vox--2020-10-16--What we’ve learned so far from school reopenings in the US

America is now in the middle of a big experiment : reopening schools and colleges during the Covid-19 pandemic .
And so far , how things are going depends on which type of school is involved .
At the K-12 level , while there have been some outbreaks , reopenings haven ’ t led to the explosion of cases that some feared .
Still , this comes with a big caveat : Many schools haven ’ t fully opened up yet , partly or entirely limiting teaching to virtual sessions .
And for schools that have opened , we still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on K-12 schools ’ reopenings , and there ’ s still a lot we simply don ’ t know about how kids transmit the coronavirus .
According to the Covid Monitor , there have been more than 52,000 cases in K-12 schools as of October 15 .
That ’ s significant , but a small portion of the 3 million coronavirus cases in the US since August .
At the very least , K-12 schools don ’ t seem to be a primary driver of Covid-19 in the US right now .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as I had anticipated , ” Tara Smith , an epidemiologist at Kent State University , told me .
“ I expected things would be worse by now , but it ’ s been going all right so far in general.
” But at colleges and universities , reopening appears to be going much worse , with multiple big outbreaks over the past few months .
The problem so far doesn ’ t seem to be transmission within classrooms so much as transmission outside of them — in dorms , fraternities , sororities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor spaces used to congregate , party , eat , and drink .
The outbreaks spawned almost immediately as colleges and universities reopened .
In September , a USA Today analysis found college towns comprised 19 of the 25 biggest coronavirus outbreaks in the US .
Outbreaks have forced some colleges and universities to change plans and permanently or temporarily move classes online across the country , from California to Michigan to North Carolina .
The college outbreaks have resulted in deaths .
In September , 19-year-old Appalachian State University student Chad Dorrill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him as a “ super healthy ” athlete with a lack of known preexisting conditions .
Dorrill seemingly contracted the coronavirus while living off-campus — leading to neurological complications , potentially caused by undetected Guillain-Barré syndrome , that ultimately killed him .
“ It ’ s not a hoax , that this virus really does exist , ” Emma Crider , a student at Appalachian State , told the New York Times .
“ Before this , the overall mentality was ‘ out of sight , out of mind.
’ ” Some colleges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter these outbreaks with extremely aggressive testing regimes , testing each student on campus up to twice a week .
The hope is that this will catch any new coronavirus cases before they lead to massive outbreaks — mirroring the kind of strategy employed in Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea to control their respective epidemics .
But it ’ s too early to say how this will work in a higher education setting , especially in communities that have big Covid-19 epidemics outside their schools .
How this all plays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much-feared coronavirus surge this fall and winter .
Coupled with the holidays bringing people together and changing weather pushing some parts of the country indoors , experts worry that school reopenings could lead to a big spike in Covid-19 in the coming months .
While the holidays and weather remain in play , mitigating the spread from schools could stop at least one point of concern .
There are consequences beyond Covid-19 , too .
There ’ s already solid evidence that remote learning isn ’ t good enough to make up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning kids fall further and further behind as long as schools don ’ t fully reopen .
And when kids aren ’ t sent off to school , it ’ s tremendously disruptive to entire families — forcing parents to stay home , often having to supervise their kids to make sure they ’ re actually logging on to their classes .
“ We ’ re really not acknowledging how much work and strain it is on families when you have a kindergartner doing virtual learning , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure to get Covid-19 under control and reopen schools , then , doesn ’ t just mean more coronavirus cases and deaths — on top of the more than 210,000 deaths the US has already seen — but impacts that will cascade over the short and long term across American society .
K-12 reopenings seem to be going fine overall , but there ’ s a lot we don ’ t know It ’ s still unclear how many K-12 schools , exactly , have fully reopened .
Given the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under varying levels of state and local control , we simply don ’ t have a good way to track what every school is doing at a national level .
According to Education Week , four states have ordered schools to reopen .
Seven , along with Washington , DC , and Puerto Rico , have mandated partial or full closures .
The remaining 39 states have by and large left it up to individual school districts or local governments to decide .
Schools can try to fully restart in-person learning , go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model .
Among those allowing in-person teaching , some require masks for teachers and students .
Some are putting students into cohorts or pods — meaning they have to stick to the same group of peers while in school .
Some have spread out desks or limited capacity in classes , and have shifted schedules to reduce how many people are in the building at any moment .
A few have taken more aggressive measures , like improving ventilation systems in schools , holding at least some classes outside , or instituted aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t seem to have been a massive surge of Covid-19 due to K-12 schools reopening for in-person instruction .
Confirmed cases in K-12 schools make up less than 2 percent of all cases reported in the US since August .
One caveat : A lot of states and districts still aren ’ t reporting Covid-19 cases in K-12 schools .
The Covid Monitor , as an independent group , collects public and media reports on top of the official data to try to fill in the gaps .
But it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning its number is a minimum estimate .
Still , it certainly seems like the massive epidemics many feared haven ’ t happened ( at least yet ) .
A USA Today analysis of Florida ’ s school reopenings , for example , concluded , “ Among the counties seeing surges in overall cases , it ’ s college-age adults — not schoolchildren — driving the trend.
” In California , officials similarly reported that they so far had found no link between K-12 schools reopening and increased coronavirus transmission .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Katherine Auger , a health policy researcher at Cincinnati Children ’ s Hospital , told me .
“ We aren ’ t hearing of huge outbreak stories in the news.
” Experts cautioned , however , that the results are early .
And they shouldn ’ t be used as an excuse to open recklessly or without proper safety measures like social distancing , masking , testing , and contact tracing .
Part of the problem is there ’ s still a lot we don ’ t know about K-12 schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , we still don ’ t know for certain how much children , especially younger kids , spread the coronavirus .
What we do know with more certainty is that there seem to be differences in how sick kids get from Covid-19 , depending on age .
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that adolescents ages 12 to 17 were roughly twice as likely as children ages 5 to 11 years old to have a confirmed coronavirus infection .
Whether that means younger children are less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or merely less likely to develop significant symptoms and get tested , is still an open question .
The testing component is particularly important .
As the New York Times reported , it can be very difficult to get a coronavirus test for younger children .
If kids can ’ t get tested , then new infections simply aren ’ t going to get caught and recorded .
Some schools are taking steps to test their staff and students , but many are not — blinding them to potential outbreaks .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this to argue that at least K-3 , K-5 , or K-8 schools could open safely , with few , if any , serious outbreaks .
“ Those are the kids who need the in-person learning , need the social interaction , ” Auger said .
“ It makes sense developmentally that college students and high school students would be able to learn more readily in a remote setting.
” One concern is that , even if the coronavirus doesn ’ t seem to transmit among children or hurt them as much , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for teachers .
That fear has led a lot of teachers , backed by powerful unions , to resist full or even partial reopenings .
Colleges and universities seem to be going worse — with some exceptions Colleges and universities have taken a variety of approaches in reopening .
Some are trying to fully reopen , many are sticking to online only , and others are doing a hybrid model .
Some allow students to live on campus , although typically at a reduced capacity .
Many of the schools are taking a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — merely recommending social distancing and masking — although some have adopted very aggressive testing and masking regimes .
So far , the experience has ranged from mostly fine to outright disasters , with major outbreaks forcing some universities and colleges across the country to move classes back online temporarily or permanently , sometimes after just weeks of reopening .
The outbreaks don ’ t appear to originate in classrooms , but rather in places where students tend to work , socialize , and party .
A recent CDC study backed this up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnamed North Carolina university were likely fueled by “ student gatherings and congregate living settings , both on and off campus.
” To put it another way , the outbreaks seem to be coming from dorms , fraternities , sororities , bars , and restaurants .
It ’ s in these kinds of indoor spaces , where college students work , party , eat , and drink , that Covid-19 has spread .
Experts have described large parties , indoor dining , and bars as especially risky : People are close together for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t wear masks as they eat or drink ; the air can ’ t dilute the virus like it can outdoors ; and alcohol could lead people to drop their guards further .
This was predictable : As Smith said , “ This is what you would expect from college students.
” For young people , a big consideration is that Covid-19 is simply less threatening to them than to older adults .
That may make them feel like they can party and socialize without major consequences .
But young people can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and some have .
Young people also eventually socialize with their parents , grandparents , teachers , and other older peers .
Another CDC study found this to be a consistent trend over the summer : Outbreaks would start among the young , eventually spreading to older populations — leading to many more cases and deaths as a result .
That could be particularly bad for colleges and universities if students carry the virus around the country when they go back home for holidays or breaks , potentially triggering epidemics not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide .
