A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



April 30, 2024

Canada

What Canada Wants Trump to Know If He Wins

A senior Canadian official says he’s ready if Trump returns to the White House.

By ALEXANDER BURNS

The music was thumping, the glasses were clinking and François-Philippe Champagne was in the garden talking passionately about critical minerals.

Champagne — Canada’s minister of innovation, science and industry — visited Washington in recent days for a series of meetings that spanned the festivities of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. His trip was not entirely recreational: One of the senior-most members of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, Champagne is a leader of the “Team Canada” task force that is preparing for the American presidential election in November.

A former globetrotting business executive and foreign minister, Champagne, 53, is also widely seen as a contender to take over as prime minister if Trudeau steps down in the coming months.

Governments around the world are girding for the outcome of the U.S. election, with many gripped by deep apprehension about the possibility of a second Trump administration. The stakes are particularly intimate in Canada. An American president may be the leader of the free world, but in Ottawa he is also a neighbor — potentially a loud and inconsiderate one.

POLITICO spoke with Champagne on the sidelines of a weekend event about how he’s thinking about the prospect of a Donald Trump comeback. In the conversation, Champagne effectively sketched out what a pro-Canada sales pitch for Trump and his advisers might look like — emphasizing the country’s vast resources, ambitions for economic growth and historic affinity for the United States.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

I know on Team Canada, the official line is: We’re going to have great relationships with Republican presidents, great relationships with Democratic presidents. But surely this election must be a little bit different, right?

Yes. But I would say: Listen, we’ve been trading with each other for well over 150 years. We’ve seen over more than a century of different administrations. I served in Canada whilst there were different administrations. I started with Prime Minister Trudeau in 2015. We built a relationship on both sides. But I would say, certainly during an election year, it’s important for us to restate the nature of this relationship. I often say we need to move from being nice to being strategic — connecting the dots.

We need to have a North American agenda, in my view. I think North America can lead, whether it’s the mega trends — decarbonization and the digitization of the economy — and when it comes to critical minerals, when it comes to semiconductors, when it comes to the supply chain around electric vehicles, when it comes to energy.

I remember meeting Gov. [Brian] Kemp in Georgia and saying: Governor, you and I have more in common than you think. And I said, you know your Hyundai plant? I know very well the CEO. And your SK plant? I know the chairman. Both of these plants depend on critical minerals that we mine and refine in Canada. And within 30 seconds, he said: Can I get your number?

And so the relationship, for me, is connecting the dots.

I want to push you a little on that. Yes, Georgia is very invested in the energy transition and the CHIPS Act has a lot of Republican stakeholders. But when you’re talking about decarbonization — we talked about the EV supply chain — in our election here, you have one candidate who is very committed to that and one candidate who makes attacking electric vehicles part of his message.

How do you plan for the economic near term, when you look at policies like CHIPS or the Inflation Reduction Act, and you don’t know whether the next president is going to want to implement them?

I would say that the destination is clear. The speed at which we’re going to reach the final point is going to depend on some of the manufacturers. Sometimes I feel like the guy in the buggy with the horse looking at the Model T of Ford and saying: Is that really going to work? I think when you talk to European manufacturers, to American manufacturers or to Japanese manufacturers, that destination is clear.

I was talking to one of the manufacturers who recently said to me it would be reckless for us not to prepare for that because whomever may be in the White House —

When you say “prepare for that,” you mean for the election?

The move toward electrification of transportation, broadly speaking. You know, we might slow but we can never stop. I think we’ve passed a tipping point on that.

If you look at the IRA and the CHIPS Act, it’s all about — whether it’s called friend shoring or nearshoring, but for me it’s bringing back manufacturing and the entirety of that supply chain in North America. This is millions — tens of millions of jobs on both sides of the border. There is a window of opportunity, I think in the world, and I think the United States and Canada have to be able to seize it, to make sure that we don’t only buy these things, but we manufacture them.

We would have been reckless not to seize the opportunities as the whole auto sector is retooling, not to be at the rendezvous, as we say in French. I think we’ve positioned North America to be a powerhouse when it comes to the car of the future. At which speed we’re going to get there? You know, if you look at the Model T and the guy in the buggy, it took a few years to get there.

Have you had any contact with the Trump team at this point? And what would you like Donald Trump to know about you?

I’ve been talking to a number of people on both sides. First of all, we were there during the last Trump administration. We were there during the Biden administration. So, we know people on both sides. I would like President Trump to think, when he thinks about Canada, in terms of strategic opportunity —

I mean you personally. I don’t mean, what would you like him to think about Canada? What would you like him to know about you?

Well, he’s met me before. I don’t know if he would — he might remember. The first time we met was in London, at the U.K. ambassador residence at the NATO summit. I think he was pretty intrigued with a name like Champagne. I can’t exactly remember the words he said, but I think it sparked his interest at least for a few seconds.

It strikes me — and I understand that this is just part of your wiring, and certainly part of your portfolio — but it strikes me that you are sort of speaking Trump’s language.

It’s the first time I’ve heard that.

You have different worldviews, but he’s such a transactional man, right? That I think if I were in your job or I were in the prime minister’s job, that would be my pitch. You know, forget values —

Well, my perception — you can interview other people — but when I talk to Republicans, they see that we’ve very much aligned on the economic agenda. When I talk to Democrats, they say: Oh, these guys are aligned on policy. From my perspective, it resonates with people on both sides of the aisle.

To be fair, during the last Trump administration, it got very tense. The trade agreement USMCA was a big question. At one point, the president was saying very strong things about the prime minister.

You were there for all that. So, what lessons have you taken from that that you would apply, if there’s a new Trump administration?

Focusing on how we can deal with issues that are top of mind for our American friends. You know, when you’re a U.S. president, you have the world to think about. How can Canada address some of the vulnerabilities that we’re seeing in North America and how can we be helpful?

When you talk about an agenda for growth and resiliency, I think that would resonate for people, whoever might be in the White House. And that’s the relationship we’re building.

How much time are you spending thinking about how Canada handles it if we have another election here where the outcome is not accepted by both candidates?

That’s going to be for the Americans to deal with. We are a strategic partner. We are your best friend and ally. Obviously, the American people will make their choice. What I want them to know: Americans should know in their hearts and minds that their best friend is just up north, and we will all be there — as we have always been there.

Last thing. Do you think it would be helpful to Canada, under a Trump administration, to have a prime minister who is really anchored in the business world and economic development? To have a businessman as head of government — would that be helpful in a Trump administration?

I think that the prime minister has been building a relationship with the U.S. administration for a number of years. And what our friends downtown in Washington should remember: You have the most experienced team that you can find in Ottawa, because we have lived through both administrations and we know how to make the best out of it. I think, for me, the 21st century belongs to North America, so let’s build it together.

So, when are you coming to Canada?

Surprised???

Donald Trump held in contempt for violating gag order in New York trial

The judge found that Trump violated the gag nine times in recent weeks.

By BEN FEUERHERD and ERICA ORDEN

Donald Trump was held in contempt by Justice Juan Merchan Tuesday morning for social media posts and other statements the former president made that violated a gag order imposed in his Manhattan criminal case.

The judge ordered Trump to pay a $9,000 fine — $1,000 for each violation. And he warned Trump that additional violations could land him in jail.

“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” the judge wrote in an eight-page decision.

Though prosecutors didn’t seek jail time for Trump’s violations, they told the judge during a contempt hearing last week that Trump appeared to be “angling” for such a punishment.

