have occurred decades ago. Many counties charge a fee for a copy of this judgment, thus forcing individuals to pay a fee just to learn how much money they owe. And some of these documents are so old that they’ve been lost — meaning that it may be impossible for some people with felony convictions to discover how much money they owe.
Meanwhile, even if an individual is able to obtain a copy of the judgment against them, it’s often unclear which fees they must pay in order to regain their voting rights. A Florida resident convicted of one felony and two misdemeanors, for example, might receive a judgment informing them that they owe $5,000 in fines for all three offenses combined. But, because the judgment does not itemize which portion of this $5,000 arises from the felony, they cannot know how much of it they must pay in order to restore their rights.
And then there are problems within the state’s accounting system. As Judge Adalberto Jordan explains in a dissenting opinion in Jones, “Florida has no record of restitution payments at all, except in the smaller number of cases when restitution is payable to or through the Clerk of Courts or the Department of Corrections” (“restitution” means payments directly to the victim of a crime). Thus, many individuals who have already paid restitution have no way to confirm that they’ve done so.
The state, meanwhile, is supposed to have a process that screens individuals with felony convictions and tells them whether they’ve met their obligations, but that process is so slow that it’s practically nonexistent. As Jordan writes, the state “has processed 0 out of 85,000 pending registrations of felons (that’s not a misprint—it really is 0), and has come up with conflicting (and uncodified) methods for determining how ... payments by felons should be credited.”
Given these facts, Florida residents who are unable to even determine how much they owe presented a very strong argument that they were denied constitutionally required due process. As the Supreme Court held in Chicago v. Morales (1999), a criminal law may be unconstitutionally vague for two reasons. It “may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits,” or it “may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
A law that forces voters to guess whether they have complied with the law — and then potentially subjects those voters to criminal penalties if they guess wrong — rather obviously is likely to lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. How is a voter supposed to defend themselves if a prosecutor accuses them of voting illegally when no one knows if that voter has met their legal obligations in the first place?
Nevertheless, the 11th Circuit’s Republican majority, in an opinion by Judge William Pryor, held that Florida’s law is not unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiffs’ concerns, Pryor wrote, “arise not from a vague law but from factual circumstances that sometimes make it difficult to determine whether an incriminating fact exists.”
And that, according to Pryor and the five Trump appointees who joined his opinion, is sufficient reason to disenfranchise a huge swath of Florida voters. The 85,000 new voters who’ve already registered are likely to be reluctant to cast a ballot for fear they may be prosecuted later for failing to pay a hidden fee. And many thousands of other voters likely haven’t even bothered to register due to uncertainty about whether they may lawfully vote.
The Texas case
Most states permit all lawful voters to obtain an absentee ballot. Texas is one of a handful of outlier states that only allows people to vote absentee if they provide a valid “excuse,” such as a claim that they will be away from their home county on Election Day.
In Texas, any voter over the age of 65 has a valid “excuse” permitting them to vote absentee, but most younger voters must vote in person. Texas Democratic Party challenges this age discrimination, citing the 26th Amendment’s statement that the right of citizens over the age of 18 “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
A majority of the Fifth Circuit panel rejected this argument — somewhat surprisingly in an opinion joined by Judge Carolyn Dineen King, a left-leaning Carter appointee.
The majority opinion in Texas Democratic Party focuses largely on the two verbs in the 26th Amendment’s text — “denied” and “abridged.” Texas’s law does not “deny” voting rights to younger voters because they still have the option of voting in person. More controversially, the majority defines the word “abridged” very narrowly.
“We hold that an election law abridges a person’s right to vote for the purposes of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment only if it makes voting more difficult for that person than it was before the law was enacted or enforced,” Judge Leslie Southwick writes for the Fifth Circuit.
The upshot of this holding is that Texas’s discriminatory law is constitutional because it did not take anything away from younger voters. Prior to 1975, the state treated older and younger voters the same. In that year, the state enacted a law allowing voters over the age of 65 to vote absentee, while leaving younger voters in the same position they were in before.