To avoid such outbreaks , some colleges and universities have embraced very aggressive testing regimes — testing all students as they get on campus , then testing each of them two times a week after .
By constantly testing , these schools hope to stop a few cases from turning into a big outbreak .
On top of testing and tracing , colleges and universities have taken various steps to get their students to follow other basic Covid-19 precautions , such as social distancing and masking .
Some universities have outright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of suspension or expulsion , from going to parties or other gatherings , or even interacting with anyone outside of their dorm and classes .
Whether all of that works remains to be seen .
For testing and tracing , the early results seem promising , with several of the most aggressive schools reporting few , if any , Covid-19 cases .
And it follows the kind of model that ’ s helped other places , including whole nations , control their epidemics .
Some experts are worried that the aggressive testing regimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security .
They pointed to the White House , where very aggressive testing has been used to justify relaxing on social distancing and masking .
That seemed to contribute to the ongoing outbreak at the White House , spanning from President Donald Trump to a presidential valet .
Aggressive testing “ is not a replacement for all the other measures , ” Lauren Ancel Meyers , a mathematical biologist at the University of Texas Austin , told me .
“ It ’ s just a needed addition to armament of intervention strategies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times story showed that false sense of security in action , reporting that “ students like Logan Morrione can wander on and off the Waterville , Maine , [ Colby College ] campus , attend most classes in person and even do without masks in some social situations.
” Truly reopening schools requires getting Covid-19 under control Setting aside whatever is happening within classrooms , the biggest problem for schools is that America still has a lot of coronavirus cases .
In the past week , the US reported more than double the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at least 100 times the cases per person a day as South Korea , Australia , and New Zealand .
With so many cases across the US , and especially in educational settings where students are coming in from around the country , there are simply more chances that the virus will end up on campus .
Meyers emphasized this is the No .
1 factor any school should consider before reopening .
This is why many experts spent much of the summer calling for America to suppress the coronavirus : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level , that could allow schools , from K-12 to colleges and universities , to open much more safely .
But despite experts ’ warnings , many states reopened bars and indoor dining — fueling large outbreaks .
Some places were slow to mandate masks , with 17 states still not requiring them .
The US , in effect , prioritized a false sense of normalcy and the reopening of bars and indoor dining over the reopening of schools .
Universities are seeing this directly as bars and indoor dining lead to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s something we really should have seen coming , ” Popescu said .
The bad outcomes within some schools could set up the US for a broader vicious cycle : If colleges and universities lead to Covid-19 spikes , they could make it more difficult for K-12 schools to reopen .
That , some experts argued , would be a backward outcome .
“ It ’ s much easier to do virtual learning for universities and for high schools , ” Popescu argued .
So it ’ s the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that must take priority over all other safety precautions within schools .
As long as the US doesn ’ t get its whole coronavirus epidemic under control — whether due to incompetence from the Trump administration or other officials — schools are , just like other public settings , going to be at risk for Covid-19 .
That ’ s not to say schools can ’ t take steps to make themselves safer .
They can still embrace social distancing , masking , testing , and tracing .
They can try to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staggering schedules , or reducing the numbers of people in classrooms or dorms .
They can encourage or mandate students to only socialize within a small group of people — by establishing a pod or cohorting , or by limiting students to people that they live or go to class with .
They could try to improve ventilation in buildings , or hold more classes and events outside .
But these precautions aren ’ t going to be consistently effective if the virus is raging in the broader community .
If this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when paired with the holidays and people going inside to avoid the cold , contribute to a surge in coronavirus cases this fall and winter .
America ’ s already bad Covid-19 epidemic , then , would get even worse .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

America is now in the middle of a big experiment: reopening schools and colleges during the Covid-19 pandemic. And so far, how things are going depends on which type of school is involved.
At the K-12 level, while there have been some outbreaks, reopenings haven’t led to the explosion of cases that some feared. Still, this comes with a big caveat: Many schools haven’t fully opened up yet, partly or entirely limiting teaching to virtual sessions. And for schools that have opened, we still don’t have very good data on K-12 schools’ reopenings, and there’s still a lot we simply don’t know about how kids transmit the coronavirus.
According to the Covid Monitor, there have been more than 52,000 cases in K-12 schools as of October 15. That’s significant, but a small portion of the 3 million coronavirus cases in the US since August. At the very least, K-12 schools don’t seem to be a primary driver of Covid-19 in the US right now.
“It hasn’t been as chaotic as I had anticipated,” Tara Smith, an epidemiologist at Kent State University, told me. “I expected things would be worse by now, but it’s been going all right so far in general.”
But at colleges and universities, reopening appears to be going much worse, with multiple big outbreaks over the past few months. The problem so far doesn’t seem to be transmission within classrooms so much as transmission outside of them — in dorms, fraternities, sororities, bars, restaurants, and other indoor spaces used to congregate, party, eat, and drink.
The outbreaks spawned almost immediately as colleges and universities reopened. In September, a USA Today analysis found college towns comprised 19 of the 25 biggest coronavirus outbreaks in the US. Outbreaks have forced some colleges and universities to change plans and permanently or temporarily move classes online across the country, from California to Michigan to North Carolina.
The college outbreaks have resulted in deaths. In September, 19-year-old Appalachian State University student Chad Dorrill died, despite friends and family describing him as a “super healthy” athlete with a lack of known preexisting conditions. Dorrill seemingly contracted the coronavirus while living off-campus — leading to neurological complications, potentially caused by undetected Guillain-Barré syndrome, that ultimately killed him.
“It’s not a hoax, that this virus really does exist,” Emma Crider, a student at Appalachian State, told the New York Times. “Before this, the overall mentality was ‘out of sight, out of mind.’”
Some colleges and universities are trying to prevent and counter these outbreaks with extremely aggressive testing regimes, testing each student on campus up to twice a week. The hope is that this will catch any new coronavirus cases before they lead to massive outbreaks — mirroring the kind of strategy employed in Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea to control their respective epidemics. But it’s too early to say how this will work in a higher education setting, especially in communities that have big Covid-19 epidemics outside their schools.
How this all plays out could help decide whether America sees a much-feared coronavirus surge this fall and winter. Coupled with the holidays bringing people together and changing weather pushing some parts of the country indoors, experts worry that school reopenings could lead to a big spike in Covid-19 in the coming months. While the holidays and weather remain in play, mitigating the spread from schools could stop at least one point of concern.
There are consequences beyond Covid-19, too. There’s already solid evidence that remote learning isn’t good enough to make up for the benefits of in-person teaching, meaning kids fall further and further behind as long as schools don’t fully reopen. And when kids aren’t sent off to school, it’s tremendously disruptive to entire families — forcing parents to stay home, often having to supervise their kids to make sure they’re actually logging on to their classes.
“We’re really not acknowledging how much work and strain it is on families when you have a kindergartner doing virtual learning,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me.
A failure to get Covid-19 under control and reopen schools, then, doesn’t just mean more coronavirus cases and deaths — on top of the more than 210,000 deaths the US has already seen — but impacts that will cascade over the short and long term across American society.
K-12 reopenings seem to be going fine overall, but there’s a lot we don’t know
It’s still unclear how many K-12 schools, exactly, have fully reopened. Given the country’s sprawling network of school districts, each under varying levels of state and local control, we simply don’t have a good way to track what every school is doing at a national level.
According to Education Week, four states have ordered schools to reopen. Seven, along with Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, have mandated partial or full closures. The remaining 39 states have by and large left it up to individual school districts or local governments to decide.
Schools can try to fully restart in-person learning, go remote only, or follow a hybrid model. Among those allowing in-person teaching, some require masks for teachers and students. Some are putting students into cohorts or pods — meaning they have to stick to the same group of peers while in school. Some have spread out desks or limited capacity in classes, and have shifted schedules to reduce how many people are in the building at any moment. A few have taken more aggressive measures, like improving ventilation systems in schools, holding at least some classes outside, or instituted aggressive testing programs.
So far, there doesn’t seem to have been a massive surge of Covid-19 due to K-12 schools reopening for in-person instruction. Confirmed cases in K-12 schools make up less than 2 percent of all cases reported in the US since August.
One caveat: A lot of states and districts still aren’t reporting Covid-19 cases in K-12 schools. The Covid Monitor, as an independent group, collects public and media reports on top of the official data to try to fill in the gaps. But it’s certainly missing a lot of cases, meaning its number is a minimum estimate.
Still, it certainly seems like the massive epidemics many feared haven’t happened (at least yet). A USA Today analysis of Florida’s school reopenings, for example, concluded, “Among the counties seeing surges in overall cases, it’s college-age adults — not schoolchildren — driving the trend.” In California, officials similarly reported that they so far had found no link between K-12 schools reopening and increased coronavirus transmission.