Before the hush money trial began in mid-April, the judge issued a gag order that bars Trump from publicly commenting about likely witnesses, jurors and other people involved in the case.

Prosecutors accused Trump of repeatedly violating the gag in the days leading up to the trial and during the trial itself. Trump posted social media messages attacking people including Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer who is expected to be a key witness for the prosecution. 

Prosecutors sought to hold Trump in contempt for 14 alleged violations of the gag order. Merchan held a hearing last week on prosecutors’ contempt motion. On Tuesday, the judge ruled on 10 of the alleged violations, holding Trump in contempt for nine of them.

Another contempt hearing on the remaining four alleged violations is set for Thursday.

“Defendant violated the Order by making social media posts about known witnesses pertaining to their participation in this criminal proceeding and by making public statements about jurors in this criminal proceeding,” Merchan wrote in his Tuesday decision.

Though Trump’s lawyers had argued that several of the posts in question were “reposts” or remarks made by other people, and therefore shouldn’t be considered Trump’s own commentary, Merchan rejected that argument, finding that “a repost, with or without commentary by the Defendant, is in fact a statement of the Defendant.”

“Defendant curated the posts at issue and then took the necessary steps to publish the posts on his Truth Social account and on his campaign website,” Merchan wrote. “In doing so, he endorsed the posts with one purpose in mind — to maximize viewership and to communicate his stamp of approval.”

He added: “there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Defendant's intent and purpose when reposting, is to communicate to his audience that he endorses and adopts the posted statement as his own.”

April 29, 2024

Some talk on Air....

Southwest eyes big changes in aircraft seating, passenger boarding

SFGATE contributor Jim Glab rounds up air travel and airport news for our weekly column Routes

By Jim Glab

In the latest aviation developments, Southwest Airlines says it is studying changes to its traditional one-class, open-seating policies following poor first-quarter results; Southwest is also dropping four cities and reducing operations at two big airports; new Transportation Department final rules mandate prompt passenger refunds and more fee transparency from airlines; proposed amendment to the big FAA Reauthorization Bill could stifle TSA’s deployment of facial recognition technology; JetBlue struggles to cope with a big first-quarter loss, reduced capacity; Delta wants to eliminate the need for returning international passengers to recheck luggage for domestic connections; Southwest rolls out its Cash + Points ticket purchase option; two low-cost carriers begin big California route expansions next week; United revives SFO-Rome nonstops and Air Canada brings back a Sacramento route; Fresno’s airport introduces a unique dining option; and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta tightens restrictions on public access to the airport. 

After Southwest Airlines reported disappointing first quarter results this week, CEO Bob Jordan dropped a big hint in a CNBC interview that the company could introduce some significant changes in its product, which has always offered a single cabin class and open seating for all passengers.

“We’re always looking at new initiatives, things like the way we seat and the way we board our aircraft,” Jordan said. Asked if Southwest might be considering “a business class or a bifurcation of the cabin,” Jordan replied: “There’s nothing to report today except the fact that we are studying this. We always want to know what our customers expect and their preferences, so we are studying our seating and our cabins right now. … Customer preferences do change over time. Customers love our current product … but it was designed at a time when load factors were significantly lower than they are today.”

Southwest, which operates an all-737 fleet, had its growth plans upended after the Federal Aviation Administration stopped Boeing from implementing a planned 737 production increase this year. That will deprive Southwest of dozens of new planes it had been counting on this year. At least Southwest was spared the damage suffered by Alaska Airlines and United by the FAA’s grounding of 737 Max 9s in January because Southwest has no Max 9s. Still, the airline’s first-quarter results showed a net loss of $231 million, despite record operating revenue and passenger numbers. The company said it has “intensified our network optimization efforts to address underperforming markets.” As part of that effort, Southwest plans to drop four airports from its route map: Syracuse, New York; Bellingham, Washington; Houston Bush Intercontinental; and Cozumel, Mexico. The airline will also reduce the number of flights it offers at Chicago O’Hare (its main Chicago operation is at Midway Airport) and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International. 

The Department of Transportation fired a consumer protection broadside at the airline industry this week, issuing final rules that require carriers to issue refunds promptly and to be more transparent about the fees they charge. The refunding rule was spurred by an avalanche of consumer complaints against airlines and ticket agents filed during the pandemic, when carriers often dragged their feet on refunds or only offered customers travel vouchers instead of cash repayments for canceled flights. The new rule states passengers are entitled to prompt refunds for canceled or “significantly changed” flights. The second rule requires airlines and ticket agents to “tell consumers upfront” the optional fees they charge for checked bags, carry-on bags, and canceling or changing a booking, instead of making the customer search through web pages for that information.

The U.S. travel industry is going nuts over an effort by a small group of Senators to attach an amendment to the must-pass FAA Reauthorization Bill that would block the Transportation Security Administration’s increasing reliance on facial recognition technology in passenger processing. The amendment from Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and John Kennedy, R-La., and a few co-sponsors was originally introduced as a separate bill last fall.

The U.S. Travel Association — the industry’s largest lobbying group — charged this week that the proposed amendment “would immediately prevent the Transportation Security Administration from using most automated facial matching technology at airport checkpoints, which is in use at many of the largest and busiest airports in the U.S.” USTA said adoption of the amendment would result in longer security screening lines, reduced security, and the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars that funded the development of the technology in recent years. During a USTA event at Atlanta’s airport, former Homeland Security official Seth Stodder noted that “no one is forced to use the new (facial recognition) system, but people are volunteering in droves to use it, just like people clamored to sign up for TSA PreCheck.” 

JetBlue this week reported troubling financial results for the first quarter as the carrier embarks on new strategies to turn around its losses. The airline’s first-quarter net loss of $192 million in 2023 ballooned to $716 million in the first three months of this year, though with special items excluded, the net loss was adjusted to $145 million, JetBlue said. The carrier has taken on a new top management team in recent months, which is now “rolling out the initial components of our refocused plan,” said JetBlue President Marty St. George. That includes making “a number of significant network changes, which are designed to free up unprofitable flying and reallocate it to proven leisure markets where JetBlue has historically won.” 

The airline shrunk during the first quarter, with overall capacity down 2.7% year over year, while operating revenue fell 5.1% and operating costs jumped 14%. Earlier this year, JetBlue announced the elimination of several routes from Los Angeles International (including San Francisco), and the company said it is planning to end service at four domestic airports (Burlington, Vermont; Newburgh, New York; Baltimore/Washington; and Kansas City) as well as three South American destinations (Lima, Peru; Bogota, Colombia; and Quito, Ecuador). JetBlue CEO Joanna Geraghty said the airline is still facing “significant elevated capacity” to Latin America that will continue to pressure revenues in 2024.

Delta is reportedly planning to eliminate one of the more annoying aspects of international travel: The need for passengers flying into the U.S. to pick up and recheck their luggage for a second inspection before boarding an onward domestic connecting flight. Subject to talks with Japanese and U.S. officials, the airline will start the streamlined procedure for passengers on Delta’s flights from Tokyo Haneda to six U.S. airports: Los Angeles, Honolulu, Seattle, Atlanta, Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul. In an interview with the Japanese daily newspaper the Mainichi, Delta Vice President of Asia/Pacific Jeff Moomaw said the airline hopes to expand the new passenger perk to its flights from Seoul Incheon as well, and eventually to its U.S. routes from London and Frankfurt. He said Delta hopes to begin the new process this year at the earliest.

