vox--2020-08-11--The legal questions surrounding Trump’s new executive orders, answered

On Saturday , President Donald Trump signed four memorandums and executive orders that , he claimed , would provide relief to Americans struggling financially during the Covid-19 pandemic .
One order purports to provide enhanced unemployment benefits to some Americans — although on less generous terms than the recently expired benefits provided by the CARES Act .
A second defers payment of payroll taxes .
A third directs several federal agencies to take vague , unspecified actions regarding evictions and foreclosures .
And a fourth defers payments on federal student loans .
Trump ’ s four executive actions come after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace the CARES Act appear to have stalemated .
Though House Democrats passed a $ 3 trillion replacement for the CARES Act in May , Republicans did not present their $ 1 trillion counteroffer until late July — just days before key provisions of the CARES Act expired .
The Republican proposal was also larded with poison pills , such as a bill that would immunize most businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits , that earned swift rebukes from Democratic leaders .
Not long after Trump signed the four executive actions , a bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to steal away Congress ’ s power to set the nation ’ s fiscal policy .
Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) called Trump ’ s actions “ unconstitutional slop.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN that “ as my constitutional advisers tell me , they ’ re absurdly unconstitutional.
” But the reality is more nuanced .
With one possible exception — there is a strong legal argument against Trump ’ s unemployment benefits order — Trump ’ s four actions are probably legal .
The problem with these actions isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be blocked by a federal court ; it ’ s that , with one exception , federal law places fairly rigid constraints on the president ’ s ability to provide pandemic relief .
And Trump largely appears to be complying with those constraints .
One measure may prove workable : the memorandum deferring payment of student loans .
That memo appears to be lawful , and is likely to provide real relief to many borrowers .
Otherwise , there is less to Trump ’ s actions than the president would like voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear whether anyone will receive enhanced unemployment benefits , due to the many legal constraints on those benefits .
And even if those benefits are paid , they will be paid out of a limited pool of funds that will run out of money quickly .
Similarly , while Trump deferred payments of some taxes , he can ’ t relieve taxpayers of their obligation to eventually pay those taxes .
For this reason , according to University of Chicago tax law professor Daniel Hemel , “ many employers will continue to withhold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be on the hook for the $ $ $ next year.
” Trump ’ s actions , in other words , appear largely legal .
They just won ’ t accomplish very much .
Trump ’ s new policy on unemployment benefits has many problems , only one of which is that it may be illegal Of the four executive actions Trump signed , the one that likely crosses the line in terms of legality concerns unemployment benefits .
On the surface , Trump ’ s unemployment benefits memo seems to restore some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act expired at the end of July .
Under the CARES Act , people collecting unemployment benefits received $ 600 in federal funds weekly in addition to the other benefits they were entitled to receive every week .
Trump ’ s memo calls for $ 400 of these enhanced benefits to be restored to some unemployed people — although not for the lowest-income recipients of unemployment benefits .
But it ’ s far from clear that Trump has statutory authority to make these payments .
And even if he does , Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited that it is far from clear who , if anyone , will receive the $ 400 in weekly benefits and how long those benefits will last .
For the unemployment insurance memorandum , Trump relies on a provision of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act that permits the president to “ provide financial assistance ” to victims of a major disaster , such as a pandemic , to help “ address personal property , transportation , and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 44 billion ” in disaster relief funds to be spent to provide most unemployed people with $ 300 — not the full $ 400 the memo seeks to provide to unemployed people — in federal benefits a week .
Why only $ 300 ?
Because federal regulations provide that the federal share of such disaster relief “ shall be 75 percent.
” The remaining quarter of the relief funds “ shall be paid from funds made available by the State.
” So if Trump wants individuals to receive $ 400 a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come from the states .
That ’ s a serious problem , given the tremendous fiscal burden the pandemic has imposed on state governments .
According to a July paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ’ Elizabeth McNichol and Michael Leachman , “ the state budget shortfalls expected from COVID-19 ’ s economic fallout will total a cumulative $ 555 billion over state fiscal years 2020-2022.
” States , moreover , have far less power to borrow funds during lean economic times than the federal government .
At least 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deficit spending is simply off the table .
It ’ s far from clear that any of these states will be able to find the money to pay an additional $ 100 a week in unemployment benefits even if they want to .
Bear in mind , as well , that Trump ’ s memo only calls for $ 44 billion to be spent on unemployment benefits .
As Georgetown University law and economics professor David Super writes , “ with roughly 25 million people receiving unemployment benefits , the $ 300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would last about six weeks , or until mid-September.
” At that point , unemployed people would be in the same boat they ’ re in now .
The $ 44 billion could last longer , of course — if many states do not participate in this program .
Super also points to another problem with Trump ’ s memo : It may be illegal .
Although one provision of the Stafford Act allows the president to “ provide financial assistance ” to disaster victims with relatively few restrictions , a separate provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the unemployed that do “ not exceed the maximum weekly amount authorized under the unemployment compensation law of the State in which the disaster occurred.
” But the whole point of the enhanced unemployment benefits is to provide additional funding on top of the amount authorized by state law .
Super argues that this provision dealing specifically with unemployment benefits trumps the more general provision allowing the president to “ provide financial assistance ” more broadly .
Often , when two statutory provisions are in tension with each other , courts hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more general provision .
But even if Trump does have the statutory authority to provide enhanced unemployment benefits , those benefits will be short-lived and likely will not be available in many states — if they are available at all .
Trump ’ s tax memorandum appears legal , but unlikely to accomplish much Trump ’ s second memorandum purports to defer collection of payroll taxes , that fund Social Security and Medicare , for workers earning less than about $ 100,000 a year .
This memo is probably legal .
The Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collection of certain taxes for victims of federally declared disasters , and Trump is the Treasury secretary ’ s boss .
But , while the Trump administration may delay collection of certain taxes , such a delay is unlikely to accomplish much .
It ’ s likely that most workers will never see the impact of this policy on their paychecks .
Delaying tax payments makes sense in certain circumstances .
Suppose that a tornado wipes out much of a town and leaves local businesses without electricity for weeks .
A federal order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses to rebuild , and to figure out how to operate in the middle of a disaster , without also facing the additional burden of setting aside money to pay for federal taxes .
But the law Trump relies on in his memo only allows the federal government to delay payments for up to a year .
It doesn ’ t relieve taxpayers of their obligation to pay those taxes eventually .
Under normal circumstances , federal law requires employers to deduct a percentage of each of their employees ’ wages in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay this money to the IRS .
The penalties for failing to do so are quite high .
An employer that is just one day late in paying such taxes can be required to pay 2 percent of the unpaid tax as a penalty .
After 16 days , this penalty rises to 10 percent .
And an employer who “ willfully ” evades its obligation to withhold money from their employees and provide that money to the government could potentially be liable for 100 percent of the money their workers owe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these penalties for as long as it is in effect , but it can not do so forever .
And employers who do not withhold payroll taxes from their workers are likely to be in for a nasty surprise when the tax bill comes due .
Think of it this way .
Imagine that I owe $ 3,000 this year in payroll taxes on my Vox Media salary .
Ordinarily , Vox will withhold that money from my paycheck and remit it to the IRS .
Under Trump ’ s memo , Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Vox is still going to owe it eventually .
And , when that obligation does come due , Vox could still be subject to penalties if it doesn ’ t turn over the $ 3,000 it owes to the government right away .
As Hemel , the tax law professor , told me , the IRS has not yet issued guidance on what happens to employers that fail to pay once Trump ’ s memo expires .
But he emphasized that federal law only allows the Treasury to delay payments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Hemel , if the memo expires on August 10 , 2021 , then “ on August 11 , 2021 , the penalty is the same that it would have been on August 11 , 2020.
” Vox will need to turn over the $ 3,000 it owes the IRS once the memo expires , or face penalties .
There are other complications .
Where is Vox Media going to find the money to make those future payments if they haven ’ t been withholding it from my paycheck ?
Will it order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted employees — to give back the money that we ’ ve already been paid ?
And what if we ’ ve already spent that money ?
Does that mean that my future paychecks get docked to cover the deferred tax bill ?
Trump , for what it ’ s worth , says that he ’ ll make this temporary deferral of payroll taxes permanent if he wins the 2020 election .
But he ’ s down in the polls .
And a permanent tax holiday would require an act of Congress — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support even if Republicans hold on to power .
Payroll taxes , after all , fund Social Security and Medicare .
Cutting those taxes potentially endangers those two popular programs .
Many employers , in other words , are likely to continue withholding payroll taxes even if they are temporarily not required to do so .
Why risk being unable to make mandatory tax payments when Trump ’ s memo is no longer in effect ?
The CARES Act included a 120-day moratorium on evictions , but that moratorium expired on July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an executive order claiming that his administration will “ take all lawful measures to prevent residential evictions and foreclosures resulting from financial hardships caused by COVID-19.
” But the executive order itself doesn ’ t actually do anything , at least not on its own .