Such a move, according to the Fifth Circuit, is fine. The decision in Texas Democratic Party effectively holds that age discrimination is acceptable under the 26th Amendment, just so long as a state doesn’t enact a law that makes younger voters worse off than they were before the law was enacted.
The partisan implications of this decision could be profound. In recent elections, older voters have tended to prefer Republicans to Democrats — although recent polls show Democrat Joe Biden performing well among older voters. If past trends hold, however, a law making it easier for older voters to cast their ballots is likely to benefit Republicans.


vox--2020-09-15--Bob Woodward’s new book Rage, and the controversies around it, explained

It ’ s a Washington tradition for a presidential administration to be roiled by a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward .
This time around , though , the headline-grabbing news isn ’ t from highly placed anonymous sources , but rather from comments that President Donald Trump made to Woodward , on the record , over the course of 18 interviews .
In early February , Trump privately told Woodward that the new coronavirus was “ more deadly ” than the flu , and that it “ goes through air ” — as he was publicly suggesting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then , as the virus ravaged New York City in mid-March , Trump told Woodward that he had wanted to “ play it down.
” Woodward taped these comments from Trump , and CNN published excerpts of the tapes in the lead-up to the September 15 release of the new book , Rage .
Widespread outrage ensued — some aimed at Trump , some aimed at Woodward himself for not publishing this apparently newsworthy material months ago .
I ’ ve now read the full book , so here ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrounding it .
Woodward rose to fame as half of the Washington Post ’ s “ Woodward and Bernstein ” reporting duo that helped expose the Nixon administration ’ s Watergate cover-up — triggering a scandal that led to Nixon ’ s resignation .
But in recent decades , Woodward ’ s main reporting interest has been using his Washington connections to report and write books about what ’ s going on in the highest levels of the US government , especially the presidency .
( He has written two books on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush administration , two on the Obama administration , and now two on Trump . )
The books have tried to put readers “ in the room , ” depicting what happens behind closed doors .
To do that , Woodward relies on the cooperation and anonymized accounts of top-level government officials .
He then presents a narrative , based on sources and sometimes documents , in an omniscient style , but largely focused on certain characters .
One oddity of his approach is that the identities of his major sources often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on at great length about certain people ’ s “ thoughts , ” but not others .
His last book , Fear , appeared to be mainly told from the perspectives of four since-departed White House officials — Rob Porter , Gary Cohn , Steve Bannon , and Reince Priebus — as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) and Trump ’ s former lawyer John Dowd .
At their best , Woodward ’ s books are deeply revealing about policymaking and government .
But his critics have long argued that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are heavily skewed toward his major sources ’ points of view and priorities , and portray those who didn ’ t talk as ciphers or villains .
The reality is a bit more nuanced ( talking a lot doesn ’ t guarantee you a good portrayal , as Trump found here ) , but his readers are absolutely getting a particular version of what happened , as told by particular people .
What is Woodward ’ s new book about ?
As Woodward explains , the plan for Rage changed while he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is basically divided into two halves .
The book ’ s first half touches on several topics related to national security , most prominently Trump ’ s threats to and subsequent diplomacy with North Korea .
The major sources here appear to be former Secretary of Defense James Mattis , former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats , and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ( or people close to them ) .
These three officials ’ difficult relationships with the president , their doubts about the president , and their eventual departures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We also get a few brief detours into other topics , such as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ’ s version of why he appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation .
Then , as the book ’ s second half begins , two things happen at around the same time : President Trump does the first of an eventual 18 interviews with Woodward , and the Covid-19 pandemic breaks out .
So Woodward ’ s attention shifts to chronicling the US ’ s response to the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be telling him on that as well as sundry other topics .
The main characters and likely sources here , besides the president , are National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien , Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) Director Robert Redfield , and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci .
Trump ’ s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner also gets some attention , though the sourcing of the material about him is less clear .
As for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reference to a Trump quote in a 2016 Woodward interview , in which he said “ I bring rage out ” in people .
What ’ s the biggest news from the book ?
By far the most attention-getting news from the book has been Trump ’ s comments on the coronavirus .
