Patrick Reis | Vox

RFK’s attack on children’s vaccines, explained

2025-06-25T16:34:48-04:00

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before a House subcommittee on June 24, 2025, in Washington, DC. | Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: An influential panel that makes vaccine recommendations announced today that it was reviewing its guidelines for children — a decision with massive public health implications that reflects Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s growing influence over federal vaccine policy.

What’s the context here? Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer who has repeatedly pushed lies about the supposed harms of vaccines. Earlier this month, he replaced every sitting member of the advisory panel with his own picks, some of whom share those anti-vax views.

Why do the guidelines matter? The panel’s recommendations are usually (if not always) adopted by the federal government. They have been the standards followed by pediatricians in advising their patients and most schools in setting vaccine requirements. Health insurers have been required to cover the recommended shots for most patients.

Is anyone doing anything about this?!? Yes. The medical community is mobilizing to produce alternative vaccine guidance, which will probably align with the pre-Kennedy medical consensus. But while that may help people make choices based on the best available science, the competing guidelines are also likely to create confusion.

But shouldn’t we have a debate over vaccines? We do have a debate. Vaccine recommendations are the product of intense scientific scrutiny; prior iterations of this expert panel have had lengthy debates, scrutinizing studies that are peer-reviewed and replicable. Kennedy’s claims about the harms of vaccines have been tested in this arena and continually debunked. But now — thanks to Kennedy and the 52 Republican senators who confirmed him — those views may be being smuggled into official federal recommendations.

What’s the big picture? For decades, there has been an apolitical, scientific process for figuring out how to harness the power of vaccines to save millions of lives. Kennedy’s appointment broke that consensus. Now we’re all waiting to see if his panel’s review discourages parents from doing what medical science says is best for children’s health.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Today’s edition made me quite mad, so I’m fortunate that I also came across a reminder of medical progress: a podcast about advances to treatments for morning sickness. I know I say this a lot, but smart people are working continually to make things better for all of us, and we should take heart in that. Thanks so much for reading, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

A court ordered Trump’s team to free an activist. They refused.

2025-06-16T16:59:26-04:00

Demonstrators gather in solidarity with Mahmoud Khalil. | David Dee Delgado/Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: The Trump administration is defying a federal judge’s order that it free a pro-Palestinian activist, attacking both the rule of law and the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.

Catch me up? In March, the Trump administration arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student, and designated him for deportation over his participation in campus protests. Mahmoud was a legal permanent US resident, but the administration argued it has the right to revoke Khalil’s green card on the grounds that his presence constitutes a threat to US foreign policy. Khalil sued to stop the deportation, and the two sides have been in court ever since.

So what happened this week? On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the administration to free Khalil. But today, the administration said it would not free him, arguing unconvincingly that it’s still detaining Khalil for a different violation. (The judge’s ruling to free Khalil explicitly anticipated this strategy and described it as legally unsound.)

What’s next? The administration says that it will appeal the order to a higher court — and keep Khalil detained in the meantime.

What’s the big picture? If Khalil had conducted all the same protest actions on behalf of a cause favored by the administration, he’d still be free. That means that, under Donald Trump, immigrants are facing consequences for expressing political opinions that the administration objects to — a clear violation of the First Amendment.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

I’m in desperate need of a long walk with my dog and a podcast, so I’m excited about the new episode of Today, Explained. The episode is focused on Dropout, a streaming platform whose fans are so dedicated that some of them are actually asking to pay more for the service. (You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and elsewhere.) I hope everyone has a safe and fulfilling weekend, and I’ll see you back here Monday.

Trump’s team takes aim at a major climate rule

2025-06-11T17:41:34-04:00

A home in front of the John E. Amos coal-fired power plant in Poca, West Virginia, in February 2022. | Dane Rhys/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: The Trump administration is attacking Biden-era policies aimed at limiting air and climate pollution from power plants, part of a broader bid to stimulate the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment — and the future.

What’s the latest? The head of President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency today said the agency would begin the (lengthy) process of repealing a pair of environmental regulations on coal and natural-gas power plants.

What do the rules do?

The first regulated power plants’ carbon emissions, which drive climate change. The administration did not propose a replacement rule, meaning the proposal, CNN reports, would “effectively leave carbon emissions from US power plants unregulated.”
The second tightened regulations on mercury and other toxins that, above certain levels, are hazardous for human health.