It requires the secretary of the Treasury and the secretary of Housing and Urban Development to “ identify any and all available Federal funds to provide temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners who , as a result of the financial hardships caused by COVID-19 , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortgage obligations.
” And it requires HUD to “ take action , as appropriate and consistent with applicable law , to promote the ability of renters and homeowners to avoid eviction or foreclosure resulting from financial hardships caused by COVID-19.
” The order , in other words , instructs various agencies to look for ways to help out renters and homeowners who are struggling to meet their financial obligations .
Maybe those agencies will find something .
But the executive order itself doesn ’ t provide any assistance to anyone .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief to people with student debt Trump ’ s final memorandum instructs the Education Department to temporarily suspend payments and interest “ on student loans held by the Department of Education until December 31 , 2020.
” This relief is real , and it also appears to be lawful .
That ’ s because of a provision of federal law that permits the Education Department to suspend such payments for up to three years for borrowers who have “ experienced or will experience an economic hardship.
” So the relief for borrowers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borrowers should probably wait and see how the Education Department actually implements this memo before celebrating .
But people with student loans are likely to be the only people who see much relief from Trump ’ s executive actions .
For the most part , the problem with those actions isn ’ t that they are illegal .
It ’ s that the legal constraints on Trump ’ s actions prevent them from doing much .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution to Vox today .

On Saturday, President Donald Trump signed four memorandums and executive orders that, he claimed, would provide relief to Americans struggling financially during the Covid-19 pandemic.
One order purports to provide enhanced unemployment benefits to some Americans — although on less generous terms than the recently expired benefits provided by the CARES Act. A second defers payment of payroll taxes. A third directs several federal agencies to take vague, unspecified actions regarding evictions and foreclosures. And a fourth defers payments on federal student loans.
Trump’s four executive actions come after negotiations over a new pandemic relief bill to replace the CARES Act appear to have stalemated. Though House Democrats passed a $3 trillion replacement for the CARES Act in May, Republicans did not present their $1 trillion counteroffer until late July — just days before key provisions of the CARES Act expired. The Republican proposal was also larded with poison pills, such as a bill that would immunize most businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits, that earned swift rebukes from Democratic leaders.
Not long after Trump signed the four executive actions, a bipartisan mix of lawmakers denounced them for attempting to steal away Congress’s power to set the nation’s fiscal policy. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) called Trump’s actions “unconstitutional slop.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN that “as my constitutional advisers tell me, they’re absurdly unconstitutional.”
But the reality is more nuanced. With one possible exception — there is a strong legal argument against Trump’s unemployment benefits order — Trump’s four actions are probably legal. The problem with these actions isn’t that they are likely to be blocked by a federal court; it’s that, with one exception, federal law places fairly rigid constraints on the president’s ability to provide pandemic relief. And Trump largely appears to be complying with those constraints.
One measure may prove workable: the memorandum deferring payment of student loans. That memo appears to be lawful, and is likely to provide real relief to many borrowers.
Otherwise, there is less to Trump’s actions than the president would like voters to believe. It’s far from clear whether anyone will receive enhanced unemployment benefits, due to the many legal constraints on those benefits. And even if those benefits are paid, they will be paid out of a limited pool of funds that will run out of money quickly.
Similarly, while Trump deferred payments of some taxes, he can’t relieve taxpayers of their obligation to eventually pay those taxes. For this reason, according to University of Chicago tax law professor Daniel Hemel, “many employers will continue to withhold Social Security taxes from paychecks lest they be on the hook for the $$$ next year.”
Trump’s actions, in other words, appear largely legal. They just won’t accomplish very much.
Trump’s new policy on unemployment benefits has many problems, only one of which is that it may be illegal
Of the four executive actions Trump signed, the one that likely crosses the line in terms of legality concerns unemployment benefits.
On the surface, Trump’s unemployment benefits memo seems to restore some of the benefits lost when the CARES Act expired at the end of July. Under the CARES Act, people collecting unemployment benefits received $600 in federal funds weekly in addition to the other benefits they were entitled to receive every week. Trump’s memo calls for $400 of these enhanced benefits to be restored to some unemployed people — although not for the lowest-income recipients of unemployment benefits.
But it’s far from clear that Trump has statutory authority to make these payments. And even if he does, Trump’s power to do so is so limited that it is far from clear who, if anyone, will receive the $400 in weekly benefits and how long those benefits will last.
For the unemployment insurance memorandum, Trump relies on a provision of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act that permits the president to “provide financial assistance” to victims of a major disaster, such as a pandemic, to help “address personal property, transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster.”
The memorandum directs “up to $44 billion” in disaster relief funds to be spent to provide most unemployed people with $300 — not the full $400 the memo seeks to provide to unemployed people — in federal benefits a week. Why only $300? Because federal regulations provide that the federal share of such disaster relief “shall be 75 percent.” The remaining quarter of the relief funds “shall be paid from funds made available by the State.”
So if Trump wants individuals to receive $400 a week, $100 of that money must come from the states.
That’s a serious problem, given the tremendous fiscal burden the pandemic has imposed on state governments. According to a July paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Elizabeth McNichol and Michael Leachman, “the state budget shortfalls expected from COVID-19’s economic fallout will total a cumulative $555 billion over state fiscal years 2020-2022.”
States, moreover, have far less power to borrow funds during lean economic times than the federal government. At least 40 states require a balanced budget, meaning that deficit spending is simply off the table. It’s far from clear that any of these states will be able to find the money to pay an additional $100 a week in unemployment benefits even if they want to.
Bear in mind, as well, that Trump’s memo only calls for $44 billion to be spent on unemployment benefits. As Georgetown University law and economics professor David Super writes, “with roughly 25 million people receiving unemployment benefits, the $300 federal share of the new weekly benefit would last about six weeks, or until mid-September.” At that point, unemployed people would be in the same boat they’re in now.
The $44 billion could last longer, of course — if many states do not participate in this program.
Super also points to another problem with Trump’s memo: It may be illegal. Although one provision of the Stafford Act allows the president to “provide financial assistance” to disaster victims with relatively few restrictions, a separate provision only permits the president to provide benefits to the unemployed that do “not exceed the maximum weekly amount authorized under the unemployment compensation law of the State in which the disaster occurred.” But the whole point of the enhanced unemployment benefits is to provide additional funding on top of the amount authorized by state law.
Super argues that this provision dealing specifically with unemployment benefits trumps the more general provision allowing the president to “provide financial assistance” more broadly. Often, when two statutory provisions are in tension with each other, courts hold that the more specific provision supersedes the more general provision.
But even if Trump does have the statutory authority to provide enhanced unemployment benefits, those benefits will be short-lived and likely will not be available in many states — if they are available at all.
Trump’s tax memorandum appears legal, but unlikely to accomplish much
Trump’s second memorandum purports to defer collection of payroll taxes, that fund Social Security and Medicare, for workers earning less than about $100,000 a year. This memo is probably legal. The Treasury secretary does have the power to delay collection of certain taxes for victims of federally declared disasters, and Trump is the Treasury secretary’s boss.
But, while the Trump administration may delay collection of certain taxes, such a delay is unlikely to accomplish much. It’s likely that most workers will never see the impact of this policy on their paychecks.
Delaying tax payments makes sense in certain circumstances. Suppose that a tornado wipes out much of a town and leaves local businesses without electricity for weeks. A federal order delaying collection of taxes will allow those businesses to rebuild, and to figure out how to operate in the middle of a disaster, without also facing the additional burden of setting aside money to pay for federal taxes.
But the law Trump relies on in his memo only allows the federal government to delay payments for up to a year. It doesn’t relieve taxpayers of their obligation to pay those taxes eventually.
Under normal circumstances, federal law requires employers to deduct a percentage of each of their employees’ wages in order to cover various federal taxes, and to pay this money to the IRS.
The penalties for failing to do so are quite high. An employer that is just one day late in paying such taxes can be required to pay 2 percent of the unpaid tax as a penalty. After 16 days, this penalty rises to 10 percent. And an employer who “willfully” evades its obligation to withhold money from their employees and provide that money to the government could potentially be liable for 100 percent of the money their workers owe.
Trump’s memo effectively lifts these penalties for as long as it is in effect, but it cannot do so forever. And employers who do not withhold payroll taxes from their workers are likely to be in for a nasty surprise when the tax bill comes due.
Think of it this way. Imagine that I owe $3,000 this year in payroll taxes on my Vox Media salary. Ordinarily, Vox will withhold that money from my paycheck and remit it to the IRS. Under Trump’s memo, Vox could decide not to withhold that money. But Vox is still going to owe it eventually. And, when that obligation does come due, Vox could still be subject to penalties if it doesn’t turn over the $3,000 it owes to the government right away.
As Hemel, the tax law professor, told me, the IRS has not yet issued guidance on what happens to employers that fail to pay once Trump’s memo expires. But he emphasized that federal law only allows the Treasury to delay payments for up to one year.
Accordingly, said Hemel, if the memo expires on August 10, 2021, then “on August 11, 2021, the penalty is the same that it would have been on August 11, 2020.” Vox will need to turn over the $3,000 it owes the IRS once the memo expires, or face penalties.