On February 7 , Trump called Woodward and surprisingly brought up the coronavirus when there were few confirmed cases in the US , and when impeachment had been dominating the news .
Trump opened by saying that there was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the virus going on in China , ” and that he ’ d spoken with President Xi Jinping the previous night .
“ We were talking mostly about the virus , and I think he ’ s gon na have it in good shape , but it ’ s a very tricky situation , ” Trump said .
“ It goes through air , Bob , that ’ s always tougher than the touch .
... You just breathe the air and that ’ s how it ’ s passed.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very tricky one .
That ’ s a very delicate one .
It ’ s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.
” Apparently speaking about mortality rates , he says : “ This is 5 percent versus 1 percent and less than 1 percent .
You know ?
So , this is deadly stuff.
” However , he went on to say that he thinks the Chinese have it under control , and that “ I think that that goes away in two months with the heat , ” because “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill the virus.
” Here , and notably early , Trump is saying ( in private ) both that the virus can spread through the air and that it ’ s very deadly and dangerous .
This is quite different from what he was saying in public .
In the coming weeks , Trump would publicly say the virus was similar to the flu , and would argue that mortality rates wouldn ’ t be so high .
Then , in another conversation with Woodward on March 19 — once New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country had begun to shut down , and Trump ’ s public commentary had become more pessimistic — Woodward asked Trump when his thinking on the seriousness of the threat had changed .
“ I wanted to always play it down , ” Trump said .
“ I still like playing it down , because I don ’ t want to create a panic.
” These comments — which can be heard on tapes provided to CNN — have gotten enormous attention .
Many interpreted them , together , as Trump revealing he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then confessing that he deliberately misled the American public about that threat .
Overall , Woodward concludes , as he said in an interview with NBC , that Trump “ possessed specific knowledge that could have saved lives ” had he made it public earlier .
Did Bob Woodward possess specific knowledge that could have saved lives ?
News of Trump ’ s comments to Woodward first got out last Wednesday , as part of a promotional push in advance of his book ’ s release Tuesday .
And very quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he saved the tapes — recorded in February and March , for his book release in September , rather than publishing them at the time , when the pandemic was beginning in the US .
“ For months many dismissed serious/need for distancing/need for masks , citing Trump , ” Wesley Lowery , a former Washington Post journalist now at CBS News , tweeted .
“ Reporting that Trump said privately how deadly COVID is/that it spread airborne could have changed those people ’ s behavior & saved lives.
” Meanwhile , Charles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Woodward knew “ the truth ” and “ kept it to himself because he had a book to sell.
” Trump himself has embraced this line of criticism as well , though his point was to argue that Woodward ’ s slowness to publish reveals his comments aren ’ t as bad as critics are saying : Woodward has offered a few points in response .
For one , he told the Washington Post ’ s Margaret Sullivan he wasn ’ t sure whether Trump ’ s February comments about the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate — and he feared that rushing to publish unsourced Trump claims could have spread misinformation about the virus .
For instance , in the same call with Woodward , Trump also mused that the virus would probably go away in warmer weather , which did not happen .
Also , even weeks after these Trump comments , public health officials like Fauci were saying the virus posed little threat to the US .
Some have pointed to Trump ’ s comment that the virus spreads through “ air ” as a particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew early .
Debate raged for months over whether the virus spread primarily through “ droplets ” ( small particles that linger briefly in the air ) or also through “ aerosols ” ( even smaller particles that can float longer in the air ) .
The World Health Organization didn ’ t officially acknowledge until July that aerosol transmission may occur .
Yet Woodward does not unearth any briefing or call where Trump is told about airborne spread , and Trump ’ s fuller comments are contrasting a virus you can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with one you get through “ the touch ” ( like , for instance , Ebola ) .
So it ’ s not clear if Trump actually had substantive information here and if so where he got it , or whether he was using a layman ’ s description of droplet transmission ( since after all , droplets are in the air ) .
Trump himself said last week that “ everyone knew ” the virus was transmitted through the air at the time — which is true about droplets , though not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting to publish also hinges on the timeline of his reporting as Trump ’ s various phases of responses to the virus .