“There are some reasons to be hopeful,” Katherine Auger, a health policy researcher at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told me. “We aren’t hearing of huge outbreak stories in the news.”
Experts cautioned, however, that the results are early. And they shouldn’t be used as an excuse to open recklessly or without proper safety measures like social distancing, masking, testing, and contact tracing.
Part of the problem is there’s still a lot we don’t know about K-12 schools’ ability to spread Covid-19. For one, we still don’t know for certain how much children, especially younger kids, spread the coronavirus.
What we do know with more certainty is that there seem to be differences in how sick kids get from Covid-19, depending on age. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that adolescents ages 12 to 17 were roughly twice as likely as children ages 5 to 11 years old to have a confirmed coronavirus infection. Whether that means younger children are less likely to get and transmit the coronavirus, or merely less likely to develop significant symptoms and get tested, is still an open question.
The testing component is particularly important. As the New York Times reported, it can be very difficult to get a coronavirus test for younger children. If kids can’t get tested, then new infections simply aren’t going to get caught and recorded. Some schools are taking steps to test their staff and students, but many are not — blinding them to potential outbreaks.
Still, some experts have cited data like this to argue that at least K-3, K-5, or K-8 schools could open safely, with few, if any, serious outbreaks. “Those are the kids who need the in-person learning, need the social interaction,” Auger said. “It makes sense developmentally that college students and high school students would be able to learn more readily in a remote setting.”
One concern is that, even if the coronavirus doesn’t seem to transmit among children or hurt them as much, the same isn’t necessarily true for teachers. That fear has led a lot of teachers, backed by powerful unions, to resist full or even partial reopenings.
Colleges and universities seem to be going worse — with some exceptions
Colleges and universities have taken a variety of approaches in reopening. Some are trying to fully reopen, many are sticking to online only, and others are doing a hybrid model. Some allow students to live on campus, although typically at a reduced capacity. Many of the schools are taking a fairly hands-off approach to what students do — merely recommending social distancing and masking — although some have adopted very aggressive testing and masking regimes.
So far, the experience has ranged from mostly fine to outright disasters, with major outbreaks forcing some universities and colleges across the country to move classes back online temporarily or permanently, sometimes after just weeks of reopening.
The outbreaks don’t appear to originate in classrooms, but rather in places where students tend to work, socialize, and party. A recent CDC study backed this up, concluding that Covid-19 clusters in an unnamed North Carolina university were likely fueled by “student gatherings and congregate living settings, both on and off campus.”
To put it another way, the outbreaks seem to be coming from dorms, fraternities, sororities, bars, and restaurants. It’s in these kinds of indoor spaces, where college students work, party, eat, and drink, that Covid-19 has spread. Experts have described large parties, indoor dining, and bars as especially risky: People are close together for long periods of time; they can’t wear masks as they eat or drink; the air can’t dilute the virus like it can outdoors; and alcohol could lead people to drop their guards further.
This was predictable: As Smith said, “This is what you would expect from college students.”
For young people, a big consideration is that Covid-19 is simply less threatening to them than to older adults. That may make them feel like they can party and socialize without major consequences.
But young people can still get sick and die from Covid-19 — and some have. Young people also eventually socialize with their parents, grandparents, teachers, and other older peers. Another CDC study found this to be a consistent trend over the summer: Outbreaks would start among the young, eventually spreading to older populations — leading to many more cases and deaths as a result. That could be particularly bad for colleges and universities if students carry the virus around the country when they go back home for holidays or breaks, potentially triggering epidemics not just locally at or near their campuses but nationwide.
To avoid such outbreaks, some colleges and universities have embraced very aggressive testing regimes — testing all students as they get on campus, then testing each of them two times a week after. By constantly testing, these schools hope to stop a few cases from turning into a big outbreak.
On top of testing and tracing, colleges and universities have taken various steps to get their students to follow other basic Covid-19 precautions, such as social distancing and masking. Some universities have outright prohibited their students, with the threat of suspension or expulsion, from going to parties or other gatherings, or even interacting with anyone outside of their dorm and classes.
Whether all of that works remains to be seen. For testing and tracing, the early results seem promising, with several of the most aggressive schools reporting few, if any, Covid-19 cases. And it follows the kind of model that’s helped other places, including whole nations, control their epidemics.
Some experts are worried that the aggressive testing regimes could lead to a false sense of security. They pointed to the White House, where very aggressive testing has been used to justify relaxing on social distancing and masking. That seemed to contribute to the ongoing outbreak at the White House, spanning from President Donald Trump to a presidential valet.
Aggressive testing “is not a replacement for all the other measures,” Lauren Ancel Meyers, a mathematical biologist at the University of Texas Austin, told me. “It’s just a needed addition to armament of intervention strategies that we have.”
A recent New York Times story showed that false sense of security in action, reporting that “students like Logan Morrione can wander on and off the Waterville, Maine, [Colby College] campus, attend most classes in person and even do without masks in some social situations.”
Truly reopening schools requires getting Covid-19 under control
Setting aside whatever is happening within classrooms, the biggest problem for schools is that America still has a lot of coronavirus cases. In the past week, the US reported more than double the cases per person a day as Canada and at least 100 times the cases per person a day as South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.
With so many cases across the US, and especially in educational settings where students are coming in from around the country, there are simply more chances that the virus will end up on campus. Meyers emphasized this is the No. 1 factor any school should consider before reopening.
This is why many experts spent much of the summer calling for America to suppress the coronavirus: If cases were driven to a low enough level, that could allow schools, from K-12 to colleges and universities, to open much more safely.
But despite experts’ warnings, many states reopened bars and indoor dining — fueling large outbreaks. Some places were slow to mandate masks, with 17 states still not requiring them. The US, in effect, prioritized a false sense of normalcy and the reopening of bars and indoor dining over the reopening of schools. Universities are seeing this directly as bars and indoor dining lead to a surge of coronavirus cases on campus.
“It’s something we really should have seen coming,” Popescu said.
The bad outcomes within some schools could set up the US for a broader vicious cycle: If colleges and universities lead to Covid-19 spikes, they could make it more difficult for K-12 schools to reopen. That, some experts argued, would be a backward outcome. “It’s much easier to do virtual learning for universities and for high schools,” Popescu argued.
So it’s the problem of community transmission, experts say, that must take priority over all other safety precautions within schools. As long as the US doesn’t get its whole coronavirus epidemic under control — whether due to incompetence from the Trump administration or other officials — schools are, just like other public settings, going to be at risk for Covid-19.
That’s not to say schools can’t take steps to make themselves safer. They can still embrace social distancing, masking, testing, and tracing. They can try to have fewer people on their campuses — by staggering schedules, or reducing the numbers of people in classrooms or dorms. They can encourage or mandate students to only socialize within a small group of people — by establishing a pod or cohorting, or by limiting students to people that they live or go to class with. They could try to improve ventilation in buildings, or hold more classes and events outside.
But these precautions aren’t going to be consistently effective if the virus is raging in the broader community.
If this isn’t taken seriously, it could, when paired with the holidays and people going inside to avoid the cold, contribute to a surge in coronavirus cases this fall and winter. America’s already bad Covid-19 epidemic, then, would get even worse.


vox--2020-10-16--A guide to the Trump administration’s biggest scandals, accomplishments, and policies

Four years ago , Donald Trump won the presidency and our shared reality hasn ’ t been the same since .
The relentless pace of headlines , controversies , and tweets has rendered the country divided and unable to fully recollect the past .
We struggle to recall what this president said or did last month , let alone in 2017 .
Leading up to the 2020 election , Today , Explained will help you remember .
In a five-part series , we ’ re bringing you The Trump Years : a look back at what Donald Trump did during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and what it means for the future of the American political experiment .
The series will explore President Trump ’ s legacy , from health care to the coronavirus pandemic , from the economy and immigration to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and impeachment .
Remember impeachment ?
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify — to automatically get new episodes when they publish .
Episode 1 | When President Trump entered the White House , his administration had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight years of the Obama administration .
Much of the deregulating that has happened in the last four years has not dominated the headlines , but it will have a huge impact on the environment and financial systems in this country for years to come .
Episode 2 | On immigration and foreign policy , the president has kept a lot of his promises .
But does a more broken immigration system and shaken alliances really put “ America First ” ?
Episode 3 | After four years of investigations , whistleblower complaints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a lot we don ’ t know about Russia ’ s attempts to interfere with the 2016 election .
But one thing Robert Mueller ’ s investigation and the impeachment trial revealed is President Trump and his campaign will go to any lengths to win .