There are other complications. Where is Vox Media going to find the money to make those future payments if they haven’t been withholding it from my paycheck? Will it order me — and all of its other impacted employees — to give back the money that we’ve already been paid? And what if we’ve already spent that money? Does that mean that my future paychecks get docked to cover the deferred tax bill?
Trump, for what it’s worth, says that he’ll make this temporary deferral of payroll taxes permanent if he wins the 2020 election. But he’s down in the polls. And a permanent tax holiday would require an act of Congress — something that Congress is far from certain to support even if Republicans hold on to power. Payroll taxes, after all, fund Social Security and Medicare. Cutting those taxes potentially endangers those two popular programs.
Many employers, in other words, are likely to continue withholding payroll taxes even if they are temporarily not required to do so. Why risk being unable to make mandatory tax payments when Trump’s memo is no longer in effect?
Trump’s executive order on housing is basically useless
The CARES Act included a 120-day moratorium on evictions, but that moratorium expired on July 24. On Saturday, Trump signed an executive order claiming that his administration will “take all lawful measures to prevent residential evictions and foreclosures resulting from financial hardships caused by COVID-19.”
But the executive order itself doesn’t actually do anything, at least not on its own.
It requires the secretary of the Treasury and the secretary of Housing and Urban Development to “identify any and all available Federal funds to provide temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners who, as a result of the financial hardships caused by COVID-19, are struggling to meet their monthly rental or mortgage obligations.” And it requires HUD to “take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to promote the ability of renters and homeowners to avoid eviction or foreclosure resulting from financial hardships caused by COVID-19.”
The order, in other words, instructs various agencies to look for ways to help out renters and homeowners who are struggling to meet their financial obligations. Maybe those agencies will find something. But the executive order itself doesn’t provide any assistance to anyone.
Trump’s final executive order does provide real relief to people with student debt
Trump’s final memorandum instructs the Education Department to temporarily suspend payments and interest “on student loans held by the Department of Education until December 31, 2020.” This relief is real, and it also appears to be lawful.
That’s because of a provision of federal law that permits the Education Department to suspend such payments for up to three years for borrowers who have “experienced or will experience an economic hardship.” So the relief for borrowers is likely to be significant — although individual borrowers should probably wait and see how the Education Department actually implements this memo before celebrating.
But people with student loans are likely to be the only people who see much relief from Trump’s executive actions. For the most part, the problem with those actions isn’t that they are illegal. It’s that the legal constraints on Trump’s actions prevent them from doing much.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-11--Wisconsin’s primaries are setup for the real battle in November

The main event in Wisconsin ’ s general election this fall will be the presidential contest , especially since it ’ s one of the most important swing states in the country .
But Tuesday ’ s primaries in the state will have interesting implications at both the congressional and state legislative levels .
For the legislature , Democrats are trying to stop Republicans from winning supermajorities in both chambers .
If the GOP wins those supermajorities , they could override Democratic Gov .
Tony Evers ’ s vetoes and block any attempts to reform their extremely gerrymandered statehouse maps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s eight congressional seats might be in play — the third district , which Trump won in 2016 and is represented by a longtime Democrat , Rep. Ron Kind ( D ) .
He faces a primary challenger from the left , and two Republicans with the backing of different factions of the party are battling for the nomination to take him on .
Finally , in the Fifth District , there will be a passing of the torch , as Rep. James Sensenbrenner ( R ) , who has been in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely replacement is already quite well-known in the state : It ’ s state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald , who ’ s been at the center of many controversies in Wisconsin ’ s tumultuous recent politics — though Fitzgerald has to win the primary first .
Ron Kind draws challenges from left and right in Wisconsin ’ s Third Congressional District Wisconsin ’ s Third District , spanning the state ’ s southwest , is the closest thing to a swing district in the Badger State on the presidential level — Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
But the district ’ s congressional seat has long been occupied by Rep. Ron Kind , a Democrat who first entered Congress in 1997 and has won all his recent reelection contests comfortably .
( Kind was unopposed in the general election in 2016 , and won by nearly 20 percentage points in 2018 . )
Sensitive to his district ’ s pro-Trump result in 2016 , Kind has stressed his moderation .
For instance , he was cautious on the topic of President Trump ’ s impeachment ( in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he emphasized that he ’ s “ the only member of Congress who has voted to open impeachment inquiries against Presidents Clinton and Trump.
” ) As a result , Kind has drawn challengers from both the left and right .
In the Democratic primary , he ’ s facing Mark Neumann , a former missionary and pediatrician .
Neumann has criticized Kind ’ s lack of support for Medicare-for-All , but his primary challenge hasn ’ t drawn much national attention .
Kind is the clear favorite , according to Barry Burden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Wisconsin-Madison .
In the Republican primary , meanwhile , retired Navy SEAL Derrick Van Orden is running against public relations professional Jessi Ebben .
Van Orden has raised much more money and won the endorsement of former Gov .
Scott Walker ( R ) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R ) , making him the GOP leadership ’ s preferred candidate .
Ebben , meanwhile , has won the backing of Judiciary Committee ranking member Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) and the House Freedom Caucus ’ s political arm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters , but , as Olivia Herken of the Lacrosse Tribune recently wrote , Van Orden has criticized Ebben for signing a petition to recall Gov .
Walker back in 2011 .
Ebben ( who is 30 years old ) countered by saying she only did so because she believed Democratic “ lies ” back then , and that she ’ s now a conservative “ convert.
” The Cook Political Report currently rates this race as “ Likely Democratic , ” but still , Republicans are hopeful for a pickup if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The retirement of 21-term Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner means an open-seat contest in the Fifth District , which encompasses suburbs of Milwaukee .
The district is heavily Republican , so the winner of the GOP primary could secure a safe Republican seat for some time ( depending on how redistricting goes ) .
The frontrunner here is Scott Fitzgerald , the majority leader of the Wisconsin state Senate , a staunch social conservative who has been a major player in the controversies that have roiled the state starting with former Gov .
Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one of the few Republican leaders who ’ s still standing from 10 years ago , ” says Burden .
Fitzgerald helped craft a heavily gerrymandered state legislature map to entrench Republican majorities , and passed the 2011 law that restricted public sector unions ’ collective bargaining abilities .
Then , in the lame-duck session after Walker lost the 2018 election to Democrat Tony Evers , Fitzgerald and Republican legislators passed new laws restricting the powers of the governor ’ s office .
More recently , Fitzgerald has been sparring with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask-wearing mandate .
Fitzgerald ’ s opponent in the primary is businessman Cliff DeTemple , who has argued that he has less “ baggage ” and hasn ’ t been “ in office too long , ” but DeTemple is viewed as the underdog .
In the general election , the GOP nominee will face Democrat Tom Palzewicz , an executive coaching consultant , but Palzewicz will face an uphill battle due to this district ’ s Republican lean .
Though Evers won the governorship for Democrats in 2018 , both chambers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican hands , thanks in part to some spectacular gerrymandering .
The good news for Democrats there was that Evers ’ s win would , it seemed , give him the power to veto unfair maps during the next redistricting in the 2021-2022 session .
There ’ s just one catch — if Republicans manage to flip just six state legislative seats ( three in the Assembly and three in the Senate ) , they ’ ll control two-thirds of each chamber , which would let them override Evers ’ s vetoes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content .
That would be a tall order , but Mitchell Schmidt of the Wisconsin State Journal recently ran down the key districts that Republicans say they ’ re focusing on flipping .
Some of those that have contested primaries are : • Senate District 10 : State Sen. Patty Schachtner ( D-WI ) is the incumbent , and the Republican primary features state Rep. Bob Stafsholt and small business owner Cherie Link battling for the nomination to take her on .
• Senate District 30 : The Democratic incumbent here , Dave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace him features his nephew Jonathan Hansen ( a city council member ) running against former healthcare executive Sandra Ewald .
The GOP nominee will be attorney Eric Wimberger , who ran for this seat and lost in 2016 .
• Senate District 32 : Democratic incumbent Jennifer Shilling , who won her last reelection extremely narrowly over former state Sen. Dan Kapanke ( R ) , isn ’ t running again .
Kapanke will be the Republican nominee again .
Candidates running in the Democratic primary are former state Agriculture Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that post by state Senate Republicans ) , nurse Jayne Swiggum , and La Crosse man Paul Weber .
• Assembly District 14 : State Rep. Robyn Vining is the Democratic incumbent here — she won by 0.4 percent of the vote in 2018 .
The Republican primary contenders are school board member Linda Boucher , Baptist church outreach ministry director Bonnie Lee , and electrician Steven Shevey .
So these primaries will determine the candidates in these races , which will be key to determining whether the GOP can pull off a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t taking this threat lightly ; they ’ ve launched a campaign called “ Save the Veto , ” and the state party just raised $ 10 million , the best fundraising quarter in its history .