“Anyone who has traveled and connected in the U.S. knows that [rechecking bags] is a difficult experience,” Moomaw said. “We will soon be able to remove that part of the experience.” 

Southwest Airlines this month is rolling out its promised “Cash + Points” ticket purchase option for Rapid Rewards members, but some online observers suggest it might not be as valuable as it appears. The new option lets customers reduce the cost of a ticket by specific amounts depending on how many Rapid Rewards points they want to apply. A customer who books flights online and goes to the payments page should select “Cash + Points” to pick one of five options for the number of points to apply to the purchase price. The View from the Wing blog cites a couple of problems with the new option: 1) Customers who use it will find their points are worth about 0.6 cents each toward the ticket price, versus a value of about 1.1 cents when points alone are used for the ticket; and 2) tickets paid for with cash and points don’t earn Rapid Rewards points or qualifying points toward Southwest’s A-List, A-List Preferred or Companion Pass. The site Award Wallet notes that “there’s no set value for points redeemed for Cash + Points bookings. That alone is ominous and should encourage you to break out the calculator if you feel like making a mixed-currency booking.”

Next week, low-cost Avelo Airlines plans to double the number of routes it serves from Sonoma County’s Charles M. Schulz Airport in Santa Rosa, following its recent designation of that facility as one of its two California bases (the other is Hollywood Burbank Airport). On May 1, Avelo plans to begin flying twice a week from Santa Rosa to Kalispell, Montana (Glacier Park International Airport), and to Pasco, Washington (Tri-Cities Airport, also serving Richland and Kennewick). Avelo plans to add twice-weekly flights to Boise, Idaho, on May 2 and to Salem, Oregon, on May 3. The airline already flies from Santa Rosa to Las Vegas, Hollywood Burbank, Bend/Redmond, Oregon, and Palm Springs.

In southern California, low-cost Breeze Airways is slated to add San Diego to its route map next week, introducing nonstop service to five destinations, including three transcontinental routes, using Airbus A220-300 aircraft. On April 30, Breeze will launch service three days a week from San Diego to Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, followed on May 1 by four weekly roundtrips to Norfolk, Virginia, and two a week to Jacksonville, Florida. On May 2, Breeze plans to add three weekly flights to Cincinnati, and on May 3, twice-weekly service to Pittsburgh. Other new Breeze flights from San Diego include one-stop, same-plane service to Providence, Rhode Island, beginning April 30 and to Hartford, Connecticut, starting May 1.

Meanwhile, at Los Angeles International, Breeze is scheduled to revive summer seasonal service on May 1 to Raleigh-Durham with two weekly flights and to Providence with daily service. On May 2, Breeze adds three weekly flights from LAX to Jacksonville, Florida, and on May 3 it is scheduled to begin twice-weekly service to Charleston, South Carolina. Low-cost rival Avelo Airlines plans to kick off new service on May 3 from Hollywood Burbank to Las Vegas with flights on Fridays and Sundays. 

United Airlines plans to revive nonstop transatlantic service May 2 from San Francisco International to Rome, using a Boeing 777 for the 11-hour, 45-minute flight. It’s the only nonstop service available between SFO and Rome. On May 1, Air Canada is set to resume service from Sacramento to Toronto with five flights a week, and to boost its Sacramento-Vancouver schedule from one flight a day to two.

In other international route news, a new competitor is due to enter the Los Angeles International-Paris CDG market on May 1 when the low-cost European carrier Norse Atlantic Airways starts flying the route six days a week with a 787. At San Diego, British Airways last week added a second daily flight to London Heathrow.

How can an airport expand its food and beverage offerings without opening new restaurants? Fresno’s Yosemite International Airport has found the answer: food trucks. The airport said it has invited local food truck vendors to park outside the terminal from 8 p.m. until the final flight departure of the day. The initial participants will be Los Mexicanos Frutas y Antojos and Tacos Tepa. Approved vendors will operate “on a rotating schedule with no more than two trucks onsite for a maximum term of six months,” the airport said. “After six months, a new food truck vendor will begin their term to provide food services.” The program is temporary, designed to supplement food services during terminal construction before new concessions open in 2025. 

Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International — the world’s busiest airport — this week implemented tough new restrictions on who can enter the facility, complying with legislation passed by the Atlanta City Council in February. The new rules expand ATL’s previous entry restrictions — which only applied from 11 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. — so they now apply 24 hours a day, every day. “Going forward, access to the Airport will be restricted 24/7 to ticketed passengers, personnel, individuals meeting or greeting passengers, those performing facility maintenance, and others who have legitimate business to conduct at the Airport,” ATL said, citing safety concerns. The restrictions apply to the domestic and international terminals as well as SkyTrain, the Rental Car Center and the airport’s parking decks. “Violators are subject to arrest and prosecution,” the airport noted.

Not a surprise...

California's 'Apple Store of weed' is $410M in debt

By Lester Black

California’s first cannabis company valued at over a billion dollars appears to have completed its long descent into failure. MedMen, once hailed as the “Apple Store of weed,” declared bankruptcy last week, according to a press release published by the company late Friday. 

The Los Angeles-based company said it currently has $410 million in debt, according to Law360, and has filed for bankruptcy in Canada. Its California subsidiary has been placed in receivership in Los Angeles.

MedMen was once the golden child of California’s legal cannabis market, opening sleek retail locations that mimicked the minimalism of Apple Stores and promising that it could sell massive amounts of cannabis by presenting the drug as a modern product without the baggage of prohibition. National media outlets like Esquire and Vanity Fair profiled the company, and it listed itself on a Canadian Securities Exchange in 2018. 

The company’s $1.6 billion valuation allowed MedMen’s executives to spend lavishly, including purchasing luxury cars, expensive security details and private jets. The retailer opened locations in Beverly Hills and Fifth Avenue in New York City, one of the most expensive real estate locations in the world, even though New York state had yet to fully legalize cannabis. At its peak, it reported employed more than 1,300 people and had stores in seven states, including three in the Bay Area.

But the company quickly hit serious financial problems. By 2020, it was struggling to pay its bills, CNN reported, and earlier this year its stock dropped to $0, from a former high of more than $6. MedMen has spent the past two years selling off assets in an attempt to become profitable, but the sales do not appear to have been enough. The Friday news release said that the company is anticipating some of its creditors will take enforcement actions against it.

MedMen’s San Francisco and Oakland stores are both closed, according to messages on the stores’ voicemail machines.

Immunity case

In Trump’s immunity case, John Roberts has quite a mess in front of him

Opinion By Steve Vladeck

Throughout Thursday’s marathon oral argument in Trump v. United States, which lasted more than two and a half hours, most of the US Supreme Court’s nine justices provided at least some clue as to how they’re likely to rule on whether the January 6 criminal prosecution against former President Donald Trump can go forward. (Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to this case.)

At its core, the question in the Trump case is relatively straightforward: Can Trump be criminally prosecuted for his alleged role in the events leading up to and on January 6, 2021? Lower courts resoundingly said yes—without getting into the harder question of whether there’s ever a circumstance in which criminal laws can’t be applied to actions by a president. The Supreme Court could have ducked that question too, either by not taking up Trump’s appeal in the first place, or by holding that, whether or not there is ever a case in which a president is immune from criminal prosecution, the January 6 prosecution against Trump can proceed.