What’s next? The administration is required to go through a formal process for changing rules, including a public comment period. More significantly, environmental groups are certain to sue to block the rule changes, arguing they violate the nation’s environmental laws and don’t follow the best available science. That means the rules’ fates are likely to be decided by the courts.

What’s the big picture? Scientists warn that human-driven climate change is already making the planet less hospitable to human life and that — absent major corrective action — it will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. The Trump administration is instead taking action to make the problem worse.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

There’s no particularly compelling reason to share these amazing photographs of birds today, but we shouldn’t need a special reason to take time to appreciate the world we’ve been gifted. So, to that end, here are last year’s winners of the Audubon Photography Awards. Thanks so much for reading, have a great night, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

RFK Jr.’s new attack on vaccines, briefly explained

2025-06-11T10:40:17-04:00

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference on April 16, 2025, in Washington, DC. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: Today, Dylan Scott and I are focusing on US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to fire every member of a federal vaccine advisory board, an attack on medical science that will have negative repercussions for public health.

What’s the latest? Kennedy fired every sitting member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Monday.

What does this board do? For more than 60 years, the panel has advised the federal government on vaccine policy, providing guidance — that officials have almost always followed — on which shots people should get and when.

What’s next? The vaccine advisory committee was first convened by the surgeon general in 1964, but it is not enshrined in federal law. That means Kennedy can change its membership or dissolve the panel entirely if he so desires. In firing the board’s members, Kennedy called it “little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.”

What does this mean for us? Absent clear, science-based federal guidance on vaccines, it’ll be harder for us to know which shots health experts think we should be getting. And, more broadly, it’ll be harder for the population to achieve “herd immunity” — when enough people are vaccinated against a disease to prevent it from spreading widely.

What’s the big picture? Kennedy has a long history as a vaccine “skeptic,” promoting unfounded theories about the supposed health risks of vaccines responsible for saving millions of lives. As health secretary, he has made vaccine policy — and undermining the value of those vaccines — a centerpiece of his agenda.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Life is short, as is our time with the people around us. But it’s easy, in the daily grind, to forget that and to focus instead on petty annoyances. That’s a bad way to live, so I really appreciated this Vox piece on the dangers of resentment, both to ourselves and our relationships. It’s a great reminder of what matters. Thanks so much for reading, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

Trump escalates his battle with California

2025-06-09T18:32:24-04:00

Law enforcement officers in Paramount, California, and downtown Los Angeles on June 7, 2025. | Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump is sending troops to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies, a threat to civil liberties and another example of the president claiming that an emergency justifies a major expansion of his power.

Catch me up. What’s going on here? Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents last week raided workplaces in Los Angeles, as part of the Trump administration’s larger goal of mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. Residents protested over the weekend, and, the Los Angeles Times reports, there has been “widespread” vandalism and damage around the city.

Trump on Sunday announced he would begin sending in 2,000 National Guard troops — against California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes. Then this afternoon, Trump’s administration began mobilizing more than 700 Marines to be deployed in LA, CNN and other outlets report.

What’s next? Newsom is suing the administration over the National Guard takeover, arguing Trump overstepped his authority by sending in the Guard against a state governor’s wishes — which hasn’t happened since 1965.

Is Trump breaking the law? Using federal troops for domestic law enforcement is generally illegal, but Trump is citing emergency powers, claiming without evidence that LA has been “invaded and occupied” by migrants. LA authorities acknowledge there is civil unrest but argue the use of military force will only escalate the situation, and it’s clear that LA is not in the grip of a foreign power.

What’s the big picture? The president is citing a false pretense to send active-duty military troops to a city where residents are protesting — some peacefully, some violently — his policies, even as local leaders say conventional law enforcement is capable of restoring order. This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech, and it’s yet another expansion of the president’s authority.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

I want to take a minute to thank Cameron Peters for filling in while I was away. I was out because The Logoff lost one of its most dedicated readers, the world lost one of its great people, and I lost my best friend. You can read about Ernest Brusubardis II here. The only thing I have to add is that Ernie continually chose to love, support, and take care of the people around him — and for that, I’m endlessly grateful. Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

350,000 people are losing protection from deportation

2025-05-19T18:19:18-04:00

People hold an upside-down American flag outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2025. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: The Supreme Court today ruled the Trump administration could strip deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US — a victory for President Donald Trump that comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people.