Elsewhere in the state legislature contests , the longest-serving state legislator in American history — 93-year-old state Sen. Fred Risser ( D ) , who ’ s represented the 26th district since 1962 — is retiring .
This is a safe Democratic seat , and seven Democrats are vying for the nomination .
Burden points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate , but the contest also features two young Muslim women of color , Nada Elmikashfi and Aisha Moe .
Both are critical of the Democratic establishment , and announced their bids before Risser decided to retire .
Brianna Reilly of the Cap Times has more on this primary here .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The main event in Wisconsin’s general election this fall will be the presidential contest, especially since it’s one of the most important swing states in the country. But Tuesday’s primaries in the state will have interesting implications at both the congressional and state legislative levels.
For the legislature, Democrats are trying to stop Republicans from winning supermajorities in both chambers. If the GOP wins those supermajorities, they could override Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’s vetoes and block any attempts to reform their extremely gerrymandered statehouse maps.
Meanwhile, one of Wisconsin’s eight congressional seats might be in play — the third district, which Trump won in 2016 and is represented by a longtime Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind (D). He faces a primary challenger from the left, and two Republicans with the backing of different factions of the party are battling for the nomination to take him on.
Finally, in the Fifth District, there will be a passing of the torch, as Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R), who has been in Congress since 1979, is retiring. His likely replacement is already quite well-known in the state: It’s state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who’s been at the center of many controversies in Wisconsin’s tumultuous recent politics — though Fitzgerald has to win the primary first.
Ron Kind draws challenges from left and right in Wisconsin’s Third Congressional District
Wisconsin’s Third District, spanning the state’s southwest, is the closest thing to a swing district in the Badger State on the presidential level — Donald Trump won there by 4.5 percentage points in 2016. But the district’s congressional seat has long been occupied by Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat who first entered Congress in 1997 and has won all his recent reelection contests comfortably. (Kind was unopposed in the general election in 2016, and won by nearly 20 percentage points in 2018.)
Sensitive to his district’s pro-Trump result in 2016, Kind has stressed his moderation. For instance, he was cautious on the topic of President Trump’s impeachment (in explaining his eventual vote for it, he emphasized that he’s “the only member of Congress who has voted to open impeachment inquiries against Presidents Clinton and Trump.”)
As a result, Kind has drawn challengers from both the left and right. In the Democratic primary, he’s facing Mark Neumann, a former missionary and pediatrician. Neumann has criticized Kind’s lack of support for Medicare-for-All, but his primary challenge hasn’t drawn much national attention. Kind is the clear favorite, according to Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In the Republican primary, meanwhile, retired Navy SEAL Derrick Van Orden is running against public relations professional Jessi Ebben. Van Orden has raised much more money and won the endorsement of former Gov. Scott Walker (R) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R), making him the GOP leadership’s preferred candidate. Ebben, meanwhile, has won the backing of Judiciary Committee ranking member Jim Jordan (R-OH) and the House Freedom Caucus’s political arm.
Both are running as conservative Trump supporters, but, as Olivia Herken of the Lacrosse Tribune recently wrote, Van Orden has criticized Ebben for signing a petition to recall Gov. Walker back in 2011. Ebben (who is 30 years old) countered by saying she only did so because she believed Democratic “lies” back then, and that she’s now a conservative “convert.” The Cook Political Report currently rates this race as “Likely Democratic,” but still, Republicans are hopeful for a pickup if Trump can perform well in the district again.
Tony Evers’s foe seeks seat in Wisconsin’s Fifth Congressional District
The retirement of 21-term Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner means an open-seat contest in the Fifth District, which encompasses suburbs of Milwaukee. The district is heavily Republican, so the winner of the GOP primary could secure a safe Republican seat for some time (depending on how redistricting goes).
The frontrunner here is Scott Fitzgerald, the majority leader of the Wisconsin state Senate, a staunch social conservative who has been a major player in the controversies that have roiled the state starting with former Gov. Scott Walker’s administration. “He’s one of the few Republican leaders who’s still standing from 10 years ago,” says Burden.
Fitzgerald helped craft a heavily gerrymandered state legislature map to entrench Republican majorities, and passed the 2011 law that restricted public sector unions’ collective bargaining abilities.
Then, in the lame-duck session after Walker lost the 2018 election to Democrat Tony Evers, Fitzgerald and Republican legislators passed new laws restricting the powers of the governor’s office. More recently, Fitzgerald has been sparring with Evers over the governor’s statewide mask-wearing mandate.
Fitzgerald’s opponent in the primary is businessman Cliff DeTemple, who has argued that he has less “baggage” and hasn’t been “in office too long,” but DeTemple is viewed as the underdog. In the general election, the GOP nominee will face Democrat Tom Palzewicz, an executive coaching consultant, but Palzewicz will face an uphill battle due to this district’s Republican lean.
Key state legislative races could give Republicans a supermajority
Though Evers won the governorship for Democrats in 2018, both chambers of Wisconsin’s state legislature remained in Republican hands, thanks in part to some spectacular gerrymandering. The good news for Democrats there was that Evers’s win would, it seemed, give him the power to veto unfair maps during the next redistricting in the 2021-2022 session.
There’s just one catch — if Republicans manage to flip just six state legislative seats (three in the Assembly and three in the Senate), they’ll control two-thirds of each chamber, which would let them override Evers’s vetoes and gerrymander the state to their hearts’ content.
That would be a tall order, but Mitchell Schmidt of the Wisconsin State Journal recently ran down the key districts that Republicans say they’re focusing on flipping. Some of those that have contested primaries are:
Senate District 10: State Sen. Patty Schachtner (D-WI) is the incumbent, and the Republican primary features state Rep. Bob Stafsholt and small business owner Cherie Link battling for the nomination to take her on.
State Sen. Patty Schachtner (D-WI) is the incumbent, and the Republican primary features state Rep. Bob Stafsholt and small business owner Cherie Link battling for the nomination to take her on. Senate District 30: The Democratic incumbent here, Dave Hansen is retiring. The Democratic primary to replace him features his nephew Jonathan Hansen (a city council member) running against former healthcare executive Sandra Ewald. The GOP nominee will be attorney Eric Wimberger, who ran for this seat and lost in 2016.
The Democratic incumbent here, Dave Hansen is retiring. The Democratic primary to replace him features his nephew Jonathan Hansen (a city council member) running against former healthcare executive Sandra Ewald. The GOP nominee will be attorney Eric Wimberger, who ran for this seat and lost in 2016. Senate District 32 : Democratic incumbent Jennifer Shilling, who won her last reelection extremely narrowly over former state Sen. Dan Kapanke (R), isn’t running again. Kapanke will be the Republican nominee again. Candidates running in the Democratic primary are former state Agriculture Secretary Brad Pfaff (who was ousted from that post by state Senate Republicans), nurse Jayne Swiggum, and La Crosse man Paul Weber.
: Democratic incumbent Jennifer Shilling, who won her last reelection extremely narrowly over former state Sen. Dan Kapanke (R), isn’t running again. Kapanke will be the Republican nominee again. Candidates running in the Democratic primary are former state Agriculture Secretary Brad Pfaff (who was ousted from that post by state Senate Republicans), nurse Jayne Swiggum, and La Crosse man Paul Weber. Assembly District 14: State Rep. Robyn Vining is the Democratic incumbent here — she won by 0.4 percent of the vote in 2018. The Republican primary contenders are school board member Linda Boucher, Baptist church outreach ministry director Bonnie Lee, and electrician Steven Shevey.
So these primaries will determine the candidates in these races, which will be key to determining whether the GOP can pull off a supermajority. But Wisconsin Democrats aren’t taking this threat lightly; they’ve launched a campaign called “Save the Veto,” and the state party just raised $10 million, the best fundraising quarter in its history.
Elsewhere in the state legislature contests, the longest-serving state legislator in American history — 93-year-old state Sen. Fred Risser (D), who’s represented the 26th district since 1962 — is retiring. This is a safe Democratic seat, and seven Democrats are vying for the nomination. Burden points to business owner Kelda Roys as the leading candidate, but the contest also features two young Muslim women of color, Nada Elmikashfi and Aisha Moe. Both are critical of the Democratic establishment, and announced their bids before Risser decided to retire. Brianna Reilly of the Cap Times has more on this primary here.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-11--Can a college course in moral philosophy convince people to eat less meat?

One of my favorite running debates within moral philosophy as a discipline is whether moral philosophy , as a discipline , is any good or not .
The latest salvo in the debate is an actual randomized evaluation of the effects of moral philosophy instruction .
Describing their work in the journal Cognition , the authors — University of California Riverside ’ s Eric Schwitzgebel , University of Kansas ’ s Bradford Cokelet , and Princeton ’ s Peter Singer— describe it as “ the first controlled experiment testing the real-world behavioral consequences of university-level philosophy instruction.
” In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophy class actually nudge you toward more moral decisions ?
The argument over the moral effects of philosophy dates to the ancient Greeks or earlier , but in recent decades a foundational article is Elizabeth Anscombe ’ s “ Does Oxford Moral Philosophy Corrupt Youth ?