Episode 4 | President Trump failed to overturn the Affordable Care Act in his first days in office , but what has his administration done to change the health care system in the US and , seven months into a global pandemic , what state is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many issues have been illuminated in the past four years : From the Women ’ s March to the Black Lives Matter movement , from economic inequalities and a fractured health care system to a shift in the balance of the US judicial branch — and more .
These issues didn ’ t begin when President Trump entered the White House , and they will continue long after he ’ s gone .
So how does the country move forward ?
Want to hear more 2020 election coverage from Vox podcasts ?
Check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Four years ago, Donald Trump won the presidency and our shared reality hasn’t been the same since. The relentless pace of headlines, controversies, and tweets has rendered the country divided and unable to fully recollect the past. We struggle to recall what this president said or did last month, let alone in 2017.
Leading up to the 2020 election, Today, Explained will help you remember. In a five-part series, we’re bringing you The Trump Years: a look back at what Donald Trump did during his four years as president of the United States and what it means for the future of the American political experiment. The series will explore President Trump’s legacy, from health care to the coronavirus pandemic, from the economy and immigration to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and impeachment. Remember impeachment?
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify — to automatically get new episodes when they publish.
Deregulating America
Episode 1 | When President Trump entered the White House, his administration had a clear goal: erase the last eight years of the Obama administration. Much of the deregulating that has happened in the last four years has not dominated the headlines, but it will have a huge impact on the environment and financial systems in this country for years to come.
America First?
Episode 2 | On immigration and foreign policy, the president has kept a lot of his promises. But does a more broken immigration system and shaken alliances really put “America First”?
The investigations
Episode 3 | After four years of investigations, whistleblower complaints, indictments and trials, there is still a lot we don’t know about Russia’s attempts to interfere with the 2016 election. But one thing Robert Mueller’s investigation and the impeachment trial revealed is President Trump and his campaign will go to any lengths to win.
Health of the nation
Episode 4 | President Trump failed to overturn the Affordable Care Act in his first days in office, but what has his administration done to change the health care system in the US? And months into a pandemic, what state is that system in?
State of our union
Episode 5 | Many issues have been illuminated in the past four years: From the Women’s March to the Black Lives Matter movement, from economic inequalities and a fractured health care system to a shift in the balance of the US judicial branch — and more. These issues didn’t begin when President Trump entered the White House, and they will continue long after he’s gone. So how does the country move forward?
Want to hear more 2020 election coverage from Vox podcasts? Check out this Spotify playlist:


vox--2020-10-16--Presidents hate to look sick. Trump has never needed to appear strong more.

It has been five days since White House physician Sean Conley said that President Donald Trump tested negative for the novel coronavirus , an impressive recovery time for a patient who was airlifted to a hospital , received supplemental oxygen , and underwent experimental Covid-19 treatments .
As president , Trump didn ’ t receive the typical care that the average American would , but his speedy return to the White House has prompted questions and scrutiny among reporters , health experts , and the American public .
Trump wants the average American voter to know that he is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s determined — now that we are in the home stretch of his reelection campaign — to appear healthy , vigorous , and strong .
He tells supporters he has “ dominated ” the coronavirus .
He feels “ so powerful.
” He wants to “ kiss everyone ” at his rallies .
Science and public health have proven not to be pressing concerns for President Trump , who holds the medically inaccurate belief that he is “ immune ” to the coronavirus and “ can ’ t give it ” to others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he appears to the American people .
And with the election in less than 30 days , his team has scheduled back-to-back campaign events for Trump to deliver booming speeches to tightly packed crowds ( who may or may not be masked ) .
But these high-profile appearances , coupled with persistent questions around his health , have the American people examining him intently for signs of illness .
Appearances are crucial in politics , especially when the two presidential candidates are faced with questions regarding their age and mental acuity .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his entire political career performing a sort of hyper-aggressive masculinity , he can ’ t give up that facade just yet — not even with sickness coloring the picture .
It ’ s not unusual for presidents to hide their physical ailments , but Trump ’ s sudden show of strength , in the form of frenzied campaigning , is an extreme deviation from the presidential norm and a sign that he ’ s worried about slipping in the polls .
But no one can say for sure , not even Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has emerged from the virus scot-free .
The coronavirus is a precarious and persistent disease , sometimes triggering immune overreactions or long-term deficiencies .
Perhaps the president ’ s aversion to illness is rooted in the belief that the sick are weak and the healthy are strong .
Weakness is not seen as a suitable trait for any American president , not just Trump .
Franklin Roosevelt , John F. Kennedy , and Ronald Reagan , to name a few , have either undergone significant surgeries or dealt with chronic illnesses in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be hospitalized ( that we know of ) since Reagan as an inpatient , and he knows that the specter of a sick president is concerning , no matter how the White House tries to spin it .
It ’ s unsurprising , then , that the proper timeline of Trump ’ s illness and recovery has not been made clear to the press .
“ Powerful leaders are not exempted from illness by virtue of their position or influence .
… A leader ’ s illness and demise can affect the lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” wrote Rose McDermott , a Brown University professor , in her 2008 book Presidential Leadership , Illness , and Decision Making .
The state of a president ’ s health , when faced with a potentially severe illness , has historically been kept under wraps .
“ This is a playbook used by almost every presidential physician .
They ’ re perfectly happy to share information when the president is doing great , but tend to obfuscate anything that suggests he ’ s weak or impaired , ” McDermott told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , out of control , or raise any questions about their ability to be in command , so they hide behind their doctors to say they ’ re capable.
” Hiding is more complicated for Trump , who thrives off attention .
But even with social media and a hyperactive news cycle , a veneer of secrecy still surrounds the president ’ s health .
“ What ’ s really telling is that , last fall , Trump was rushed to Walter Reed in the middle of the night , ” McDermott added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what happened , even if their response was that he was just having a physical done.
” The White House ’ s lack of transparency , however , seems to be fueling more scrutiny this time , not only among reporters , but by citizens online .
While previous presidents have successfully concealed their health records , many reporters are hyper-skeptical of this administration ’ s mixed messaging .
At Thursday night ’ s town hall , Trump evaded NBC journalist Savannah Guthrie ’ s question as to when he last tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physician , also dodged that question on Monday , saying “ I don ’ t want to go backwards ” on discussing the president ’ s test results .
Yet Trump is not one to simply use his doctors as a shield .
Performance and flair are integral aspects to his life and presidency , so even in the depths of his illness , the cameras kept rolling for America ’ s reality TV president .
His team staged photo ops while the president tweeted , took his presidential motorcade out for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House via Air Force One — an Evita-inspired scene that ends with the president tearing off his mask on his balcony and saluting to an empty lawn .
His latest string of public appearances reveals what we already know about the president : He ’ s a showman who revels in the limelight at pro-MAGA events .
He is , once again , delivering hour-long speeches and dancing at his rallies .
“ No president wants to appear weak , out of control , or raise any questions about their ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be more fixated on the illusion of control and strength than any ailing US president ; he also is , perhaps , the most-watched president in history .
It would ’ ve been difficult for him to quietly fall ill , as Woodrow Wilson did in 1918 with the Spanish flu ; he later had a serious stroke that left him partly paralyzed .
Videos of Trump speaking and photos from the press pool and MAGA rally attendees frequently circulate online , and the scrutiny toward the president ’ s appearance reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his public diagnosis .
( During the vice presidential debate , many also harped on Mike Pence ’ s pink-looking eye . )
Viewers are focused , too , on Joe Biden , who has been more transparent about his health records .
The Biden campaign has sought to juxtapose its internal Covid-19 response to Trump ’ s ; when two people associated with Sen. Kamala Harris ’ s team tested positive , the campaign publicized the candidates ’ last testing results and medical explanations as to why it ’ s still safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump scorns these precautions .
“ I don ’ t wear a mask like him , ” the president said at the October 2 presidential debate , in reference to Biden ’ s mask-wearing habits .
“ He could be speaking 200 feet away and he ’ ll show up with the biggest mask I ’ ve ever seen.
” To Trump , the virus seems to be “ a dare , a slight against the power and health he has tried to project , ” wrote Vox ’ s Alex Abad-Santos .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ double down and prove his virility through risk with no real reward— particularly when it comes to eschewing the face mask , an item he considers weak.
” Axios reported on Monday that Trump asked to be put on the road every single day until November 3 , despite concerns from some advisers .
Trump appears eager to overcompensate for myriad reasons — as a flex against Biden and to downplay the severity of Covid-19 in an “ if I get over it , so can you ” manner .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
On paper , the coronavirus diagnosis didn ’ t look good for him .