In February , Trump was publicly downplaying the threat , and then , Woodward says , he hadn ’ t accomplished the reporting necessary to confirm what Trump told him in private .
Then , by mid-March ( when Trump admitted to Woodward he had liked to “ play it down ” ) , Trump had adopted more serious public rhetoric on the virus ’ s threat and was encouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to everyone that it was deadly .
Trump later pivoted away from this stance , and back toward denialism and downplaying later in the spring .
And Woodward said he finally got sources to reconstruct some of Trump ’ s early coronavirus briefings in late May .
So Sullivan asked Woodward why he didn ’ t publish the tapes then , when Trump was back in denial mode .
Woodward ’ s answer was that he conceived of this reporting as for a book , wanted it released in book form , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What else is in the book ?
The newsworthy material in Rage falls into two main categories : stuff Woodward ’ s sources provided , and comments Trump himself made .
In the former category , we learn : • As the US and North Korea exchanged threats in mid-2017 , Mattis thought an accidental war was far more likely than most Americans understood at the time .
• Dan Coats , Trump ’ s former director of national intelligence , deeply suspected throughout his tenure that “ Putin had something on Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back that up ) .
• Mattis and Coats spoke in May 2019 ( after Mattis had resigned but while Coats was still in the administration ) , and Mattis called Trump “ dangerous ” and “ unfit , ” and suggested they speak out together against him .
( They didn ’ t . )
• After Trump turned toward diplomacy with North Korea , Kim Jong Un wrote him 27 fawning letters that Woodward obtained and reviewed .
( The main takeaway is that Kim can be an enthusiastic flatterer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in late January and February , top National Security Council officials sounded the alarm the loudest due to distrust of China .
• Meanwhile , top health officials like Fauci and Redfield were slower to grasp the gravity of the situation , and in February they often made ominous comments in private but downplayed the threat of the virus in public .
As far as Trump ’ s own comments , beyond the pandemic material , here ’ s what stands out in all the rambling : • When Woodward asked whether “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trump needed to try harder “ to understand the anger and pain ” that “ Black people feel in this country , ” Trump responded mockingly , saying that Woodward had “ really drank the Kool-Aid ” and that he didn ’ t share that belief at all .
• Trump bragged to Woodward that he ’ s “ built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody ’ s ever had in this country before , ” and Woodward subsequently confirmed from sources that the US did have “ a secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unclear what this is about , though there are theories . )
Finally , Woodward arrives at the conclusion that Trump is “ the wrong man for the job , ” an assessment delivered with much gravity from a sober-minded reporter , but one that can hardly be a surprise for many readers .
Why did Trump talk to Woodward ?
Both the president ’ s allies and his critics have been baffled that he spent so much time talking to Woodward in such an unguarded way .
Fox News host Tucker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Graham for convincing Trump to cooperate , but Graham didn ’ t force Trump to talk to Woodward 18 separate times — this was Trump ’ s decision .
Indeed , Trump several times called Woodward out of the blue to talk , without anything officially being scheduled .
The explanation for Trump ’ s chattiness is probably pretty simple : He refused to talk for Woodward ’ s last book , didn ’ t like how that one turned out , and therefore wanted to at least try to charm and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully aware that it might not work , and mentioned that possibility to Woodward in real time , repeatedly musing that the book would make him look terrible .
( Referencing former President George W. Bush , Trump said , “ He spent all that time with you , and you made him look like a fool.
” ) It ’ s also possible that Trump was misled by the Washington conventional wisdom that people who talk to Woodward get rosier portrayals in his books .
There ’ s some truth to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t really cooperate in the way Woodward prefers — by walking through his decisions and mentality at key moments in an orderly way , to provide building blocks for the book ’ s narrative .
Instead , Trump repeatedly ignored Woodward ’ s specific questions to instead talk about whatever he wanted .
For instance , Woodward asked him what he was thinking at the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un , and Trump said there were a lot of cameras there .
Woodward pleaded repeatedly that this would be for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was unmoved .
“ He was on his track and he would stay there , ” Woodward writes .