” Published in 1957 and commenting on the evolving nature of philosophical instruction in England ’ s premier university , Anscombe ’ s essay was an allusion to the criminal charge against Socrates — that he “ corrupted the youth ” of Athens — that led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Oxford moral philosopher , she was also a devout Catholic .
Her conclusion was that Oxford ’ s moral philosophy instruction could not corrupt the young elites of Britain any more than the base and vile culture of their upbringing had already corrupted them .
More recently , the philosophers Annette Baier and Kieran Setiya have argued that the corruption charge was justified based on the fact that introductory moral philosophy courses , in particular , teach students that the discipline has come to no shared conclusions on the nature of morality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing factions .
There are some utilitarians and some Kantians ( arguing that morality derives from the nature of rational thought ) , and some Aristotelians ( emphasizing character and pursuit of the virtues ) , and learning about the profound differences between each can lead students to conclude we know nothing about the nature of morality — and thus that anything goes .
In Baier ’ s words , “ We , in effect , give courses in comparative moral theory , and like courses in comparative religion , their usual effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any of the alternatives presented .
We produce relativists and moral skeptics , persons who have been convinced by our teaching that whatever they do in some difficult situation , some moral theory will condone it , another will condemn it.
” In other words , students learn that experts disagree about the nature of right and wrong , which leads them to lose faith that there is a firm difference between the two .
To date , the debate has mostly centered around individual philosophy professors — people who have much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and contradict each other frequently .
So I was pleased to see that three philosophers have actually conducted a large-scale randomized experiment to see if moral philosophy can alter student ’ s moral decision-making — and in what direction .
Schwitzgebel , Cokelet , and Singer do not look at abstract outcomes , like how well students do after a class on tests of moral reasoning capacity .
They instead look at a very concrete outcome : Do students eat less meat after learning about philosophical arguments against factory farming ?
The experiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across four different introductory philosophy courses .
All the classes had small discussion sections ( each capped at 25 students ) run by graduate student teaching assistants .
One week , the sections focused either on the ethics of charity ( the control group ) or the ethics of eating meat ( the treatment group ) ; students were informed that this was part of a “ teaching experiment.
” Neither of these topics was covered in lectures , so the discussion sections were the whole treatment .
The study authors chose meat-eating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one was that “ among philosophers who write on the issue there is widespread ( though not perfect ) consensus that it is generally morally better for the typical North American to eat less factory farmed meat.
” Few ethical areas have that degree of consensus , but factory-farmed meat is so bad for humans and animals alike that it ’ s hard to construct a defense ( though some have tried ) .
That allows the authors to test if the instruction “ worked ” by seeing if the discussion caused people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked !
Not only were students in the meat ethics sections likelier to say they thought eating factory-farmed meat is unethical , analysis of their dining cards — basically debit cards issued as part of UC Riverside ’ s meal plan that students can use to buy meals on campus — suggested that they bought less meat too .
Fifty-two percent of dining card purchases for both the control and treatment groups were of meat products before the class .
After the class , the treatment group ’ s percentage fell to 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven by a few students becoming vegetarians , but by all students buying slightly less meat .
It ’ s possible this effect was temporary ; the authors only had a few weeks of data .
But it at least lasted for several weeks .
This result is somewhat surprising .
One of the authors , Schwitzgebel , has conducted surveys suggesting that the moral views and behaviors of moral philosophers aren ’ t appreciably different from those of other philosophers and non-philosophy academics ( one exception to this trend appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” on morality , ethicists don ’ t seem to behave differently or have different moral opinions than people in other fields , which arguably casts some doubt on the existence of moral expertise .
In an email announcing the paper , Singer said that Schwitzgebel expected a null result on the new experiment too : that is , he didn ’ t think the moral instruction would do anything .
“ It ’ s an encouraging result for those challenging the ethics of eating meat , because it shows that what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eat less meat ( even if the difference isn ’ t as sharp as I would have wished ) , ” Singer concluded .
I hope this is only the beginning of a large literature on the effectiveness of philosophical instruction .
But it ’ s a promising start .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Every day at Vox , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

One of my favorite running debates within moral philosophy as a discipline is whether moral philosophy, as a discipline, is any good or not.
The latest salvo in the debate is an actual randomized evaluation of the effects of moral philosophy instruction. Describing their work in the journal Cognition, the authors — University of California Riverside’s Eric Schwitzgebel, University of Kansas’s Bradford Cokelet, and Princeton’s Peter Singer— describe it as “the first controlled experiment testing the real-world behavioral consequences of university-level philosophy instruction.” In other words: Does sitting in a moral philosophy class actually nudge you toward more moral decisions?
The argument over the moral effects of philosophy dates to the ancient Greeks or earlier, but in recent decades a foundational article is Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Does Oxford Moral Philosophy Corrupt Youth?”
Published in 1957 and commenting on the evolving nature of philosophical instruction in England’s premier university, Anscombe’s essay was an allusion to the criminal charge against Socrates — that he “corrupted the youth” of Athens — that led to his execution. And while Anscombe was an Oxford moral philosopher, she was also a devout Catholic. Her conclusion was that Oxford’s moral philosophy instruction could not corrupt the young elites of Britain any more than the base and vile culture of their upbringing had already corrupted them.
More recently, the philosophers Annette Baier and Kieran Setiya have argued that the corruption charge was justified based on the fact that introductory moral philosophy courses, in particular, teach students that the discipline has come to no shared conclusions on the nature of morality.
Instead, it has split into competing factions. There are some utilitarians and some Kantians (arguing that morality derives from the nature of rational thought), and some Aristotelians (emphasizing character and pursuit of the virtues), and learning about the profound differences between each can lead students to conclude we know nothing about the nature of morality — and thus that anything goes.
In Baier’s words, “We, in effect, give courses in comparative moral theory, and like courses in comparative religion, their usual effect on the student is loss of faith in any of the alternatives presented. We produce relativists and moral skeptics, persons who have been convinced by our teaching that whatever they do in some difficult situation, some moral theory will condone it, another will condemn it.” In other words, students learn that experts disagree about the nature of right and wrong, which leads them to lose faith that there is a firm difference between the two.
To date, the debate has mostly centered around individual philosophy professors — people who have much expertise but whose judgments are inevitably partial and contradict each other frequently. So I was pleased to see that three philosophers have actually conducted a large-scale randomized experiment to see if moral philosophy can alter student’s moral decision-making — and in what direction.
Schwitzgebel, Cokelet, and Singer do not look at abstract outcomes, like how well students do after a class on tests of moral reasoning capacity. They instead look at a very concrete outcome: Do students eat less meat after learning about philosophical arguments against factory farming?
Tracking students’ meat spending after philosophy class
The experiment was conducted with 1,332 UC Riverside students across four different introductory philosophy courses. All the classes had small discussion sections (each capped at 25 students) run by graduate student teaching assistants.
One week, the sections focused either on the ethics of charity (the control group) or the ethics of eating meat (the treatment group); students were informed that this was part of a “teaching experiment.” Neither of these topics was covered in lectures, so the discussion sections were the whole treatment.
The study authors chose meat-eating for several reasons, but a key one was that “among philosophers who write on the issue there is widespread (though not perfect) consensus that it is generally morally better for the typical North American to eat less factory farmed meat.” Few ethical areas have that degree of consensus, but factory-farmed meat is so bad for humans and animals alike that it’s hard to construct a defense (though some have tried). That allows the authors to test if the instruction “worked” by seeing if the discussion caused people to eat less meat.
And it worked! Not only were students in the meat ethics sections likelier to say they thought eating factory-farmed meat is unethical, analysis of their dining cards — basically debit cards issued as part of UC Riverside’s meal plan that students can use to buy meals on campus — suggested that they bought less meat too. Fifty-two percent of dining card purchases for both the control and treatment groups were of meat products before the class. After the class, the treatment group’s percentage fell to 45 percent.
This effect wasn’t driven by a few students becoming vegetarians, but by all students buying slightly less meat. It’s possible this effect was temporary; the authors only had a few weeks of data. But it at least lasted for several weeks.
This result is somewhat surprising. One of the authors, Schwitzgebel, has conducted surveys suggesting that the moral views and behaviors of moral philosophers aren’t appreciably different from those of other philosophers and non-philosophy academics (one exception to this trend appears to be meat-eating). Despite being “experts” on morality, ethicists don’t seem to behave differently or have different moral opinions than people in other fields, which arguably casts some doubt on the existence of moral expertise.
In an email announcing the paper, Singer said that Schwitzgebel expected a null result on the new experiment too: that is, he didn’t think the moral instruction would do anything.
“It’s an encouraging result for those challenging the ethics of eating meat, because it shows that what happens in a classroom can persuade people to eat less meat (even if the difference isn’t as sharp as I would have wished),” Singer concluded.
I hope this is only the beginning of a large literature on the effectiveness of philosophical instruction. But it’s a promising start.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-11--How the beauty industry is surviving the pandemic

Leonard Lauder , the current chairman emeritus of the Estée Lauder Companies , noticed that people were buying a lot of lipstick during the economic downturn of the early 2000s .