Four of the justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — expressed support for different arguments that would each pose serious (if not fatal) obstacles to the closely watched criminal case. Four of the justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to support a ruling that would allow most, if not all, of the charges in the January 6 case to go forward. If that holds, the fate of the January 6 prosecution likely rests in the hands of the justice who spoke first and last on Thursday, but who did the least to reveal his views: Chief Justice John Roberts. And he has quite a mess in front of him.

It became clear early in Thursday’s argument that there was little support across the bench for a narrow ruling that would be good for only this case. As Gorsuch put it at one point, the court needs to articulate “a rule for the ages.” Never mind that we’ve never had a criminal indictment of a former president before; the concern seems to be about the need to articulate a forward-looking rule so that future presidents will know when they should be worried about future criminal prosecution, and when they shouldn’t. Once the court articulates that rule, presumably, it would send Trump’s case back to the district court — where Judge Tanya Chutkan would be expected to apply it before proceeding to trial.

All of this may sound plausible enough in the abstract. But there are two complications, both of which paint the chief justice into a pretty tight corner.

First, where exactly is the line between acts that are immune from prosecution and those that aren’t? One of the few colloquies during Thursday’s argument that featured the chief justice included his effort to underscore this problem—and how the same acts might fall on one side of the line or the other depending upon the president’s motive or other idiosyncrasies of a specific case.

Second, even if five or more justices ultimately agree on where the line ought to be, how long will it take them to get there? If the court doesn’t hand down a ruling until late June or even early July, that may have the effect of practically immunizing Trump even if the majority holds that he can stand trial. That’s because there may not be enough time for the trial to be held before the election, and there’s no way the trial would happen in a world in which Trump wins.

Whatever else might be said about Roberts, he is not oblivious to this maelstrom of legal and political considerations. And he knows, as well as anyone, that many of the Supreme Court’s most celebrated decisions historically have come in rulings by chief justices. It was Chief Justice Earl Warren who wrote for a unanimous court in the biggest civil rights cases — not just Brown v. Board of Education, but Cooper v. Aaron, Loving v. Virginia and a host of others. It was Chief Justice Warren Burger who wrote for a unanimous Court in the Watergate tapes cases — in which the court held that President Richard Nixon, who had appointed Burger, had to turn over the Watergate tapes notwithstanding executive privilege, a ruling that led directly to Nixon’s resignation.

And it was Chief Justice William Rehnquist who wrote for the court in a technical but essential 2000 ruling reaffirming that only the court, and not Congress, could overrule Miranda v. Arizona — even though Rehnquist himself abhorred that ruling, which mandated that a suspect must be advised of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present in order for that suspect’s confession to be used in court.

Of course, that could also work out poorly — as in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 ruling in which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney effectively held that enslaved people were not and never could become citizens, further helping to set the stage for the Civil War. But for better or worse, in all of these cases, the chief justice wasn’t just speaking for the court. He was speaking for the country.

For Roberts, the question is whether there’s any way to actually do that in this case — whether there is some way to make it possible for Trump’s trial to proceed before the election (so that the court isn’t accused of effectively taking the former president’s side) in an opinion that sets out a clear, forward-looking standard to govern this and future cases. We may not know the answer to that question for another two months. But the one thing that seems most clear coming out of Thursday’s argument is that the answer — and the broader legacy of the Roberts court — will ultimately be up to him.

Must be pre-law... Not surprising...

Jewish student sues Columbia, alleging it is failing to provide a safe environment

From CNN's Matt Egan

An anonymous Jewish student alleged in a lawsuit filed Monday that Columbia University is failing to provide a safe learning environment for students during the ongoing pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, argues Columbia has “become a place that is too dangerous for Columbia’s Jewish students to receive the education they were promised.”

The complaint, filed against Columbia’s board of trustees in the Southern District of New York, includes numerous redacted sections to protect the identity of the plaintiff, who is described as a “Jewish student in her second year” and whose education has been disrupted by the hostile environment on campus.

The lawsuit takes particular issue with the decision by Columbia to go to a hybrid learning model last week amid the unrest on campus.

“Jewish students…get a second-class education where they are relegated to their homes to attend classes virtually and stripped of the opportunity to interact meaningfully with other students and faculty and sit for examinations with their peers,” the lawsuit said. “The segregation of Jewish students is a dangerous development that can quickly escalate into more severe acts of violence and discrimination.”

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff is seeking to “hold Columbia accountable for failing to provide a safe educational environment for its students.”

Through a separate motion, the plaintiff is also seeking an emergency injunction aimed at requiring Columbia to enforce its Statement of Ethical Conduct and Administrative Code of Conduct to provide secure access to education. 

Columbia declined to comment on the lawsuit. 

Columbia president Minouche Shafik acknowledged in a statement on Monday that many Jewish students and other students have “found the atmosphere intolerable in recent weeks.”

“Many have left campus, and that is a tragedy. To those students and their families, I want to say to you clearly: You are a valued part of the Columbia community,” Shafik said. “This is your campus too. We are committed to making Columbia safe for everyone, and to ensuring that you feel welcome and valued.”

The lawsuit alleges that a subset of protesters has committed acts of violence, harassed Jewish students and faculty and incited hate speech and acts of violence. 

“These extreme demonstrators are not engaging in constitutionally protected free speech. Instead, they are openly inciting violence against Jewish students,” the lawsuit said. 

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff argues the shift to hybrid at Columbia hurt her academic performance and “left her feeling excluded and marginalized from her educational university and her university more generally.”

“Had Plaintiff known that Columbia would not provide a safe educational environment, she would not have chosen to enroll at or pay tuition to Columbia,” the lawsuit said. 

Now it’s unfolding.............

The end of coral reefs as we know them

Years ago, scientists made a devastating prediction about the ocean. Now it’s unfolding.

By Benji Jones

More than five years ago, the world’s top climate scientists made a frightening prediction: If the planet warms by 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to preindustrial times, 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs globally would die off. At 2°C, that number jumps to more than 99 percent.

These researchers were essentially describing the global collapse of an entire ecosystem driven by climate change. Warm ocean water causes corals — large colonies of tiny animals — to “bleach,” meaning they lose a kind of beneficial algae that lives within their bodies. That algae gives coral its color and much of its food, so bleached corals are white and starving. Starved coral is more likely to die.

In not so great news, the planet is now approaching that 1.5°C mark. In 2023, the hottest year ever measured, the average global temperature was 1.52°C above the preindustrial average, as my colleague Umair Irfan reported. That doesn’t mean Earth has officially blown past this important threshold — typically, scientists measure these sorts of averages over decades, not years — but it’s a sign that we’re getting close.

So, it’s no surprise that coral reefs are, indeed, collapsing. Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that the planet is experiencing its fourth global “bleaching” event on record. Since early 2023, an enormous amount of coral in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans has turned ghostly white, including in places like the Great Barrier Reef and the Florida Keys. In some regions, a lot of the coral has already died.

“What we are seeing now is essentially what scientists have been predicting was going to happen for more than 25 years,” Derek Manzello, a marine scientist at NOAA who leads the agency’s coral bleaching project, told Vox. The recent extreme ocean warming can’t solely be attributed to climate change, Manzello added; El Niño and even a volcanic eruption have supercharged temperatures.

But coral reefs were collapsing well before the current bleaching crisis. A study published in 2021 estimated that coral “has declined by half” since the mid-20th century. In some places, like the Florida Keys, nearly 90 percent of the live corals have been lost. Past bleaching events are one source of destruction, as are other threats linked to climate change, including ocean acidification.