The overall effect is that Trump hijacks the book as soon as he starts talking .
As a result , much of the book ’ s second half is an authentic portrait of what it ’ s like to talk to Donald Trump : scattershot , tedious , frustrating , and occasionally outrageous .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

It’s a Washington tradition for a presidential administration to be roiled by a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.
This time around, though, the headline-grabbing news isn’t from highly placed anonymous sources, but rather from comments that President Donald Trump made to Woodward, on the record, over the course of 18 interviews.
In early February, Trump privately told Woodward that the new coronavirus was “more deadly” than the flu, and that it “goes through air” — as he was publicly suggesting that the virus was similar to the flu. Then, as the virus ravaged New York City in mid-March, Trump told Woodward that he had wanted to “play it down.”
Woodward taped these comments from Trump, and CNN published excerpts of the tapes in the lead-up to the September 15 release of the new book, Rage. Widespread outrage ensued — some aimed at Trump, some aimed at Woodward himself for not publishing this apparently newsworthy material months ago. I’ve now read the full book, so here’s a guide to its revelations and the controversies surrounding it.
What is a Bob Woodward book?
Woodward rose to fame as half of the Washington Post’s “Woodward and Bernstein” reporting duo that helped expose the Nixon administration’s Watergate cover-up — triggering a scandal that led to Nixon’s resignation. But in recent decades, Woodward’s main reporting interest has been using his Washington connections to report and write books about what’s going on in the highest levels of the US government, especially the presidency. (He has written two books on the Clinton administration, four on the George W. Bush administration, two on the Obama administration, and now two on Trump.)
The books have tried to put readers “in the room,” depicting what happens behind closed doors. To do that, Woodward relies on the cooperation and anonymized accounts of top-level government officials. He then presents a narrative, based on sources and sometimes documents, in an omniscient style, but largely focused on certain characters.
One oddity of his approach is that the identities of his major sources often seem very obvious, because he goes on at great length about certain people’s “thoughts,” but not others. His last book, Fear, appeared to be mainly told from the perspectives of four since-departed White House officials — Rob Porter, Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon, and Reince Priebus — as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trump’s former lawyer John Dowd.
At their best, Woodward’s books are deeply revealing about policymaking and government. But his critics have long argued that his accounts, far from being neutral, are heavily skewed toward his major sources’ points of view and priorities, and portray those who didn’t talk as ciphers or villains. The reality is a bit more nuanced (talking a lot doesn’t guarantee you a good portrayal, as Trump found here), but his readers are absolutely getting a particular version of what happened, as told by particular people.
What is Woodward’s new book about?
As Woodward explains, the plan for Rage changed while he was working on it, and the book is basically divided into two halves.
The book’s first half touches on several topics related to national security, most prominently Trump’s threats to and subsequent diplomacy with North Korea. The major sources here appear to be former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (or people close to them).
These three officials’ difficult relationships with the president, their doubts about the president, and their eventual departures from the administration are all chronicled. We also get a few brief detours into other topics, such as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s version of why he appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation.
Then, as the book’s second half begins, two things happen at around the same time: President Trump does the first of an eventual 18 interviews with Woodward, and the Covid-19 pandemic breaks out. So Woodward’s attention shifts to chronicling the US’s response to the pandemic, but he also intersperses whatever Trump happens to be telling him on that as well as sundry other topics.
The main characters and likely sources here, besides the president, are National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner also gets some attention, though the sourcing of the material about him is less clear.
As for the title, it’s a reference to a Trump quote in a 2016 Woodward interview, in which he said “I bring rage out” in people.
What’s the biggest news from the book?
By far the most attention-getting news from the book has been Trump’s comments on the coronavirus.
On February 7, Trump called Woodward and surprisingly brought up the coronavirus when there were few confirmed cases in the US, and when impeachment had been dominating the news. Trump opened by saying that there was “a little bit of an interesting setback with the virus going on in China,” and that he’d spoken with President Xi Jinping the previous night.
“We were talking mostly about the virus, and I think he’s gonna have it in good shape, but it’s a very tricky situation,” Trump said. “It goes through air, Bob, that’s always tougher than the touch. ... You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed.”