He coined the term “ lipstick index , ” hypothesizing that consumers were willing to spend $ 30 on a small indulgence during a recession rather than shell out for a bigger-ticket luxury item like expensive shoes or a handbag .
That specific theory doesn ’ t really hold up during a pandemic in which the best way to prevent the spread of a deadly disease is by wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your face .
Lipstick sales have tanked in the last six months , according to NPD Group beauty adviser Larissa Jensen , as the dual public health and economic crises brought on by the coronavirus pandemic have worsened .
It makes sense that lipstick isn ’ t really practical in this environment — no one can see it anyway , not to mention it would make a mess on the inside of the mask .
“ People are still spending , but they ’ re shifting their dollars around ” Sales of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last six months compared to last year , according to NPD , but that doesn ’ t mean the beauty industry isn ’ t finding a way to adapt or that consumers aren ’ t buying products , including some that cost hundreds of dollars .
The beauty industry is kind of like a cockroach ; it always figures out how to survive .
Chalk it up to human nature .
“ Humans groom themselves .
It ’ s just what we do , ” says Doreen Bloch , the CEO and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company .
“ People are still spending , people are still engaging in the category , but they ’ re shifting their dollars around.
” Those dollars are buying things like hair dye , fake eyelashes , “ sexy ” hand sanitizers , stick-on nail polish , and $ 300 gadgets that zap your face with electrical microcurrents or scrape your pores .
Lipstick may be out , but the pandemic has pushed other things to the front of shoppers ’ minds and faces .
Prestige makeup , meaning the more expensive brands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores , has seen sales drop 37 percent in the last six months , according to NPD ’ s Jensen .
Seventy-one percent of women surveyed by the firm said they “ wear makeup less often due to Covid-19 lifestyle changes.
” Beauty companies are astute at either finding a problem people are talking about and trying to solve it , or manufacturing one .
In the beginning of the pandemic , beauty brands attempted to push the narrative that work-from-home employees should care about their makeup because of Zoom calls , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video calls .
But as Zoom fatigue has set in and we ’ ve become used to seeing the imperfection of people ’ s homes , with pets and children running in and out of frame , is that really a concern anymore ?
“ No , nobody cares , ” says Kirbie Johnson , a beauty writer and co-host of the beauty-focused podcast Gloss Angeles .
“ Zoom has the beautify feature !
If you ’ re really worried about it , you can click that and you ’ re done.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t wearing or caring about makeup .
Johnson said she ’ s seen a push from brands for products that play up eyes , like mascara , fake lashes , brow products , and eye shadow , which is consistent with NPD ’ s sales data .
More people are buying eye makeup than lipstick or foundation because that ’ s what ’ s more visible these days .
To reflect this new reality , Cosmopolitan is running a feature on eye makeup in its September issue , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She says it ’ s about “ having fun with makeup around your eyes because that ’ s how we can express ourselves now.
” Jensen expects this eye trend to endure .
“ Face masks are part of our future for a bit longer term.
” Skin care is the real pandemic go-to , though .
Johnson says that even makeup companies are pushing products that they think will appeal to the skin care crowd , such as Becca ’ s new Zero , which the company calls a “ no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , skin care .
Skin care sales are also lower than pre-pandemic levels thanks to store closures , but they haven ’ t suffered nearly as badly as makeup has .
Skin care was already incredibly popular pre-pandemic , and now that people have lots of extra time at home to evaluate their pores , interest in the category remains relatively strong .
Face masks , serums , and moisture products are all popular .
One of the reasons is because of “ maskne , ” a neologism seen everywhere in beauty circles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backne ” should give you a clue about what maskne means : acne occurring around the area where one wears a mask .
“ Beauty loves a good buzzword to throw around .
I ’ ve been getting pitches probably every single day for the last two months about maskne , ” says Johnson .
According to Poshly data , 43 percent of people have experienced irritation due to mask-wearing .
Maskne is a real thing , says New York City dermatologist Dr. Carlos Charles , though not a new concept .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acne mechanica , which is inflammation and irritation caused by physical friction .
Humidity inside the mask and dirt on the mask itself can exacerbate the problem , slowing cell turnover , clogging pores , and providing an ideal home for acne bacteria to thrive .
It ’ s not treated any differently from regular acne .
The same topical products like benzoyl peroxide , salicylic acid , and retinoids like Differin will work .
Ultimately , though , it ’ s a great way for beauty brands to market products during this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention because it ’ s something new and exciting to talk about , ” Charles says .
“ But I ’ m always wary of people doing [ DIY treatments ] at home when they don ’ t know what they ’ re doing .
We always overdo it because we want things to go away quickly.
” Skin care devices like the GloPro and NuFace have seen triple-digit sales increases Gadgets , which are having a real moment , play into this impulse of wanting quick improvement .
Skin care devices like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tool used to puncture tiny holes in the skin to stimulate collagen production and increase product absorption ) and NuFace ( a $ 325 device that runs an electric current through the facial muscles to provide lift and toning ) have both seen triple-digit sales increases since the pandemic started .
The category overall , which had been experiencing declining sales in 2019 , was up 8 percent the first six months of this year .
“ People are definitely using tools , and if they didn ’ t have one , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be getting .
They ’ re thinking , ‘ I ’ m at home , I ’ m not going to be seeing anybody , so I might as well take the time now to really go hard on my skin care and gadget routine so that when we are able to go out and see people I look my best , ’ ” says Gloss Angeles ’ s Johnson .
Ultrasonic skin spatulas , or “ skin scrubbers , ” are popular too , especially on TikTok .
The vibrating device features @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrape out blackheads and other gunk in pores .
If a product is ubiquitous on Amazon , it ’ s generally a sign that it ’ s popular ; there are 270 different options available there now .
Tiara Willis , an esthetician and skin care influencer , likes these devices but warns against another popular one , blackhead “ pore vacuum ” tools .
She says they can cause inflammation and hyperpigmentation , especially in those with darker skin tones .
She ’ s also seen a lot of her followers resorting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Ordinary ’ s popular Peeling Solution and using blunt eyebrow razors to perform facial dermaplaning on themselves , a procedure that ’ s meant to exfoliate and remove facial peach fuzz , but one that is normally done in medi-spas with a medical-grade razor .
She ’ s concerned about the irritation and skin sensitization these DIY treatments can cause .
Chemical peels and dermaplaning should only be done by professionals like doctors or estheticians , Willis says .
“ There ’ s a lot of training , not only in technique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , and you may not know as a consumer if you qualify , ” she says .
One of the reasons DIY treatments are popular now is that the pros simply haven ’ t been available to us .
From the early days of the pandemic , products like hair dye and hair removal products flew off shelves after spas and salons were shut down .
As states like California have had to close salons a second time due to rising case counts , home root touch-ups are becoming the new normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salon stalwarts to prolong the time between visits to save a bit of money even once hair pros become more accessible .
“ I think it has given people a little more confidence for being able to go a bit longer .
We ’ re going to have to be more flexible and get more comfortable with doing our hair on our own , ” says Cosmo ’ s Wilson .
Ditto manicures .
Nail polish sales had been suffering pre-Covid-19 but are now booming .
Brands like Olive and June , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been selling at-home manicure kits and providing tutorials via Instagram Live .
Wilson says she hasn ’ t been to a nail salon since March and has been using products from ManiMe , a company that provides custom fit nail stickers to mimic the look of a sleek manicure or nail art .
When masks and sanitizers become beauty products In the early days , large multinational beauty companies including Estée Lauder and L ’ Oreal pivoted to produce hand sanitizer as a way to both keep their factories operating and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitizer to hospitals and other entities rather than selling them to consumers .
But plenty of other beauty and fragrance brands are now making hand sanitizer to sell .
Perfume is mostly alcohol , after all , so beauty has been well positioned to make sanitizer that is a lot less utilitarian than the stuff you find at drugstores .
Bath and Body Works , whose keychain sanitizers have been popular with tweens for decades , now finds its products especially in demand .
Plenty of other brands are offering aspirational and expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand sanitizers are pretty popular right now , ” says Johnson , mentioning the $ 10 credit card-shaped , bergamot-scented Noshinku .
Skylar and DS & Durga , both fragrance brands , now offer sanitizers that smell more like fancy soap than Purell .
Countless other skin care and nail care brands now sell the category .
Even cloth face masks have been repurposed as beauty products .
To prevent the dreaded maskne , brands have touted silk as a gentler material .
Brands like Slip and Night offer silk masks that cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have even started infusing compounds like zinc into cloth masks , claiming they have antimicrobial properties and can protect against irritation .
( The FTC has been cracking down on manufacturers making claims on Covid-19 related products , so do your research before purchasing items like this . )
To some , it may seem frivolous and vain to think about and purchase beauty products during a pandemic and a period of incredible social unrest .
But for many , it ’ s a stress reliever and a source of self-care .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re still buying beauty .