The past and current state of corals raises an important but challenging question: If the planet continues to warm, is there a future for these iconic ecosystems?

What’s become increasingly clear is that climate change doesn’t just deal a temporary blow to these animals — it will bring about the end of reefs as we know them.

Will there be coral reefs 100 years from now?

In the next few decades, a lot of coral will die — that’s pretty much a given. And to be clear, this reality is absolutely devastating. Regardless of whether snorkeling is your thing, reefs are essential to human well-being: Coral reefs dampen waves that hit the shore, support commercial fisheries, and drive coastal tourism around the world. They’re also home to an incredible diversity of life that inspires wonder.

“I’m pretty sure that we will not see the large surface area of current reefs surviving into the future,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, who was involved in the landmark 2018 report, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that predicted the downfall of tropical reefs at 1.5°C warming. “Every year is going to be worse.”

But even as many corals die, reefs won’t exactly disappear. The 3D formation of a typical reef is made of hard corals that produce a skeleton-like structure. When the polyps die, they leave their skeletons behind. Animals that eat live coral, such as butterfly fish and certain marine snails, will likely vanish; plenty of other fish and crabs will stick around because they can hide among those skeletons. Algae will dominate on ailing reefs, as will “weedy” kinds of coral, like sea fans, that don’t typically build the reef’s structure.

Simply put, dead reefs aren’t so much lifeless as they are home to a new community of less sensitive (and often more common) species.

“Reefs in the future will look very different,” said Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a leading marine scientist who’s also involved with the IPCC. “Restoring coral reefs to what they were prior to mass bleaching events is impossible. That is a fact.”

On the timescale of decades, even much of the reef rubble will fade away, as there will be no (or few) live corals to build new skeletons and plenty of forces to erode the ones that remain. Remarkably, about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that we pump into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. When all that CO2 reacts with water, it makes the ocean more acidic, hastening the erosion of coral skeletons and other biological structures made of calcium carbonate.

Buying time

For decades now, hard-working and passionate scientists have been trying to reverse this downward trend — in large part, by “planting” pieces of coral on damaged reefs. This practice is similar to planting saplings in a logged forest. In reef restoration, many scientists and environmental advocates see hope and a future for coral reefs.

But these efforts come with one major limitation: If the oceans continue to grow hotter, many of those planted corals will die too. Last fall, I dived a handful of reefs in the Florida Keys where thousands of pieces of elkhorn and staghorn — iconic, reef-building corals — had been planted. Nearly all of them were bleached, dead, or dying.

“When are [we] going to stop pretending that coral reefs can be restored when sea temperatures continue to rise and spike at lethal levels?” Terry Hughes, one of the world’s leading coral reef ecologists, wrote on X.

Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period. Pretty much every marine scientist I’ve talked to agrees. “Without international cooperation to break our dependence on fossil fuels, coral bleaching events are only going to continue to increase in severity and frequency,” Manzello said. Echoing his concern, Pörtner said: “We really have no choice but to stop climate change.”

But in the meantime, other stuff can help.

Planting pieces of coral can work if those corals are more tolerant to threats like extreme heat or disease. To that end, researchers are trying to breed more heat-resistant individuals or identify those that are naturally more tolerant to stress — not only heat, but disease. Even after extreme bleaching events, many corals survive, according to Jason Spadaro, a restoration expert at Florida’s Mote Marine Laboratory. (“Massive” corals, which look a bit like boulders, had high rates of survival following recent bleaching in Florida, Spadaro said.)

Scientists also see an urgent need to curb other, non-climate related threats, like water pollution and intensive fishing. “To give corals the best possible chance, we need to reduce every other stressor impacting reefs that we can control,” Manzello told Vox.

These efforts alone will not save reefs, but they’ll buy time, experts say, helping corals hold on until emissions fall. If those interventions work — and if countries step up their climate commitments — future generations will still get to experience at least some version of these majestic, life-sustaining ecosystems.

We don't need this...

The failed promise of egg freezing

The costly procedure was supposed to give women a new kind of freedom. Is that what it really offers?

By Anna North

“For me, it was almost like a message from the universe,” says MeiMei Fox.

It was 2009, and Fox was a 36-year-old divorced writer and editor when she sat down to interview a fertility specialist for an upcoming book. He pulled out a chart showing female fertility after age 35 — in her memory, a curve swooping exponentially downward. “I was like, holy moly, this is not a pretty picture,” Fox recalled.

She’d always wanted a family, but since her divorce, she hadn’t met the right person to share it with. That’s why she took notice when she and the doctor discussed a technology called egg freezing, still experimental, that could help preserve people’s eggs until they were ready to have kids. At about $10,000, it was expensive, and typically not covered by insurance. She started pulling the money together right away.

Fox was an early adopter of a technology that was about to explode in popularity. Initially used primarily by people undergoing chemotherapy or other treatments that can harm fertility, the procedure became more mainstream after the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) announced in 2012 that it should no longer be considered “experimental.” Since then, the number of egg-freezing cycles performed each year has skyrocketed, from around 7,600 in 2015 to 29,803 in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology.

In the beginning, expectations were high. Despite the eye-popping cost of the procedure, experts predicted it would usher in a new era of gender equality and career advancement for women. A now-famous 2014 Bloomberg Businessweek cover story promised a new option for professional women: “Freeze Your Eggs, Free Your Career.”

Big companies such as Facebook and Apple started covering egg-freezing expenses for employees. Startups devoted to the procedure began wooing potential customers with parties and prosecco — and attracting millions in VC funding.

Egg freezing was also hailed as the next big step in reproductive health. “It was supposed to revolutionize the whole field just as much as the birth control pill did,” says Janet Takefman, a reproductive health psychologist at McGill University.

For Fox and for many, many people who underwent the procedure, however, freezing their eggs was more than just a medical decision; after an increasingly frantic race against the clock to find a partner, it felt like a way to take back control over their own lives. “Oh my god, I just bought myself years,” Fox remembers thinking. “The stress level went way down.”

Many patients report the same sense of relief after making the decision to freeze eggs. Marcia Inhorn, a professor of anthropology and international affairs at Yale, interviewed more than 100 women about their egg-freezing experiences for her 2023 book, Motherhood on Ice: The Mating Gap and Why Women Freeze Their Eggs. After the procedure, more than 90 percent of women had something positive to say.

But in other ways, egg freezing has failed to live up to its early hype.

For many years, the effectiveness of the procedure was a bit of a black box: Not enough people had tried to use their frozen eggs for scientists to pull together reliable data. Now, however, a picture is emerging.

In one groundbreaking 2022 study conducted at NYU Langone Fertility Center and looking at 543 patients over 15 years, the chance of a live birth from frozen eggs was 39 percent. “There isn’t a guarantee of having a baby from egg freezing,” says Sarah Druckenmiller Cascante, a reproductive endocrinologist at NYU Langone Fertility Center and one of the study’s authors. The study made a splash because it provided numbers where little comprehensive national data exists, though experts at other clinics tell Vox that its results are in line with what they’ve found.

And far from ushering in a new era of gender equality, some experts say, the procedure serves as another way for companies to make money from stoking women’s anxieties.

Sales pitches about egg freezing, rather than liberating women from their biological clocks, simply became another way to put pressure on them, says Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington and author of the book Taking Baby Steps: How Patients and Fertility Clinics Collaborate in Conception. “In a capitalist society, you’re going to have that incentive to get women’s dollars by piggybacking on this guilt, shame, anxiety, whatever you want to call it, about how we’re supposed to reproduce and we haven’t done so yet.”