He continued: “That’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.” Apparently speaking about mortality rates, he says: “This is 5 percent versus 1 percent and less than 1 percent. You know? So, this is deadly stuff.” However, he went on to say that he thinks the Chinese have it under control, and that “I think that that goes away in two months with the heat,” because “as it gets hotter that tends to kill the virus.”
Here, and notably early, Trump is saying (in private) both that the virus can spread through the air and that it’s very deadly and dangerous. This is quite different from what he was saying in public. In the coming weeks, Trump would publicly say the virus was similar to the flu, and would argue that mortality rates wouldn’t be so high.
Then, in another conversation with Woodward on March 19 — once New York City was reeling from the virus, the country had begun to shut down, and Trump’s public commentary had become more pessimistic — Woodward asked Trump when his thinking on the seriousness of the threat had changed. “I wanted to always play it down,” Trump said. “I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”
These comments — which can be heard on tapes provided to CNN — have gotten enormous attention. Many interpreted them, together, as Trump revealing he fully understood the threat of the virus, and then confessing that he deliberately misled the American public about that threat. Overall, Woodward concludes, as he said in an interview with NBC, that Trump “possessed specific knowledge that could have saved lives” had he made it public earlier.
Did Bob Woodward possess specific knowledge that could have saved lives?
News of Trump’s comments to Woodward first got out last Wednesday, as part of a promotional push in advance of his book’s release Tuesday.
And very quickly, Woodward started to get asked why he saved the tapes — recorded in February and March — for his book release in September, rather than publishing them at the time, when the pandemic was beginning in the US.
“For months many dismissed serious/need for distancing/need for masks, citing Trump,” Wesley Lowery, a former Washington Post journalist now at CBS News, tweeted. “Reporting that Trump said privately how deadly COVID is/that it spread airborne could have changed those people’s behavior & saved lives.” Meanwhile, Charles Pierce, writing for Esquire, claimed that Woodward knew “the truth” and “kept it to himself because he had a book to sell.”
Trump has embraced this line of criticism as well, though his point was to argue that Woodward’s slowness to publish reveals his comments aren’t as bad as critics are saying:
Bob Woodward had my quotes for many months. If he thought they were so bad or dangerous, why didn’t he immediately report them in an effort to save lives? Didn’t he have an obligation to do so? No, because he knew they were good and proper answers. Calm, no panic! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 10, 2020
Woodward has offered a few points in response. For one, he told the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan he wasn’t sure whether Trump’s February comments about the virus’s severity and airborne spread was accurate — and he feared that rushing to publish unsourced Trump claims could have spread misinformation about the virus. For instance, in the same call with Woodward, Trump also mused that the virus would probably go away in warmer weather, which did not happen. Also, even weeks after these Trump comments, public health officials like Fauci were saying the virus posed little threat to the US.
Some have pointed to Trump’s comment that the virus spreads through “air” as a particularly significant bit of potentially lifesaving information that Trump knew early. Debate raged for months over whether the virus spread primarily through “droplets” (small particles that linger briefly in the air) or also through “aerosols” (even smaller particles that can float longer in the air). The World Health Organization didn’t officially acknowledge until July that aerosol transmission may occur.
Yet Woodward does not unearth any briefing or call where Trump is told about airborne spread, and Trump’s fuller comments are contrasting a virus you can get when you “breathe the air” with one you get through “the touch” (like, for instance, Ebola). So it’s not clear if Trump actually had substantive information here and, if so, where he got it, or whether he was using a layperson’s description of droplet transmission (since after all, droplets are in the air). Trump himself said last week that “everyone knew” the virus was transmitted through the air at the time — which is true about droplets, though not aerosols.
Woodward’s defense for waiting to publish also hinges on how the timeline of his reporting intersects with Trump’s various phases of responses to the virus. In February, Trump was publicly downplaying the threat, and then, Woodward says, he hadn’t accomplished the reporting necessary to confirm what Trump told him in private. Then, by mid-March (when Trump admitted to Woodward he had liked to “play it down”), Trump had adopted more serious public rhetoric on the virus’s threat and was encouraging social distancing, and it was evident to everyone that it was deadly.