The president falls in the high-risk category of people for whom Covid-19 could be — if not fatal — severely damaging .
He is 74 and overweight , maintaining his lifestyle with an indulgent diet of junk and fast food .
He doesn ’ t believe in exercise .
According to those in Trump ’ s orbit , he ’ s also a germaphobe ( despite his commitment to keep shaking hands during the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is at odds with what ’ s completely obvious , ” said McDermott , who added that the president ’ s elevated mood and behavior could be a side effect of steroids .
“ He ’ s not as in good shape , even without Covid , as he claims .
He ’ s certainly aware of the impression he makes because all he does is watch television.
” There was a moment in Walter Reed , though , in which Trump briefly came to terms with his own mortality , reported New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I could be one of the diers , ” he had said .
For previous presidents , this kind of brush with death has changed them , and they ’ ve emerged from their illness as more empathetic leaders .
“ Roosevelt is the best example as someone who was patrician , elitist , and not somebody people connected with before he got polio , ” McDermott said .
“ Polio changed his notion of how illness affects someone ’ s quality of life , and it turned him into one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever seen.
” But as of mid-October , the president appears to be very much alive , having emerged from the experience as callously cavalier as he was before his diagnosis .
He even planned a stunt to appear initially frail during his hospital discharge , the New York Times reported , which would end with him revealing a Superman T-shirt underneath his button-down .
Trump , it seems , has interpreted his recovery as a boon that ’ ll help him in the polls , despite sagging numbers .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to be out front .
As your leader , I had to do that , ” Trump told Americans in a Twitter video shortly after his White House return .
The subtext of the message was odd , like he was implying that as president , he contracted the virus on America ’ s behalf .
He closed the video , saying : “ Don ’ t let it dominate your lives.
” Trump is determined to not allow the coronavirus — his own illness or his administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his narrative , even if it puts him in danger .
“ He ’ s going to kill himself , ” one adviser told Axios of his campaign schedule .
It ’ s likely that the president is overexerting himself to keep up appearances for his base , to build on the myth that he is a strong , invincible leader .
Previous presidents , like Kennedy ( who was chronically ill and constantly in pain ) , have similarly relied on this specter of health and vigor to attract voters .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate bought into Trump ’ s myth — a story of a clever businessman who understood the art of the deal and promised to advocate for all Americans .
At the tail-end of a year full of inconsolable loss and mass death , it ’ s hard to say whether voters will buy into Trump ’ s last-ditch distraction , a false show of strength from a very bronzed man atop a very tall podium who has claimed , for the past four years , that he will make America great again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

It has been five days since White House physician Sean Conley said that President Donald Trump tested negative for the novel coronavirus, an impressive recovery time for a patient who was airlifted to a hospital, received supplemental oxygen, and underwent experimental Covid-19 treatments. As president, Trump didn’t receive the typical care that the average American would, but his speedy return to the White House has prompted questions and scrutiny among reporters, health experts, and the American public.
Trump wants the average American voter to know that he is “feeling great,” and he’s determined — now that we are in the home stretch of his reelection campaign — to appear healthy, vigorous, and strong. He tells supporters he has “dominated” the coronavirus. He feels “so powerful.” He wants to “kiss everyone” at his rallies.
Science and public health have proven not to be pressing concerns for President Trump, who holds the medically inaccurate belief that he is “immune” to the coronavirus and “can’t give it” to others. What matters to Trump is how he appears to the American people. And with the election in less than 30 days, his team has scheduled back-to-back campaign events for Trump to deliver booming speeches to tightly packed crowds (who may or may not be masked). But these high-profile appearances, coupled with persistent questions around his health, have the American people examining him intently for signs of illness.
"The nice part, I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there, I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women—everybody," Trump in Florida, 11 days after announcing has coronavirus pic.twitter.com/4ZQH0mBAU0 — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) October 12, 2020
Appearances are crucial in politics, especially when the two presidential candidates are faced with questions regarding their age and mental acuity. For someone like Trump, who has spent his entire political career performing a sort of hyper-aggressive masculinity, he can’t give up that facade just yet — not even with sickness coloring the picture. It’s not unusual for presidents to hide their physical ailments, but Trump’s sudden show of strength, in the form of frenzied campaigning, is an extreme deviation from the presidential norm and a sign that he’s worried about slipping in the polls.
But no one can say for sure, not even Trump and his cadre of doctors, that he has emerged from the virus scot-free. The coronavirus is a precarious and persistent disease, sometimes triggering immune overreactions or long-term deficiencies. Perhaps the president’s aversion to illness is rooted in the belief that the sick are weak and the healthy are strong.
Weakness is not seen as a suitable trait for any American president, not just Trump. Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, to name a few, have either undergone significant surgeries or dealt with chronic illnesses in office.
Trump is the first president to be hospitalized (that we know of) since Reagan as an inpatient, and he knows that the specter of a sick president is concerning, no matter how the White House tries to spin it. It’s unsurprising, then, that the proper timeline of Trump’s illness and recovery has not been made clear to the press.
“Powerful leaders are not exempted from illness by virtue of their position or influence. … A leader’s illness and demise can affect the lives of many others in decisive ways,” wrote Rose McDermott, a Brown University professor, in her 2008 book Presidential Leadership, Illness, and Decision Making.
The state of a president’s health, when faced with a potentially severe illness, has historically been kept under wraps. “This is a playbook used by almost every presidential physician. They’re perfectly happy to share information when the president is doing great, but tend to obfuscate anything that suggests he’s weak or impaired,” McDermott told me. “No president wants to appear weak, out of control, or raise any questions about their ability to be in command, so they hide behind their doctors to say they’re capable.”
Hiding is more complicated for Trump, who thrives off attention. But even with social media and a hyperactive news cycle, a veneer of secrecy still surrounds the president’s health. “What’s really telling is that, last fall, Trump was rushed to Walter Reed in the middle of the night,” McDermott added. “We still don’t know what happened, even if their response was that he was just having a physical done.”
The White House’s lack of transparency, however, seems to be fueling more scrutiny this time, not only among reporters, but by citizens online. While previous presidents have successfully concealed their health records, many reporters are hyper-skeptical of this administration’s mixed messaging. At Thursday night’s town hall, Trump evaded NBC journalist Savannah Guthrie’s question as to when he last tested negative for Covid-19. Conley, his physician, also dodged that question on Monday, saying “I don’t want to go backwards” on discussing the president’s test results.
Yet Trump is not one to simply use his doctors as a shield. Performance and flair are integral aspects to his life and presidency, so even in the depths of his illness, the cameras kept rolling for America’s reality TV president. His team staged photo ops while the president tweeted, took his presidential motorcade out for a dangerous joyride, and dramatically returned to the White House via Air Force One — an Evita-inspired scene that ends with the president tearing off his mask on his balcony and saluting to an empty lawn.
His latest string of public appearances reveals what we already know about the president: He’s a showman who revels in the limelight at pro-MAGA events. He is, once again, delivering hour-long speeches and dancing at his rallies.
“No president wants to appear weak, out of control, or raise any questions about their ability to be in command”
Trump appears to be more fixated on the illusion of control and strength than any ailing US president; he also is, perhaps, the most-watched president in history. It would’ve been difficult for him to quietly fall ill, as Woodrow Wilson did in 1918 with the Spanish flu; he later had a serious stroke that left him partly paralyzed. Videos of Trump speaking and photos from the press pool and MAGA rally attendees frequently circulate online, and the scrutiny toward the president’s appearance reached a zenith during the first week of his public diagnosis. (During the vice presidential debate, many also harped on Mike Pence’s pink-looking eye.)
Viewers are focused, too, on Joe Biden, who has been more transparent about his health records. The Biden campaign has sought to juxtapose its internal Covid-19 response to Trump’s; when two people associated with Sen. Kamala Harris’s team tested positive, the campaign publicized the candidates’ last testing results and medical explanations as to why it’s still safe for Biden to travel.
Instead, Trump scorns these precautions. “I don’t wear a mask like him,” the president said at the October 2 presidential debate, in reference to Biden’s mask-wearing habits. “He could be speaking 200 feet away and he’ll show up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.”
To Trump, the virus seems to be “a dare, a slight against the power and health he has tried to project,” wrote Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos. “Now he’s chosen to double down and prove his virility through risk with no real reward— particularly when it comes to eschewing the face mask, an item he considers weak.”
Axios reported on Monday that Trump asked to be put on the road every single day until November 3, despite concerns from some advisers. Trump appears eager to overcompensate for myriad reasons — as a flex against Biden and to downplay the severity of Covid-19 in an “if I get over it, so can you” manner. It’s as if he was not sick in the first place.