“ I do think that beauty , much like during the recession in 2008 , will continue to thrive because people want small luxuries to help them feel better both physically and mentally , ” says Johnson .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Leonard Lauder, the current chairman emeritus of the Estée Lauder Companies, noticed that people were buying a lot of lipstick during the economic downturn of the early 2000s. He coined the term “lipstick index,” hypothesizing that consumers were willing to spend $30 on a small indulgence during a recession rather than shell out for a bigger-ticket luxury item like expensive shoes or a handbag.
That specific theory doesn’t really hold up during a pandemic in which the best way to prevent the spread of a deadly disease is by wearing a mask over the lower half of your face. Lipstick sales have tanked in the last six months, according to NPD Group beauty adviser Larissa Jensen, as the dual public health and economic crises brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic have worsened. It makes sense that lipstick isn’t really practical in this environment — no one can see it anyway, not to mention it would make a mess on the inside of the mask.
“People are still spending, but they’re shifting their dollars around”
Sales of all beauty products are down 25 percent in the last six months compared to last year, according to NPD, but that doesn’t mean the beauty industry isn’t finding a way to adapt or that consumers aren’t buying products, including some that cost hundreds of dollars. The beauty industry is kind of like a cockroach; it always figures out how to survive.
Chalk it up to human nature.
“Humans groom themselves. It’s just what we do,” says Doreen Bloch, the CEO and founder of Poshly, a beauty data company. “People are still spending, people are still engaging in the category, but they’re shifting their dollars around.”
Those dollars are buying things like hair dye, fake eyelashes, “sexy” hand sanitizers, stick-on nail polish, and $300 gadgets that zap your face with electrical microcurrents or scrape your pores. Lipstick may be out, but the pandemic has pushed other things to the front of shoppers’ minds and faces.
Makeup in the mask age
Prestige makeup, meaning the more expensive brands sold at places like Sephora and department stores, has seen sales drop 37 percent in the last six months, according to NPD’s Jensen. Seventy-one percent of women surveyed by the firm said they “wear makeup less often due to Covid-19 lifestyle changes.”
Beauty companies are astute at either finding a problem people are talking about and trying to solve it, or manufacturing one. In the beginning of the pandemic, beauty brands attempted to push the narrative that work-from-home employees should care about their makeup because of Zoom calls, with media outlets publishing helpful beauty tips for video calls. But as Zoom fatigue has set in and we’ve become used to seeing the imperfection of people’s homes, with pets and children running in and out of frame, is that really a concern anymore?
“No, nobody cares,” says Kirbie Johnson, a beauty writer and co-host of the beauty-focused podcast Gloss Angeles. “Zoom has the beautify feature! If you’re really worried about it, you can click that and you’re done.”
That isn’t to say people aren’t wearing or caring about makeup. Johnson said she’s seen a push from brands for products that play up eyes, like mascara, fake lashes, brow products, and eye shadow, which is consistent with NPD’s sales data. More people are buying eye makeup than lipstick or foundation because that’s what’s more visible these days.
To reflect this new reality, Cosmopolitan is running a feature on eye makeup in its September issue, according to the magazine’s beauty director Julee Wilson. She says it’s about “having fun with makeup around your eyes because that’s how we can express ourselves now.”
Jensen expects this eye trend to endure. “Face masks are part of our future for a bit longer term.”
Skin is in
Skin care is the real pandemic go-to, though. Johnson says that even makeup companies are pushing products that they think will appeal to the skin care crowd, such as Becca’s new Zero, which the company calls a “no pigment virtual foundation.” In other words, skin care.
Skin care sales are also lower than pre-pandemic levels thanks to store closures, but they haven’t suffered nearly as badly as makeup has. Skin care was already incredibly popular pre-pandemic, and now that people have lots of extra time at home to evaluate their pores, interest in the category remains relatively strong. Face masks, serums, and moisture products are all popular.
One of the reasons is because of “maskne,” a neologism seen everywhere in beauty circles now. “Buttne” and “backne” should give you a clue about what maskne means: acne occurring around the area where one wears a mask.
“Beauty loves a good buzzword to throw around. I’ve been getting pitches probably every single day for the last two months about maskne,” says Johnson. According to Poshly data, 43 percent of people have experienced irritation due to mask-wearing.
Maskne is a real thing, says New York City dermatologist Dr. Carlos Charles, though not a new concept. He chalks maskne up to a situation called acne mechanica, which is inflammation and irritation caused by physical friction. Humidity inside the mask and dirt on the mask itself can exacerbate the problem, slowing cell turnover, clogging pores, and providing an ideal home for acne bacteria to thrive. It’s not treated any differently from regular acne. The same topical products like benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, and retinoids like Differin will work. Ultimately, though, it’s a great way for beauty brands to market products during this time.
“It’s gotten attention because it’s something new and exciting to talk about,” Charles says. “But I’m always wary of people doing [DIY treatments] at home when they don’t know what they’re doing. We always overdo it because we want things to go away quickly.”
Skin care devices like the GloPro and NuFace have seen triple-digit sales increases
Gadgets, which are having a real moment, play into this impulse of wanting quick improvement. Skin care devices like the GloPro (a $199 microneedle tool used to puncture tiny holes in the skin to stimulate collagen production and increase product absorption) and NuFace (a $325 device that runs an electric current through the facial muscles to provide lift and toning) have both seen triple-digit sales increases since the pandemic started. The category overall, which had been experiencing declining sales in 2019, was up 8 percent the first six months of this year.
“People are definitely using tools, and if they didn’t have one, they now want to know what they should be getting. They’re thinking, ‘I’m at home, I’m not going to be seeing anybody, so I might as well take the time now to really go hard on my skin care and gadget routine so that when we are able to go out and see people I look my best,’” says Gloss Angeles’s Johnson.
Ultrasonic skin spatulas, or “skin scrubbers,” are popular too, especially on TikTok. The vibrating device features a flat metal head that helps to scrape out blackheads and other gunk in pores. If a product is ubiquitous on Amazon, it’s generally a sign that it’s popular; there are 270 different options available there now.
Tiara Willis, an esthetician and skin care influencer, likes these devices but warns against another popular one, blackhead “pore vacuum” tools. She says they can cause inflammation and hyperpigmentation, especially in those with darker skin tones. She’s also seen a lot of her followers resorting to at-home chemical peels with products like The Ordinary’s popular Peeling Solution and using blunt eyebrow razors to perform facial dermaplaning on themselves, a procedure that’s meant to exfoliate and remove facial peach fuzz, but one that is normally done in medi-spas with a medical-grade razor. She’s concerned about the irritation and skin sensitization these DIY treatments can cause.
Chemical peels and dermaplaning should only be done by professionals like doctors or estheticians, Willis says. “There’s a lot of training, not only in technique but also there are contraindications for certain people, and you may not know as a consumer if you qualify,” she says.
The salon problem
One of the reasons DIY treatments are popular now is that the pros simply haven’t been available to us. From the early days of the pandemic, products like hair dye and hair removal products flew off shelves after spas and salons were shut down. As states like California have had to close salons a second time due to rising case counts, home root touch-ups are becoming the new normal. Perhaps it will even encourage former salon stalwarts to prolong the time between visits to save a bit of money even once hair pros become more accessible.
“I think it has given people a little more confidence for being able to go a bit longer. We’re going to have to be more flexible and get more comfortable with doing our hair on our own,” says Cosmo’s Wilson.
Ditto manicures. Nail polish sales had been suffering pre-Covid-19 but are now booming. Brands like Olive and June, whose LA-based salons had to shut down, have been selling at-home manicure kits and providing tutorials via Instagram Live. Wilson says she hasn’t been to a nail salon since March and has been using products from ManiMe, a company that provides custom fit nail stickers to mimic the look of a sleek manicure or nail art.
When masks and sanitizers become beauty products
In the early days, large multinational beauty companies including Estée Lauder and L’Oreal pivoted to produce hand sanitizer as a way to both keep their factories operating and to fill a shortage. They donated the sanitizer to hospitals and other entities rather than selling them to consumers. But plenty of other beauty and fragrance brands are now making hand sanitizer to sell. Perfume is mostly alcohol, after all, so beauty has been well positioned to make sanitizer that is a lot less utilitarian than the stuff you find at drugstores.
Bath and Body Works, whose keychain sanitizers have been popular with tweens for decades, now finds its products especially in demand. Plenty of other brands are offering aspirational and expensive versions, too.
“The sexy-looking hand sanitizers are pretty popular right now,” says Johnson, mentioning the $10 credit card-shaped, bergamot-scented Noshinku. Skylar and DS & Durga, both fragrance brands, now offer sanitizers that smell more like fancy soap than Purell. Countless other skin care and nail care brands now sell the category.
Even cloth face masks have been repurposed as beauty products. To prevent the dreaded maskne, brands have touted silk as a gentler material. Brands like Slip and Night offer silk masks that cost upward of $50. Some brands have even started infusing compounds like zinc into cloth masks, claiming they have antimicrobial properties and can protect against irritation. (The FTC has been cracking down on manufacturers making claims on Covid-19 related products, so do your research before purchasing items like this.)