Trump later pivoted away from this stance, and back toward denialism and downplaying later in the spring. And Woodward said he finally got sources to reconstruct some of Trump’s early coronavirus briefings in late May. So Sullivan asked Woodward why he didn’t publish the tapes then, when Trump was back in denial mode. Woodward’s answer was that he conceived of this reporting as for a book, wanted it released in book form, and wanted it timed before the election.
What else is in the book?
The newsworthy material in Rage falls into two main categories: stuff Woodward’s sources provided, and comments Trump himself made. In the former category, we learn:
As the US and North Korea exchanged threats in mid-2017, Mattis thought an accidental war was far more likely than most Americans understood at the time.
Dan Coats, Trump’s former director of national intelligence, deeply suspected throughout his tenure that “Putin had something on Trump” (but also saw no evidence to back that up).
Mattis and Coats spoke in May 2019 (after Mattis had resigned but while Coats was still in the administration), and Mattis called Trump “dangerous” and “unfit,” and suggested they speak out together against him. (They didn’t.)
After Trump turned toward diplomacy with North Korea, Kim Jong Un wrote him 27 fawning letters that Woodward obtained and reviewed. (The main takeaway is that Kim can be an enthusiastic flatterer.)
As the coronavirus spread in late January and February, top National Security Council officials sounded the alarm the loudest due to distrust of China.
Meanwhile, top health officials like Fauci and Redfield were slower to grasp the gravity of the situation, and in February they often made ominous comments in private but downplayed the threat of the virus in public.
As far as Trump’s own comments, beyond the pandemic material, here’s what stands out in all the rambling:
When Woodward asked whether “white, privileged people” like him and Trump needed to try harder “to understand the anger and pain” that “Black people feel in this country,” Trump responded mockingly, saying that Woodward had “really drank the Kool-Aid” and that he didn’t share that belief at all.
Trump bragged to Woodward that he’s “built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before,” and Woodward subsequently confirmed from sources that the US did have “a secret new weapons system.” (It’s unclear what this is about, though there are theories.)
Finally, Woodward arrives at the conclusion that Trump is “the wrong man for the job,” an assessment delivered with much gravity from a sober-minded reporter, but one that can hardly be a surprise for many readers.
Why did Trump talk to Woodward?
Both the president’s allies and his critics have been baffled that he spent so much time talking to Woodward in such an unguarded way. Fox News host Tucker Carlson tried to place the blame on Lindsey Graham for convincing Trump to cooperate, but Graham didn’t force Trump to talk to Woodward 18 separate times — this was Trump’s decision. Indeed, Trump several times called Woodward out of the blue to talk, without anything officially being scheduled.
The explanation for Trump’s chattiness is probably pretty simple: He refused to talk for Woodward’s last book, didn’t like how that one turned out, and therefore wanted to at least try to charm and spin him this time. He was fully aware that it might not work, and mentioned that possibility to Woodward in real time, repeatedly musing that the book would make him look terrible. (Referencing former President George W. Bush, Trump said, “He spent all that time with you, and you made him look like a fool.”)
It’s also possible that Trump was misled by the Washington conventional wisdom that people who talk to Woodward get rosier portrayals in his books. There’s some truth to that, but the problem is that Trump didn’t really cooperate in the way Woodward prefers — by walking through his decisions and mentality at key moments in an orderly way, to provide building blocks for the book’s narrative.
Instead, Trump repeatedly ignored Woodward’s specific questions to instead talk about whatever he wanted. For instance, Woodward asked him what he was thinking at the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, and Trump said there were a lot of cameras there. Woodward pleaded repeatedly that this would be for “the serious history,” but Trump was unmoved. “He was on his track and he would stay there,” Woodward writes.
The overall effect is that Trump hijacks the book as soon as he starts talking. As a result, much of the book’s second half is an authentic portrait of what it’s like to have a rolling, months-long conversation with Donald Trump: scattershot, tedious, frustrating, and occasionally outrageous.