On paper, the coronavirus diagnosis didn’t look good for him. The president falls in the high-risk category of people for whom Covid-19 could be — if not fatal — severely damaging. He is 74 and overweight, maintaining his lifestyle with an indulgent diet of junk and fast food. He doesn’t believe in exercise. According to those in Trump’s orbit, he’s also a germaphobe (despite his commitment to keep shaking hands during the pandemic).
“His presentation with himself is at odds with what’s completely obvious,” said McDermott, who added that the president’s elevated mood and behavior could be a side effect of steroids. “He’s not as in good shape, even without Covid, as he claims. He’s certainly aware of the impression he makes because all he does is watch television.”
There was a moment in Walter Reed, though, in which Trump briefly came to terms with his own mortality, reported New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi. “I could be one of the diers,” he had said.
For previous presidents, this kind of brush with death has changed them, and they’ve emerged from their illness as more empathetic leaders.
“Roosevelt is the best example as someone who was patrician, elitist, and not somebody people connected with before he got polio,” McDermott said. “Polio changed his notion of how illness affects someone’s quality of life, and it turned him into one of the most progressive presidents the US has ever seen.”
But as of mid-October, the president appears to be very much alive, having emerged from the experience as callously cavalier as he was before his diagnosis. He even planned a stunt to appear initially frail during his hospital discharge, the New York Times reported, which would end with him revealing a Superman T-shirt underneath his button-down. Trump, it seems, has interpreted his recovery as a boon that’ll help him in the polls, despite sagging numbers.
“We’re going back to work. We’re going to be out front. As your leader, I had to do that,” Trump told Americans in a Twitter video shortly after his White House return. The subtext of the message was odd, like he was implying that as president, he contracted the virus on America’s behalf. He closed the video, saying: “Don’t let it dominate your lives.”
Trump is determined to not allow the coronavirus — his own illness or his administration’s handling of the pandemic — to dictate his narrative, even if it puts him in danger. “He’s going to kill himself,” one adviser told Axios of his campaign schedule. It’s likely that the president is overexerting himself to keep up appearances for his base, to build on the myth that he is a strong, invincible leader. Previous presidents, like Kennedy (who was chronically ill and constantly in pain), have similarly relied on this specter of health and vigor to attract voters.
In 2016, a portion of the American electorate bought into Trump’s myth — a story of a clever businessman who understood the art of the deal and promised to advocate for all Americans. At the tail-end of a year full of inconsolable loss and mass death, it’s hard to say whether voters will buy into Trump’s last-ditch distraction, a false show of strength from a very bronzed man atop a very tall podium who has claimed, for the past four years, that he will make America great again.


vox--2020-10-16--What the FCC can and can’t do to Section 230

The Trump administration is once again trying to force social media platforms to do its bidding .
This time , the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) has been tapped to use a law called Section 230 to prevent websites from moderating content in a way that many conservatives believe is biased against them .
Despite the law being designed to prevent FCC intervention — and the FCC itself using that as justification not to regulate the internet just a few years ago — it appears the agency is going to try .
This comes after Trump and many conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be punished after the platforms suppressed links to the New York Post ’ s questionably sourced story about Hunter Biden .
This prompted another all-caps demand from Trump to repeal Section 230 and the Republican-led Senate to prepare to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey , accusing the company of election interference .
The very next day , FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that his agency would “ move forward with a rulemaking to clarify ” the meaning of Section 230 , which gives internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter immunity from lawsuits over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say , if someone defames you in a tweet , you can sue the Twitter user but not Twitter itself .
This 25-year-old law is what allows websites that rely on third-party content to exist at all .
It also allows those sites to moderate that content as they see fit , which has been a source of ire for conservatives who believe they are being censored when Facebook bans them , YouTube demonetizes them , or Twitter appends fact-checks to their tweets .
Trump has been particularly upset about this in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down on the misinformation he spreads .
In May , he went so far as to issue an executive order calling for the FCC to come up with rules that would prevent websites from moderating content based on a perceived anti-conservative bias , which is the basis for the FCC ’ s actions now .
But legal experts — former FCC commissioners and staff among them — don ’ t think the FCC is allowed to regulate the internet in this way .
“ I don ’ t think the FCC has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler , Pai ’ s predecessor and no fan of Section 230 himself , told Recode .
Wheeler added : “ The Trump administration practices government by performance .
They come out and they beat their chests and they say we ’ re gon na do this on 230 , and we ’ re gon na do that on the digital divide .
But it ’ s chest-pounding , not policy .
There ’ s a difference between showbiz and substance.
” Pai said in his statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Thomas M. Johnson Jr. , told him that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230 but didn ’ t elaborate on how .
Johnson did not respond to a request for comment from Recode on how he reached that conclusion .
When asked the same question , FCC spokesperson Brian Hart told Recode , “ We don ’ t have anything to add at this point.
” It ’ s likely the FCC will use the justification presented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA ) in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NTIA cited Section 201 ( b ) of the Communications Decency Act , of which Section 230 is part , which says that the FCC may “ prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out this chapter.
” But , as experts have pointed out , Section 201 ( b ) , as written , applies only to common carriers — that is , entities that provide “ telecommunications services , ” like phone companies — and not internet service providers ( ISPs ) like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ b ) is inside Title II of the Communications Act , and Pai has gone out of his way to say that ISPs are not subject to Title II , ” Wheeler said .
“ If the ISPs are not subject to Title II , how in the world can you make the stretch that those that transmit over the ISPs are subject to Title II ?
” Harold Feld , senior vice president at open internet advocacy group Public Knowledge , said in 2019 — when an executive order commanding the FCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rumor — that this was both a “ bad idea ” and that he couldn ’ t see any way that the FCC had the authority to do it .
“ The FCC can not rewrite acts of Congress to suit its whims , ” Kate Ruane , senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union , said in a statement .
“ Section 230 is critical to protecting free speech online and the FCC has no authority to change it , especially not in ways that will undermine free expression.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 of the Communications Decency Act that gives the FCC authority either to interpret it or , even more importantly , set rules , ” said Gigi Sohn , a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology & Law Policy who was counselor to Wheeler from 2013 to 2016 .
“ In fact , the legislative history is completely to the contrary.
” The law ’ s bipartisan co-authors , Sen. Ron Wyden and former Rep. Chris Cox , have said they intentionally wrote the law to prevent the FCC from having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Back in 1995 , when the Communications Decency Act was being considered , there was some debate over what the FCC ’ s role in regulating the internet should be .
Wyden and Cox thought FCC oversight would be a barrier to internet innovation and development .
As Cox said in the House at the time , Section 230 “ will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the federal government of what is on the internet — that we do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission ’ with an army of bureaucrats regulating the internet.
” He continued : “ If we regulate the internet at the FCC , that will freeze or at least slow down technology .
It will threaten the future of the internet.
” That ’ s a vision that Pai himself agreed with back in 2017 when the FCC , under his chairmanship , repealed net neutrality , citing Section 230 as justification for taking a “ light-touch approach ” to “ burdensome regulation that stifles innovation and deters investment.
” Because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would essentially have to reverse its own decision — one that has become emblematic of the FCC ’ s anti-regulatory approach under Pai and the Trump administration — in order to make the case that it has any authority over Section 230 at all .
What happens next If the FCC does decide to try to make rules for Section 230 , it will need the majority of the five-person commission to agree on them .
Pai is clearly in favor , and fellow commissioner Brendan Carr is , too .
Democratic commissioners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That leaves the fifth commissioner as the deciding vote .
Right now , that ’ s Republican Michael O ’ Rielly , who has signaled that he is not in favor of regulating Section 230 in this way .
But it could soon be Nathan Simington , who Trump nominated last month to replace O ’ Rielly .
And Simington appears to be in favor of regulating Section 230 through the FCC , which is likely part of why Trump nominated him in the first place .
After that , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue those rules .
It ’ s already taken nearly five months between Trump ’ s executive order calling for its action for the FCC to get to this point .
Depending on how the election goes , Trump may no longer be in office and the Democrats could control both branches of the legislature , in which case executive orders and FCC interpretations under the Trump administration will almost certainly come to an end .
But let ’ s say that Trump does win the election — what then ?
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to happen will happen , or that it would happen anytime soon .
Congress can overturn FCC rules , and it likely would if it has a Democratic majority in both houses .
While Democrats have their own problems with Section 230 , those have mostly focused on eliminating immunity protections for websites that feature child sex trafficking and child sexual abuse images .