About a decade after it shed its “experimental” label, the procedure has become ubiquitous in pop culture and ballooned in popularity, with over a million frozen eggs or embryos stored in the United States today. It has done little, however, to materially change women’s lives.

The first successful births from frozen eggs were twins, born in Australia in 1986. But the procedure used in this case was difficult to replicate, and egg freezing didn’t begin to take off until the 1990s, starting at a clinic in Bologna, Italy. The Italian government had passed a law, backed by Catholic politicians, that gave embryos the same rights as citizens and restricted freezing them. Freezing eggs instead became a way to circumvent the law and still treat patients with infertility.

In the early 2000s, the procedure spread to the US and around the world, gaining more interest after 2012, when the ASRM removed the “experimental” label.

For patients, egg freezing can be an arduous process. It starts with 10–14 days of hormone injections, often two or three per day, to stimulate the ovaries to produce large numbers of eggs at once, Cascante said. On top of that, the patient also has to visit a clinic two or three times a week for ultrasounds and bloodwork. Finally, when the eggs are the right size, another injection known as a “trigger shot” gets the eggs ready for collection.

“Physically, you go through a lot,” says Fawziah Qadir, a 38-year-old education professor at Barnard College who froze her eggs in 2022.

If all goes well, patients under 38 can expect to retrieve between 10 and 20 eggs, which are frozen using liquid nitrogen and stored in a lab until they’re ready to be used. If it doesn’t, more cycles may be necessary — meaning more shots, and more money.

When egg freezing first became widely available, there wasn’t a lot of long-term data on its effectiveness. But there was buzz — lots of it — especially around the idea that it would give women more time to focus on their careers. “Imagine a world in which life isn’t dictated by a biological clock,” Emma Rosenblum wrote in the 2014 Bloomberg Businessweek story. “If a 25-year-old banks her eggs and, at 35, is up for a huge promotion, she can go for it wholeheartedly without worrying about missing out on having a baby.”

In the next few years, new companies sprang up to market the procedure to women, often with a millennial-pink, girlboss sheen. Extend Fertility, launched in 2016 in New York City, offered Instagram influencers reduced rates in exchange for posts. Trellis, a “fertility studio” in Manhattan’s fancy Flatiron district that opened in 2018, offered Turkish-cotton bathrobes and called itself “the Equinox of egg freezing,” a reference to the upscale gym chain. One wall bore the slogan, “It’s up to each of us to invent our own future.” The startup Kindbody, also launched in 2018, hosted parties with drinks and scented candles and peppered its social media ads with taglines like “Plan your path.”

“Egg freezing has become like a mantra for how to be an independent woman,” Rebecca Silver, director of marketing for Kindbody, told NBC in 2018. “The people who have frozen their eggs are doing the cool new thing.”

That cool new thing, however, was pricey. It took Fox a year to save up the money. Today, with the process still coming in at $10,000 to $15,000 per cycle, several companies offer loans specifically for egg freezing. Qadir’s procedure in 2022 cost about $14,000, which her mom paid as a gift to her, Qadir says. That included storage fees, which are rising rapidly and can run to $800 a year or more. The costs of egg freezing and storage usually aren’t covered by insurance, although more large companies are beginning to offer fertility benefits that include them.

The price tag of the procedure limits who can access it; the majority of egg-freezing patients are white women with professional jobs. For Black women like herself, “sometimes it’s unattainable just because it’s so expensive, or we don’t have the jobs that would cover it,” Qadir said. Some experts say stigma and stereotypes, dating back to the history of slavery in America, also contribute to lower rates of fertility treatment among Black women.

Startups have attracted enough customers to draw interest from deep-pocketed backers, with fertility companies gaining more than $150 million in investment in 2019, according to the New York Times. “It is an attractive investment for venture capitalists who are looking to make money because it’s an almost unlimited market, potentially, of people who think they need to extend their fertility,” says Karey Harwood, a professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at North Carolina State University and the author of The Infertility Treadmill: Feminist Ethics, Personal Choice, and the Use of Reproductive Technologies.

It’s no surprise that people will pay tens of thousands of dollars, or even go into debt, for the chance to build the family they’ve always imagined. But that key word — chance — can fall by the wayside in an industry built on selling optimism.

The year after she froze her eggs, Fox got together with her now-husband. After about a year of trying to get pregnant and one miscarriage, the couple had Fox’s frozen eggs shipped from the San Francisco Bay Area, where they were stored, to Los Angeles, where Fox and her husband lived.

“Here’s where the story goes rotten,” Fox says. The Bay Area clinic had failed to pack the vials properly, and when they arrived in LA, all the eggs were destroyed. It was “one of the worst days of my life,” Fox recalls.

She’s not the only patient to fall victim to storage or transportation mistakes. One 2022 study found at least nine storage tank failures over 15 years, affecting 1,800 patients.

Egg-freezing patients also have had to contend with the unpredictable nature of the human body. The process can fail at many points, Cascante said. The ovaries may not produce enough eggs, the eggs may not survive the freezing process, they may not fertilize properly, or the fertilized embryos may not implant in the uterus.

One UK-based woman, who asked to remain anonymous because she was concerned about professional ramifications, told Vox she froze 14 eggs, beginning about 10 years ago when she was 36. At the equivalent of about $1,200 per egg, the process wasn’t cheap. But by the end, she says, “I felt really proud that I was doing something proactive, and something that gave me options.”

When she decided to use the frozen eggs to conceive on her own at 40, however, none of them fertilized. “I felt really angry at the universe,” she says. She later married and had a child using a donor egg. “In a single cycle of egg collection and fertilization, our donor produced more eggs and created more embryos than I had done in seven cycles.”

Despite her experience, “I never felt like I was mis-sold,” the woman says. “I’m a nerd; I did my research.”

At the same time, when she was freezing her eggs a decade ago, there wasn’t much research to do. “There weren’t a lot of people who had frozen their eggs, and there were even fewer who had gone back to try and conceive.”

Today, there’s more data available, and mainstream fertility clinics are likely to be frank with patients about success rates, says Madeira, the author of Taking Baby Steps. Findings at other clinics have been in line with the NYU study, with another study finding that about a third of patients who returned to use their eggs ended up having a live birth. “Clinics have an actual ethical imperative to give accurate information.” But egg-freezing parties hosted by for-profit companies may be another story.

There’s also a difference between listing success rates in fine print and really emphasizing the uncertainty of a procedure. Even Brigitte Adams, the woman featured on the 2014 Bloomberg cover after freezing her eggs, eventually told the Washington Post that she was unable to conceive using her frozen eggs.

“They’re going to tell you, in all the paperwork you sign, that this is no guarantee, but you’re still going to have a sense of, oh, this works,” Fox says.

Some of that feeling may stem from a kind of relentless optimism in American culture — or, perhaps, a Protestant work ethic — around the idea of having biological children, the message that if people simply try hard enough and long enough, they will eventually be rewarded with a child. This messaging has led some women to open up in recent years about their unsuccessful infertility treatments, to destigmatize their experiences. “For those of us who close our infertility chapters without a baby, we’re often met with unsolicited advice, reinforcing the narrative that we obviously gave up too early,” one woman, Katy Seppi, told CNN.

For their part, fertility companies and practices say they work hard to make patients aware of the possibility of failure. At Extend Fertility, every prospective egg-freezing patient gets a free consultation session that includes information on their odds of a live birth from frozen eggs, based on their age and initial test results, says Joshua Klein, the company’s chief clinical officer. After that, “we try to trust women” to make an informed decision, he said.