What’s the context? Since 2021, many Venezuelan immigrants have had Temporary Protected Status, a program that allows migrants to stay and work in the US when their home countries experience disasters or civil strife. Venezuela is in an ongoing humanitarian crisis thanks to an authoritarian regime’s economic mismanagement and foreign sanctions. But upon taking office, the Trump administration attempted to revoke that status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. A federal judge froze the administration’s effort in March while lawsuits proceeded.

What’s the latest? The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s freeze, ruling that deportations could begin — even while the cases are still in front of the courts.

What’s next? The administration is now free to begin deporting Venezuelans who had been covered by the status, though the court’s order still allows individual immigrants to challenge their deportations or the loss of work permits. Trump also aims to revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of other immigrants later this year.

What does this mean for the immigrants? Venezuela is still in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, and deportations would mean a return to a country where work is scarce but suffering is not: More than 20 million people lack adequate access to food and medical care, according to Human Rights Watch.

What does this mean for the balance of power? Federal judges have repeatedly checked Trump’s power by freezing his actions while they work their way through the judicial system. Trump and his officials have raged against such freezes, saying they give individual judges too much power over the president. Today, the court sided with the White House, weakening another check on this administration’s power.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Apropos of nothing in particular, here’s a wonderful old Washington Post story about how Haitian immigrants brought a North Carolina town back from the brink of economic collapse. If you’re in the mood for something totally free of politics, Vox’s Unexplainable podcast has an episode whose title I can’t resist: “The man who walked butterflies on a leash.” (You can listen here on Apple, here on Spotify.) Thanks so much for reading, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

Silencing Voice of America

2025-05-16T17:55:51-04:00

The Voice of America (VOA) sign is displayed on its building on March 17, 2025, in Washington, DC. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: Today I’m focused on the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine Voice of America, a US-funded news network that brings information to people around the world — including people living under repressive regimes.

What’s the latest? The administration fired about 600 contractors Thursday who work for the network, more than a third of the organization’s staff.

What about the rest of the staff? In March, the administration put almost the entire staff on leave, but they successfully sued to block those de facto firings, at least temporarily. Litigation is ongoing over whether the administration has the authority to cut the agency, which is funded by Congress.

What else are they doing? The organization’s domestic website has not been updated since mid-March. The administration is proposing to replace some of Voice of America’s content with programming from the One America News Network, a far-right outlet closely aligned with the administration.

Why is the administration doing this? Voice of America is, by law, editorially independent, meaning the Trump administration cannot control the network’s content. That means it sometimes publishes news that reflects poorly on the president or his policies — something this administration cannot abide.

What’s the big picture? Like any outlet, Voice of America has its shortcomings, and there are legitimate disagreements over how it covers the news. But for millions of people whose governments block access to the news, Voice of America and its affiliates are their best chance of learning about what’s happening in the world around them — including what their own governments are up to. Now, Trump is trying to take that away.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Here’s an award-winning Voice of America story about what happens to accountability here in the US when local news organizations are driven out of business. It’s a great piece, but if you want to save it for a non-Friday afternoon, there’s always the glorious livestream of a bald eagles’ nest. Thanks so much for reading, and I’ll see you back here Monday.

Is birthright citizenship safe from Trump?

2025-05-15T18:21:45-04:00

Protesters outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2025, as the court hears arguments over an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: The Supreme Court heard arguments about a birthright citizenship case today that are really about two questions: Does President Donald Trump have the power to end a core American ideal? And how much power do lower court judges have to block Trump’s agenda?

What’s going on with birthright citizenship? On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the principle that people born in the US (almost always) immediately become US citizens. Trump’s order is an obvious violation of the 14th Amendment, and states successfully sued in multiple lower courts to block it, starting a process that brought it to the Supreme Court today.

Is the Supreme Court going to uphold birthright citizenship? None of the justices defended Trump’s anti-birthright order during arguments, and several of them suggested it was blatantly unconstitutional.

So what’s the issue? The hearing was less about whether the order was constitutional than about whether lower court judges had overstepped their authority when they blocked the policy nationwide. Multiple Supreme Court justices today seemed sympathetic to that argument, suggesting some limits on these nationwide injunctions could be coming. But we won’t know for sure until the ruling comes down, which could take weeks.

What’s the big picture? Long-term, birthright citizenship appears almost certain to survive. That’s important, because birthright citizenship is critical to the concept that America is held together by a shared commitment to our democratic system, rather than by genetic inheritance.