Changing Section 230 ’ s content moderation policies has become a partisan issue — Republicans are the ones writing bill after bill opposing Section 230 and decrying perceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that makes it much less likely that Democrats will pick up the Republicans ’ cause .
If Congress doesn ’ t reject the FCC ’ s rules , then it ’ ll be up to the courts , which has become the norm for an administration that refuses to accede to laws until it absolutely has to .
A number of organizations already have sued the Trump administration over the executive order , citing First Amendment and regulatory policy violations .
And that litigation will likely come with injunctions that prevent any regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule on them .
“ This is going to be tied up in litigation forever and a day , ” Sohn said .
Courts have typically ruled in Section 230 ’ s favor , but there ’ s at least one judge who seems to feel differently : Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently said that he thinks courts have gotten Section 230 wrong , and the protection from lawsuits its provides has been granted too liberally .
But he said this in the court ’ s denial to hear a case about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of justices aren ’ t interested in reconsidering Section 230 right now .
So how likely is it that the FCC will be the one to make Trump ’ s dreams of an internet that doesn ’ t put fact-checks on his tweets come true ?
Not very , and certainly not anytime soon .
But the administration has already gotten its way just by threatening to do so : Twitter changed its rules a few hours after Pai issued his statement .
The next day , it allowed the Post story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Trump administration is once again trying to force social media platforms to do its bidding. This time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been tapped to use a law called Section 230 to prevent websites from moderating content in a way that many conservatives believe is biased against them. Despite the law being designed to prevent FCC intervention — and the FCC itself using that as justification not to regulate the internet just a few years ago — it appears the agency is going to try.
This comes after Trump and many conservatives have called for Twitter and Facebook to be punished after the platforms suppressed links to the New York Post’s questionably sourced story about Hunter Biden. This prompted another all-caps demand from Trump to repeal Section 230 and the Republican-led Senate to prepare to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, accusing the company of election interference.
The very next day, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that his agency would “move forward with a rulemaking to clarify” the meaning of Section 230, which gives internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter immunity from lawsuits over content their users provide. That is to say, if someone defames you in a tweet, you can sue the Twitter user but not Twitter itself. This 25-year-old law is what allows websites that rely on third-party content to exist at all. It also allows those sites to moderate that content as they see fit, which has been a source of ire for conservatives who believe they are being censored when Facebook bans them, YouTube demonetizes them, or Twitter appends fact-checks to their tweets.
Trump has been particularly upset about this in recent months, as platforms have cracked down on the misinformation he spreads. In May, he went so far as to issue an executive order calling for the FCC to come up with rules that would prevent websites from moderating content based on a perceived anti-conservative bias, which is the basis for the FCC’s actions now.
The FCC isn’t the thought police
But legal experts — former FCC commissioners and staff among them — don’t think the FCC is allowed to regulate the internet in this way.
“I don’t think the FCC has the authority to be thought police over platforms,” former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Pai’s predecessor and no fan of Section 230 himself, told Recode.
Wheeler added: “The Trump administration practices government by performance. They come out and they beat their chests and they say we’re gonna do this on 230, and we’re gonna do that on the digital divide. But it’s chest-pounding, not policy. There’s a difference between showbiz and substance.”
Pai has claimed that the FCC’s general counsel, Thomas M. Johnson Jr., told him that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. When asked to elaborate on where that legal authority comes from, FCC spokesperson Brian Hart told Recode, “We don’t have anything to add at this point.”
Johnson later issued a statement citing Section 201(b) of the Communications Act, which says that the FCC may “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out this Act.” Many have argued that 201(b) applies only to common carriers. And the section does, in fact, fall under Title II of the Communications Act, which is titled “Common Carriers” — defined as entities that provide “telecommunications services,” like phone companies.
But Johnson’s interpretation of 201(b) is that it should apply to everything covered by the Act and that this includes social media companies. This is despite the fact that the FCC said in 2017 that it was “misguided and legally flawed” to classify broadband internet as a telecommunications service under Title II.
“201(b) is inside Title II of the Communications Act, and Pai has gone out of his way to say that ISPs are not subject to Title II,” Wheeler said. “If the ISPs are not subject to Title II, how in the world can you make the stretch that those that transmit over the ISPs are subject to Title II?”
Harold Feld, senior vice president at open internet advocacy group Public Knowledge, said in 2019 — when an executive order commanding the FCC to regulate Section 230 was just a rumor — that this was both a “bad idea” and that he couldn’t see any way that the FCC had the authority to do it.
“The FCC cannot rewrite acts of Congress to suit its whims,” Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “Section 230 is critical to protecting free speech online and the FCC has no authority to change it, especially not in ways that will undermine free expression.”
Section 230 was designed to prevent FCC interference
“There’s nothing in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that gives the FCC authority either to interpret it or, even more importantly, set rules,” said Gigi Sohn, a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology & Law Policy who was counselor to Wheeler from 2013 to 2016. “In fact, the legislative history is completely to the contrary.”
The law’s bipartisan co-authors, Sen. Ron Wyden and former Rep. Chris Cox, have said they intentionally wrote the law to prevent the FCC from having this authority in the first place.
The FCC does not have the authority to rewrite the law, and Ajit Pai can't appoint himself commissioner of the speech police. Read my comments with former-Rep. Cox on why this process is so deeply flawed. https://t.co/7JxSSKNmRR — Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) October 15, 2020
Back in 1995, when the Communications Decency Act was being considered, there was some debate over what the FCC’s role in regulating the internet should be. Wyden and Cox thought FCC oversight would be a barrier to internet innovation and development.
As Cox said in the House at the time, Section 230 “will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the federal government of what is on the internet — that we do not wish to have a ‘Federal Computer Commission’ with an army of bureaucrats regulating the internet.”
He continued: “If we regulate the internet at the FCC, that will freeze or at least slow down technology. It will threaten the future of the internet.”
That’s a vision that Pai himself agreed with back in 2017, when the FCC — under his chairmanship — repealed net neutrality, citing Section 230’s provision that the United States’ policy is not to interfere with the growth of the internet with federal or state regulation as justification for taking a “light-touch approach” to “burdensome regulation that stifles innovation and deters investment.”
Because of this, Sohn said, the FCC would essentially have to reverse its own decision — one that has become emblematic of the FCC’s anti-regulatory approach under Pai and the Trump administration — in order to make the case that it has any authority over Section 230 at all.
To this argument, Johnson said in his statement that “none of these observations bear on the central question” of whether the FCC has the authority to interpret Section 230, and that doing so would not be regulation but “clarifying a legal standard.” Johnson admitted that, while the FCC once used Section 230 to guide its actions when repealing net neutrality, it “need not rely” on it here and can instead use 201(b) as he interprets it. Put simply, Johnson believes that the FCC can pick and choose which statute to apply and which to ignore depending on what it hopes to accomplish.
What happens next
If the FCC does decide to try to make rules for Section 230, it will need the majority of the five-person commission to agree on them. Pai is clearly in favor, and fellow commissioner Brendan Carr is, too. Democratic commissioners Geoffrey Starks and Jessica Rosenworcel are not. That leaves the fifth commissioner as the deciding vote. Right now, that’s Republican Michael O’Rielly, who has signaled that he is not in favor of regulating Section 230 in this way. But it could soon be Nathan Simington, who Trump nominated last month to replace O’Rielly. And Simington appears to be in favor of regulating Section 230 through the FCC, which is likely part of why Trump nominated him in the first place.
After that, it will probably take several weeks or months to issue those rules. It’s already taken nearly five months between Trump’s executive order calling for its action for the FCC to get to this point. Depending on how the election goes, Trump may no longer be in office and the Democrats could control both branches of the legislature, in which case executive orders and FCC interpretations under the Trump administration will almost certainly come to an end.
But let’s say that Trump does win the election — what then? There’s still no guarantee that what Trump wants to happen will happen, or that it would happen anytime soon. Congress can overturn FCC rules, and it likely would if it has a Democratic majority in both houses. While Democrats have their own problems with Section 230, those have mostly focused on eliminating immunity protections for websites that feature child sex trafficking and child sexual abuse images. Changing Section 230’s content moderation policies has become a partisan issue — Republicans are the ones writing bill after bill opposing Section 230 and decrying perceived censorship on social media platforms — and that makes it much less likely that Democrats will pick up the Republicans’ cause.
If Congress doesn’t reject the FCC’s rules, then it’ll be up to the courts, which has become the norm for an administration that refuses to accede to laws until it absolutely has to. A number of organizations already have sued the Trump administration over the executive order, citing First Amendment and regulatory policy violations. And that litigation will likely come with injunctions that prevent any regulations from taking effect until the courts can rule on them.