Kindbody also provides every prospective client with “expected outcomes based on their individual hormones and sonograms,” and offers a fertility calculator that estimates a patient’s chance of a live birth based on test results and number of eggs retrieved, Margaret Ryan, the company’s VP of communications, said in an email.

For some people, egg freezing isn’t the only option on the table. Another path is freezing embryos, which are denser and have a lower water content, making them “less sensitive to the freeze-thaw process,” said Amanda Adeleye, a reproductive endocrinologist and the medical director of CCRM Fertility of Chicago.

Doctors also are able to screen embryos to help give patients a better sense of how likely they are to have a successful pregnancy. The process has even found its way into the American cultural imagination, with Succession’s Shiv Roy suggesting to her beleaguered husband Tom that they freeze embryos because they “survive way longer than eggs.”

Embryos, however, require sperm. The majority of people freezing eggs are single, and they’re often hoping to have biological children with a partner one day. Using donor sperm would defeat that purpose. Fox, for example, was told that freezing embryos might be more effective but “I had zero interest,” she says. “I did not want to be a single mom.”

If a patient has a partner or is comfortable using a donor, doctors may recommend embryo freezing. But “if you’re doing all of this to expand your flexibility and time to build your family, to prematurely close the door on part of that by fertilizing the eggs doesn’t necessarily help you,” Adeleye said.

Eggs, embryos, freezing, thawing, shots, ultrasounds, thousands of dollars — it’s a lot for patients to navigate, often without much guidance.

For example, there’s no single regulatory agency overseeing fertility centers in the US, as NBC has reported. That means no one is ensuring that patients are given a clear picture of the effectiveness of procedures. A lack of oversight also allows companies to use sales pitches that experts say are misleading, like an Instagram ad for Extend Fertility that claimed, “When you freeze your eggs, you #freezetime.”

Klein calls that message “oversimplified,” but says it contains a kernel of truth because the procedure gives patients a chance to get pregnant with younger, more viable eggs. Advertising egg freezing is always a difficult balance, he tells Vox. The company doesn’t want to be too aggressive, but at the same time, to keep silent about a technology that can be “life-changingly impactful” risks doing a disservice to all the people who could benefit, Klein says.

Others, however, argue that egg-freezing companies are being too aggressive, not just about the effectiveness of the procedure but about its necessity. Companies can “scare women into freezing their own eggs when they might not really need to,” Madeira says.

In recent years, fertility startups have reached out to younger and younger groups of women. “We are now targeting women in their 20s and early 30s,” Susan Herzberg, the president of Prelude Fertility, told the New York Times in 2018. “Fertility declines at 22,” Jennifer Lannon, founder of the website Freeze.Health, told the publication.

It’s true that egg quality declines with age and that younger patients have better luck with egg freezing. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists puts the age of significant fertility decline at 32, not 22 (the chance of conceiving drops more precipitously after 37).

In the NYU study, the success rate rose to 51 percent for patients who froze their eggs when they were under 38. But the idea that large numbers of people should be freezing eggs in their 20s to guard against future infertility is misguided, some experts say. People in their 20s and early 30s often have time to conceive naturally, without the need for a lengthy, expensive medical procedure.

Indeed, only about 12 percent of patients worldwide actually go back for their frozen eggs. Many patients conceive without assistance, Takefman says, while others decide not to become parents. Patients who froze eggs when they were younger than 34 are especially unlikely to use them, Madeira says.

Those numbers don’t capture people who froze eggs only a few years ago and might still return, Klein says. And it’s not necessarily a problem that not everyone uses frozen eggs — after all, the process is meant as a “proactive investment,” he says. “You don’t know if you’ll need it.”

To some, that investment comes at too high a cost. “More women are freezing eggs, and paying a lot to freeze eggs, than are actually ever going to need [them],” Madeira says.

Ten years ago, egg freezing was seen as a path to economic and social empowerment for women. But most people aren’t freezing their eggs so they can work; they’re freezing their eggs so they can date.

Eliza Brown, now a sociology professor at the University of California Berkeley, and her team interviewed 52 women who had frozen or were considering freezing their eggs in 2016 and 2017. None of them cited a desire to climb the corporate ladder. Instead, almost all were interested in egg freezing because they lacked a romantic partner. “Most of our participants understood egg freezing as a way to actually temporarily disentangle romantic and reproductive trajectories,” Brown tells Vox.

However, in many cases, egg freezing was a bandage on a bigger problem. The women Inhorn interviewed for her book Motherhood on Ice were largely educated professionals who could afford a five-figure elective medical procedure. “They wanted an eligible, educated, equal partner,” Inhorn said, and “they were having trouble finding that.”

Both Brown and Inhorn spoke with some egg-freezing patients who were seeking female partners. However, the majority were dating or seeking men, and struggling with the process. Some had tried dating men with less education or career success, but found “there was a lot of intimidation,” Inhorn said. “Men were not comfortable with who they were.” Others were frustrated with “men who will just wine you and dine you, but really have no intention of committing.”

Mei Fox describes the sense of rush and pressure that can be attached to dating for women in their late 30s: “You go on the first date and you’re like, well, do you want to have kids? No? Okay, bye.”

Egg freezing doesn’t change the fact that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, nor that social norms still fetishize the male-breadwinner family, pressuring women and men alike to look for something that may no longer fit them or the times they live in. It also doesn’t change the fact that many women find dating men to be a frustrating and demoralizing experience, as Anna Louie Sussman writes in the New York Times. Daniel Cox, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has surveyed more than 5,000 Americans about dating, told the Times that many men were “limited in their ability and willingness to be fully emotionally present and available” and that dating today “requires a level of emotional sensitivity that I think some men probably just lack.”

To actually fix straight women’s dating problems, you would need to “fix men,” one of Inhorn’s study participants told her. Until then, Inhorn writes in her book, “egg freezing will remain educated thirty-something women’s single best reproductive option — a techno-medical solution to a fundamental gender inequality that provides them with some hope and allows them to retain their motherhood dreams.”

For Fox, freezing her eggs indeed took the feeling of time pressure away. She felt more relaxed and confident.

“It was really positive for me,” she says. “Until I tried to use them.”

After Fox’s frozen eggs were destroyed, she and her husband went through three rounds of IVF. It cost about $100,000, but she eventually got pregnant and gave birth to twin sons. Today, she’s not against egg freezing but says, “I tell people it is no guarantee.” Fertility centers don’t always “present that to their clients in an honest way,” she adds.

Better regulation would help, experts say. Creating a single regulatory agency to oversee fertility centers — as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority does in the UK — could make it easier to require those centers to educate patients on the risks and effectiveness of egg freezing and to follow accuracy guidelines in their advertising, Rachel Strodel argues in an NBC op-ed. “I still certainly respect people’s freedom to make the decision that’s best for them, but they’ve got to be armed with the facts and realize that it’s a gamble,” says Harwood, the Infertility Treadmill author.

Federal lawmakers should also require that egg storage facilities follow proper freezing protocol and report any failures, legal scholars Naomi Cahn and Dena Sharp write at the Conversation. Meanwhile, helping women with the relationship problems that push many to freeze eggs in the first place may require bigger social changes.

“Maybe men are going to need to get more comfortable marrying women who are more educated than they are and make more money than they do,” Harwood said. “Maybe the change happens there, in our gender ideologies and how we think of family.”