To some, it may seem frivolous and vain to think about and purchase beauty products during a pandemic and a period of incredible social unrest. But for many, it’s a stress reliever and a source of self-care. People may not be buying lipstick, but they’re still buying beauty.
“I do think that beauty, much like during the recession in 2008, will continue to thrive because people want small luxuries to help them feel better both physically and mentally,” says Johnson.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-10--The TikTok drama shines a spotlight on the rare tech investor who backs Trump

The ultimate fate of TikTok could be shaped in part by the efforts of one billionaire tech investor who has earned the distinction of being a particularly rare type of Silicon Valley unicorn : a major donor to Donald Trump .
ByteDance , the Chinese parent company of the hit video sharing app , is in a boxing match with the Trump administration , which has threatened to ban it from the United States next month .
But TikTok has an investor who looms large in the drama because of his personal ties and access to the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one of Silicon Valley ’ s most celebrated firms , Sequoia Capital , and his wife together have given about $ 400,000 over the past two years to Trump ’ s campaign and affiliated groups such as the Republican National Committee and a pro-Trump super PAC .
That makes the Leones two of the very biggest donors to Trump in Silicon Valley , where business leaders have almost entirely run away from publicly backing the president .
Now the links between Leone and Trump may shape the ending of one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
Leone has told “ people he could use his influence with Trump to help the company , ” the Washington Post reported this weekend .
Leone planned to reach out to Steven Mnuchin and Jared Kushner , two top Trump aides who have both been integral to Trump fundraising efforts , “ to see what it would take to save TikTok , ” the Wall Street Journal added .
The stories show how cultivating ties with the White House can pay dividends , even if the donations were not born from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comment .
Trump ’ s campaign didn ’ t return a request for comment .
TikTok and Microsoft — the company that is seeking to purchase it and circumvent a threatened ban of the app — both have built-out Washington operations with professionals that twist arms for a living .
After all , Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella spoke with Trump directly about the potential deal .
But one hallmark of Trump ’ s Washington has been that convincing the administration to take a certain action can be a highly irregular process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump advisers , both formal and informal .
Plus , Trump has displayed a well-documented obsession with whether someone has shown loyalty to his “ team ” or not .
Leone , a longtime Republican , reportedly has that access .
And while Trump might not know Leone well enough to pick him out of a lineup , suffice it to say that not every Silicon Valley venture capitalist can jawbone the secretary of the Treasury or the president ’ s son-in-law to help a portfolio company .
It ’ s still unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplished anything .
And there ’ s no evidence that Leone only gets an audience because of a few hundred thousand bucks in donations .
To be sure , Sequoia ’ s global managing partner is a prominent business leader in his own right .
Precisely why someone gets a call returned — Is it the donations ?
His stature ?
A little bit of both ?
— is impossible to know .
Leone is an exception in tech .
The liberal tech industry has been fighting with Trump since his first day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Leone ’ s co-leader at Sequoia for a long time , Michael Moritz , this cycle has given millions to boost Democrats .
Silicon Valley has made supporting Trump something of a scarlet letter , so much so that even the few leaders who do back him now feel pressure to do so quietly .
That ’ s what makes Leone ’ s public donations unusual , especially in the image-conscious world of venture capital .
When Recode wrote last year about the Leones ’ gifts to Trump — then measuring only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tech spoke to the liability that the donations could pose to Sequoia , even though it is generally regarded as the highest-performing investing firm in Silicon Valley .
Swati Mylavarapu , a former venture capitalist who is now a top Silicon Valley Democratic fundraiser , put it this way on Sunday : That liability remains very real .
But what the news over the weekend makes clear is that there is an upside — less obvious , to be sure — that complements it .
One of Sequoia ’ s most lucrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s stake said to be worth as much as $ 15 billion .
And while the gifts from Leone have been made in a personal capacity and officially have nothing to do with Sequoia , his firm could benefit from the personal donations if they help maintain the value of TikTok .
The few other Silicon Valley marquee names who have supported Trump have reaped some rewards .
Peter Thiel , who braved significant blowback to give over $ 1 million to boost Trump during his 2016 run , has stocked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Larry Ellison , who hosted a fundraiser that brought $ 7 million to Trump ’ s coffers earlier this year , has pressed Trump to publicly push hydroxychloroquine , an experimental drug treatment for the coronavirus that Ellison favors .
Leone is a much lower-profile billionaire than those two titans .
Some Trump fundraisers outside of Silicon Valley say they haven ’ t even heard of him .
But with this much money on the line — and this much international intrigue at play — having him on TikTok ’ s side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The ultimate fate of TikTok could be shaped in part by the efforts of one billionaire tech investor who has earned the distinction of being a particularly rare type of Silicon Valley unicorn: a major donor to Donald Trump.
ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of the hit video sharing app, is in a boxing match with the Trump administration, which has threatened to ban it from the United States next month. But TikTok has an investor who looms large in the drama because of his personal ties and access to the White House.
Doug Leone, one of the leaders of one of Silicon Valley’s most celebrated firms, Sequoia Capital, and his wife together have given about $400,000 over the past two years to Trump’s campaign and affiliated groups such as the Republican National Committee and a pro-Trump super PAC. That makes the Leones two of the very biggest donors to Trump in Silicon Valley, where business leaders have almost entirely run away from publicly backing the president.
Now the links between Leone and Trump may shape the ending of one of the most complex business and geopolitical stories of 2020. Leone has told “people he could use his influence with Trump to help the company,” the Washington Post reported this weekend. Leone planned to reach out to Steven Mnuchin and Jared Kushner, two top Trump aides who have both been integral to Trump fundraising efforts, “to see what it would take to save TikTok,” the Wall Street Journal added.
The stories show how cultivating ties with the White House can pay dividends, even if the donations were not born from a premeditated lobbying push.
Leone declined to comment. Trump’s campaign didn’t return a request for comment.
TikTok and Microsoft — the company that is seeking to purchase it and circumvent a threatened ban of the app — both have built-out Washington operations with professionals that twist arms for a living. After all, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella spoke with Trump directly about the potential deal. But one hallmark of Trump’s Washington has been that convincing the administration to take a certain action can be a highly irregular process, driven by personal relationships and access to Trump advisers, both formal and informal. Plus, Trump has displayed a well-documented obsession with whether someone has shown loyalty to his “team” or not.
Leone, a longtime Republican, reportedly has that access. And while Trump might not know Leone well enough to pick him out of a lineup, suffice it to say that not every Silicon Valley venture capitalist can jawbone the secretary of the Treasury or the president’s son-in-law to help a portfolio company.
It’s still unclear whether Leone’s outreach has actually accomplished anything. And there’s no evidence that Leone only gets an audience because of a few hundred thousand bucks in donations. To be sure, Sequoia’s global managing partner is a prominent business leader in his own right. Precisely why someone gets a call returned — Is it the donations? His stature? A little bit of both? — is impossible to know.
Leone is an exception in tech. The liberal tech industry has been fighting with Trump since his first day on issues like immigration. In fact, Leone’s co-leader at Sequoia for a long time, Michael Moritz, this cycle has given millions to boost Democrats. Silicon Valley has made supporting Trump something of a scarlet letter, so much so that even the few leaders who do back him now feel pressure to do so quietly. That’s what makes Leone’s public donations unusual, especially in the image-conscious world of venture capital.
When Recode wrote last year about the Leones’ gifts to Trump — then measuring only about $100,000 — some leading voices in tech spoke to the liability that the donations could pose to Sequoia, even though it is generally regarded as the highest-performing investing firm in Silicon Valley.
Swati Mylavarapu, a former venture capitalist who is now a top Silicon Valley Democratic fundraiser, put it this way on Sunday:
Hi every entrepreneur who wants to raise money from Sequoia.
You get to make a choice.
Do your investors reflect your and your company's values? https://t.co/0POQLyx6oV — Swati Mylavarapu (@Swatipedia) August 10, 2020
That liability remains very real. But what the news over the weekend makes clear is that there is an upside — less obvious, to be sure — that complements it. One of Sequoia’s most lucrative investments is in ByteDance, with Sequoia’s stake said to be worth as much as $15 billion. And while the gifts from Leone have been made in a personal capacity and officially have nothing to do with Sequoia, his firm could benefit from the personal donations if they help maintain the value of TikTok.
The few other Silicon Valley marquee names who have supported Trump have reaped some rewards. Peter Thiel, who braved significant blowback to give over $1 million to boost Trump during his 2016 run, has stocked the administration with his allies and former aides. Larry Ellison, who hosted a fundraiser that brought $7 million to Trump’s coffers earlier this year, has pressed Trump to publicly push hydroxychloroquine, an experimental drug treatment for the coronavirus that Ellison favors.
Leone is a much lower-profile billionaire than those two titans. Some Trump fundraisers outside of Silicon Valley say they haven’t even heard of him.
But with this much money on the line — and this much international intrigue at play — having him on TikTok’s side can only help.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.