“This is going to be tied up in litigation forever and a day,” Sohn said.
Courts have typically ruled in Section 230’s favor, but there’s at least one judge who seems to feel differently: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently said that he thinks courts have gotten Section 230 wrong, and the protection from lawsuits its provides has been granted too liberally. But he said this in the court’s denial to hear a case about Section 230, which indicates that the majority of justices aren’t interested in reconsidering Section 230 right now.
So how likely is it that the FCC will be the one to make Trump’s dreams of an internet that doesn’t put fact-checks on his tweets come true? Not very, and certainly not anytime soon. But the administration has already gotten its way just by threatening to do so: Twitter changed its rules a few hours after Pai issued his statement. The next day, it allowed the Post story on the platform.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-10-16--“There should be zero discrimination”: Joe Biden spoke in defense of transgender rights at Thursday’

“There should be zero discrimination”: Joe Biden spoke in defense of transgender rights at Thursday’s town hall

Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s response on transgender rights during a town hall on Thursday highlighted his empathy on these issues — as well as some of his struggles with the language around them .
Biden , in his answer to a mother who asked how he ’ d guarantee protections for her trans child , emphasized that he ’ d roll back President Trump ’ s executive actions including a measure that bars transgender people from openly serving in the military ; he then went on to condemn the murders of transgender women of color .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ There is no reason to suggest that there should be any right denied your daughter.
” Biden ’ s positions on trans issue were — as they long have been — a stark contrast to Trump ’ s approach , which has included outright attacks against the rights of transgender people , including rolling back an Obama-era memo directing schools to protect trans students from discrimination and reducing protections when it comes to health care discrimination .
( Trump was not asked about transgender rights during his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s response covered some of his policy proposals as well : He committed to changing the law to guarantee protections for transgender people , and to use his executive power to reverse actions taken by the Trump administration .
Biden has said he ’ d sign the Equality Act , legislation that changes civil rights law so sexual orientation and gender identity are explicitly protected characteristics .
Biden , in his remarks , also specifically drew attention to the murders of transgender women of color , disparities that have rarely been addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Human Rights Campaign , 33 transgender or gender-nonconforming people have been killed this year , and this violence has disproportionately affected Black and Latinx transgender women .
“ What ’ s happening , too many transgender women of color are being murdered , ” Biden said .
The language Biden used in his response , however , was not always clear .
In one instance , he appeared to make a point about the challenges transgender people face — noting that some people may wrongly see being trans as a decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He did so confusingly , however , without fully finishing his thought .
“ The idea that an 8-year-old child , or a 10-year-old child , decides , you know , ‘ I decided I want to be transgender .
That ’ s what I think I ’ d like to be , it would make my life a lot easier , ’ ” he said .
“ There should be zero discrimination.
” Biden ’ s LGBTQ+ engagement director Reggie Greer clarified that “ during last night ’ s exchange he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a choice.
” Other times , Biden fumbled .
When speaking about the work of his late son Beau Biden , he described a person in his office as a “ young man who became a woman ” — but a trans person doesn ’ t “ become ” a person of a certain gender ; that ’ s who they are .
Beau “ was the guy that got the first transgender law passed in the state of Delaware and because of a young man who became a woman , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office , ” he said .
As noted by the Advocate , “ Biden did not mention the woman ’ s name , but trans woman Sarah McBride , now a candidate for state senator in Delaware , worked closely with Beau Biden on [ anti-discrimination protections . ]
” McBride posted a tweet in support of Biden following the town hall .
Biden ’ s campaign didn ’ t directly address questions about Biden ’ s comment regarding Beau Biden ’ s former staffer .
A tension between Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s used has been evident previously as well , such as when he was criticized for making off-color jokes and for pretending to kiss CNN anchor Anderson Cooper , who is gay , at a town hall in 2019 .
As LGBTQ advocate Charlotte Clymer has written , Biden has a strong record on LGBTQ rights : In 2012 , he said “ discrimination against trans people is ‘ the civil rights issue of our time , ’ ” and that same year , he became the first national leader to publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is proud of his unmatched record advancing equality , inclusion , and acceptance for millions of transgender people in America and around the world , ” said Greer .
“ As president , Joe Biden will build on his legacy and center the Biden-Harris administration around the lived experiences of the transgender community.
” Ultimately , Biden ’ s record — as well as the language he employs — matters , and if he becomes president , both what he says and does will set an important example .
Will you help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s response on transgender rights during a town hall on Thursday highlighted his empathy on these issues — as well as some of his struggles with the language around them.
Biden, in his answer to a mother who asked how he’d guarantee protections for her trans child, emphasized that he’d roll back President Trump’s executive actions including a measure that bars transgender people from openly serving in the military; he then went on to condemn the murders of transgender women of color.
“Eliminate those executive orders, number one,” he said. “There is no reason to suggest that there should be any right denied your daughter.”
Biden’s positions on trans issue were — as they long have been — a stark contrast to Trump’s approach, which has included outright attacks against the rights of transgender people, including rolling back an Obama-era memo directing schools to protect trans students from discrimination and reducing protections when it comes to health care discrimination. (Trump was not asked about transgender rights during his town hall on Thursday.)
We deserve a president who will fight for transgender rights, advocate for our community and affirm that #BlackTransLivesMatter. @JoeBiden is that leader. #BidenTownHall pic.twitter.com/9v1G4xh3kb — Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) October 16, 2020
Biden’s response covered some of his policy proposals as well: He committed to changing the law to guarantee protections for transgender people, and to use his executive power to reverse actions taken by the Trump administration. Biden has said he’d sign the Equality Act, legislation that changes civil rights law so sexual orientation and gender identity are explicitly protected characteristics.
Biden, in his remarks, also specifically drew attention to the murders of transgender women of color, disparities that have rarely been addressed on the presidential debate stage. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 33 transgender or gender-nonconforming people have been killed this year, and this violence has disproportionately affected Black and Latinx transgender women.
“What’s happening, too many transgender women of color are being murdered,” Biden said.
The language Biden used in his response, however, was not always clear. In one instance, he appeared to make a point about the challenges transgender people face — noting that some people may wrongly see being trans as a decision when it isn’t one. He did so confusingly, however, without fully finishing his thought. “The idea that an 8-year-old child, or a 10-year-old child, decides, you know, ‘I decided I want to be transgender. That’s what I think I’d like to be, it would make my life a lot easier,’” he said. “There should be zero discrimination.”
Biden’s LGBTQ+ engagement director Reggie Greer clarified that “during last night’s exchange he was critiquing the wrong idea that being transgender is a choice.”
Other times, Biden fumbled. When speaking about the work of his late son Beau Biden, he described a person in his office as a “young man who became a woman” — but a trans person doesn’t “become” a person of a certain gender; that’s who they are. Beau “was the guy that got the first transgender law passed in the state of Delaware and because of a young man who became a woman, who worked for him in the attorney general’s office,” he said.
As noted by the Advocate, “Biden did not mention the woman’s name, but trans woman Sarah McBride, now a candidate for state senator in Delaware, worked closely with Beau Biden on [anti-discrimination protections.]” McBride posted a tweet in support of Biden following the town hall. Biden’s campaign didn’t directly address questions about Biden’s comment regarding Beau Biden’s former staffer.
I'm proud to call @JoeBiden a friend and ally.
When I came out, Beau joined us at the front lines of the fight to pass landmark protections for trans folks in Delaware. In this campaign, Joe Biden has carried forward that legacy. Their support has made so much possible. — Sarah McBride (@SarahEMcBride) October 16, 2020
And no, it was not a perfect answer. Biden stumbled over his words, as he sometimes does. The difference here is that so many of us have heard him speak movingly on this so many times in the past that we can have good faith with an imperfect answer. Grace. We know his heart. — Charlotte Clymer  (@cmclymer) October 16, 2020
A tension between Biden’s policy proposals and the language he’s used has been evident previously as well, such as when he was criticized for making off-color jokes and for pretending to kiss CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who is gay, at a town hall in 2019. As LGBTQ advocate Charlotte Clymer has written, Biden has a strong record on LGBTQ rights: In 2012, he said “discrimination against trans people is ‘the civil rights issue of our time,’” and that same year, he became the first national leader to publicly support marriage equality.
“Vice President Biden is proud of his unmatched record advancing equality, inclusion, and acceptance for millions of transgender people in America and around the world,” said Greer. “As president, Joe Biden will build on his legacy and center the Biden-Harris administration around the lived experiences of the transgender community.”
Ultimately, Biden’s record — as well as the language he employs — matters, and if he becomes president, both what he says and does will set an important example.