But if the Supreme Court limits the scope of the judges’ order, it may mean that some of Trump’s policies — even ones that are eventually found unconstitutional — get to go into effect while they work their way through the legal system.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Yesterday I wrote about how we can make life better and are doing so all the time. Today I’m excited to surface another example: a new “gene-editing therapy” treatment that has given this baby a second chance at life in what the New York Times describes as “medical history.” As one doctor put it: “It really is sort of limitless in terms of what the possibilities are.” And that’s something worth celebrating. Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

The truth about Trump’s new trade deal with the UK

2025-05-28T10:50:12-04:00

President Donald Trump listens as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks to him on the speaker phone in the Oval Office on May 8, 2025. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: The US and UK announced a framework for a new trade deal today, and while Trump administration officials touted the pact as a straightforward victory for the president’s tariff policy, the real story is far more complicated.

What’s the latest? The US and the UK have a trade deal — in principle. Nothing has been signed yet, but the framework announced Thursday would lower some tariff barriers on both countries. The UK would still be subjected to President Donald Trump’s 10 percent global tariff, a baseline rate he imposed on imports from around the world.

What would this trade deal change? If signed, it would reduce US tariff barriers on UK cars, steel, and other items, and the UK would make it easier for the US to sell beef, ethanol, and agricultural goods, among other provisions.

Is this because of the tariffs? While the deal would reduce — but not eliminate — the tariffs Trump has imposed on the UK, interest in a trade deal has been a topic of discussion since Trump’s first term, driven in part by the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

What’s the big picture? Trump has promised tariffs will bring trading partners to the negotiating table, leading to deals that help the US economy via better access to foreign markets. And administration officials portrayed today’s deal as proof that strategy is working. That’s not entirely wrong: While the two countries were already moving in that direction, the tariffs likely gave the UK added incentive to negotiate.

But the benefits US exporters would win under this agreement have to be weighed against the costs: US consumers are still paying higher taxes on UK goods than they were before Trump’s tariffs — and higher taxes on goods from everywhere else in the world as well.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Speaking of the UK, here’s a fun (and reasonably short) article about how a British town turned a discarded sofa into a performance art piece. Thanks so much for reading. Andrew Prokop is holding down the fort Friday, and I’ll see you back here Monday.

A confusing US peace deal, explained

2025-05-06T18:01:22-04:00

Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree makes a speech at al-Sabeen Square in Sanaa, Yemen, on May 2, 2025. | Mohammed Hamoud/Anadolu via Getty Images

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: Today Joshua Keating and I are focusing on a surprising ceasefire agreement between the US and the Houthis, a pact that signals a new direction in the Trump administration’s approach to a multiyear military struggle in the Middle East.

What’s the context? Since late 2023, the Houthis — an Iran-backed militia group that controls much of Yemen — have been attacking commercial ships passing through the Red Sea, US military forces, and Israel. The strikes, which started shortly after Hamas’s October 7 attack in Israel and the start of Israel’s war in Gaza, have complicated international shipping and added further instability to a volatile region.

Under the Biden administration, the US carried out some strikes against the Houthis, but the Trump team has been bombing them near daily since mid-March.

What’s today’s deal? We only have verbal statements, but we know the US agreed to stop its bombing campaign and that the Houthis have agreed to stop shooting at US ships.

As for other ships in the Red Sea, it’s a little unclear. The Houthis haven’t actually attacked container ships on the Red Sea since around December — well before the latest round of bombing began. But shipping companies are likely going to want more reassurance before they resume full use of the Red Sea.

What about conflict with Israel? The deal doesn’t seem to say anything about Houthi strikes on Israel. Coming two days after a Houthi missile reached Tel Aviv’s airport, the implicit message from Washington seems to be that the Israelis and the Houthis can fight this out on their own.

What did this tell us about Trump’s foreign policy? The announcement today signals that the administration is keen on avoiding another “forever war” in the Middle East, but it’s unclear whether the deal makes the region safer. The Houthis are claiming the deal is a victory over America, and, chances are, the US hasn’t heard the last of them.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Astronomers say they’ve found evidence of another planet in our solar system, which would bring us back to nine. I — a certified non-astronomer — lack the background to assess the new claims, but I’m excited about the possibility. While you ponder a potential new ninth planet, here’s one of my favorite comedians discussing the fate of Pluto.