Greater support for single parents and other family forms beyond the heterosexual two-parent household could also take the pressure off of women to bank eggs in hopes of meeting a male partner. So, too, could a greater social acceptance of the value of a child-free life, especially since more and more people are choosing not to have children. While many people who freeze eggs have a deep and personal desire for children, it’s also the case that women, especially, experience enormous social and even political pressure to reproduce — and reducing that pressure could free some people to pursue other shapes for their lives.

Patients and scholars alike are clear that they don’t want to see egg freezing disappear as an option. “Reproductive choices are being eclipsed in this country,” Inhorn said. “This is a technology that does give women some help with difficult situations they find themselves in.”

The process could take on added importance now that an Alabama court ruling has cast doubt on the future of IVF using frozen embryos. Federal oversight of and research into fertility technology and treatment in general have been hampered by opposition to abortion in the US, which has made it difficult to form nationwide policies around reproductive health.

Egg freezing also remains an especially important option for people dealing with cancer or other conditions or treatments that can damage ovarian function, and it can be a useful tool for trans people who want to remove their ovaries or who are taking hormones that affect them, Adeleye said.

For many patients, however, experts say that the sense of control that egg freezing offers — at a high price — turns out to be illusory. If anything, Fox’s experience with the procedure was an exercise in letting go.

“It’s taught me some more patience with life and the universe,” she says. “There are many different pathways to getting what you dream of.”

Cult...

Everything’s a cult now

Derek Thompson on what the end of monoculture could mean for American democracy.

By Sean Illing

Is damn near everything a cult now?

That’s a glib distillation of an interesting idea I recently encountered. The basic thesis was that the internet has shattered the possibility of a monoculture and the result of that is a highly fragmented society that feels increasingly like a loose connection of cults stacked on top of each other.

To say that everything is a cult is a bit of an overstatement, but as a general framework for understanding the world at the moment, it is helpful. The way we consume content, the way fandom works, the ways we sort ourselves into tribes and camps online, even the way lots of industries work, including the news business — it all has shades of culthood. This is easier to see if you set aside the more extreme examples of cults, like the ones that end in mass suicide or shootouts with the ATF, and instead think of cults as movements or institutions that organize themselves around the belief that the mainstream is fundamentally broken.

Understood this way, there are lots of cults, or cult-adjacent groups, and not all of them are bad. But if society keeps drifting in this direction, what will that mean for our shared democratic culture? How much fragmentation can we sustain?

To think all of this through, I invited Derek Thompson to The Gray Area. He’s a staff writer at the Atlantic, the host of the podcast Plain English, and the person who originally floated this idea about the cultification of society. Below is an excerpt of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday.

Sean Illing
Tell me why you think everything’s become a cult.

Derek Thompson
I’ve always been very interested in culture, which I suppose is worth defining. Culture is the way that we think about the world and the way that we influence each other’s thoughts about the world. And that can be through entertainment, it can be through religion, it can be through fashion and clothes, but it’s the memes and ideas and ideologies that not only influence our own sense of reality but other people’s sense of reality. And I’ve always been interested in how people’s sense of reality comes to be.

So you can start with the late 19th century when the concept of a national reality was first possible, at least in America. You had technologies like the telephone and the telegraph that allowed newspapers to share information and report on information that truly was national. It allowed information to travel much faster than it had ever traveled before. And so suddenly in the late 19th century, we had the possibility of a national and even international real-time shared reality. And that shared reality might have come to its fullest expression in the middle of the 20th century with the rise of television technology. You had just a handful of channels that were reaching tens of millions of people.

At the same time, you also had the rise of national newspapers and maybe the apogee of national newspapers in terms of their ability to monopolize local advertising revenue and become enormous machines for getting tens of millions of Americans to read about a shared reality. And so you move from the 19th century with the birth of this possibility of a shared reality, to the 20th century, where you really have the rise of a kind of monoculture, which was never really possible for the vast majority of human history.

What I’m interested in is the possibility that the internet has forever shattered that reality, that we are in a way going back to the pre-20th century where culture is actually just a bunch of cults stacked on top of each other, a bunch of mini local realities stacked on top of each other.

Sean Illing
How do you define a cult?

Derek Thompson
I think of a cult as a nascent movement outside the mainstream that often criticizes the mainstream and organizes itself around the idea that the mainstream is bad or broken in some way. So I suppose when I think about a cult, I’m not just thinking about a small movement with a lot of people who believe something fiercely. I’m also interested in the modern idea of cults being oriented against the mainstream. They form as a criticism of what the people in that cult understand to be the mainstream. And cults, especially when we talk about them in religion, tend to be extreme, tend to be radical, tend to have really high social costs to belonging to them.

Today, especially in the media and entertainment space, we have this really interesting popularity of new influencers or new media makers adapting as their core personality the idea that the mainstream is broken, that news is broken, that mass institutions are broken, that the elite are in some way broken and elite institutions are broken. The fragmentation of media that we’re seeing and the rise of this anti-institutional, somewhat paranoid style of understanding reality, I see these things as rising together in a way that I find very interesting.

Sean Illing
You were talking about the phone and the telegraph earlier, but the thing about newer technologies like radio and TV, for instance, is that they helped create something like a mass culture. The public was more or less watching the same movie we call reality, and for all the downsides of that, and there were many, it did have the benefit of grounding society in a shared reality. Do you think of that loss as a genuine cultural and political crisis? Or is it possible that this is just another period of technological change, not that different from earlier periods and we’ll figure it out?

Derek Thompson
I do think that in so many ways, we’re just going back to the middle of the 19th century. We’re going back to the historical norm rather than being flung into the exosphere, into some unprecedented state of popular discombobulation.

The idea that a shared reality, a shared national reality in real time, is even possible is so historically young. Just one quick aside, I was doing some reporting for the book that I’m writing right now and saw in an Eric Hobsbawm book called The Age of Revolutions that when the Bastille fell in 1789, a Canton 30 minutes away from Paris didn’t realize the French Revolution had happened for a full month. That was the speed at which information used to travel. It was the speed at which a man could ride a horse or walk next to his horse.

You need a whiz-bang technology that can somehow transmit at something like the speed of light, certainly one would hope the speed of sound, information across vast distances. You only had that with the invention of the telegram and the telephone, and then later radio.

So if you want to know where we’re going, look where we came from. In the 19th century, of course, we had lots of chaos, but we also had an American democracy for decades and decades. So it’s not obvious to me that the erosion of the monoculture or the erosion of the news mainstream is anathema to American democracy.

Sean Illing
I don’t think it’s incompatible with American democracy as such, but it might be incompatible with the model of liberal democracy we’ve become accustomed to since mid-20th century or so, which is also a historical aberration.

Derek Thompson
You might be totally be right. This is one place where the bridge goes too far for me to have a ready-made answer. I’m not exactly sure why a more riotously antagonistic and fragmented news ecosystem would be perilous to liberal democracy. It’s possible that it would be, but what’s the causal mechanism by which a wildly fragmented media leads to a backlash in liberal democracy?

Sean Illing
I guess I’m thinking about how this environment creates a collective action problem that makes dealing with the sorts of challenges we’re dealing with today almost insoluble. Martin Gurri had a useful metaphor in his 2018 book The Revolt of the Public. The way he put it was to say that for a long time we looked into the same mirror of mass culture and the internet shattered that mirror into a billion little pieces, which meant that governments could no longer dictate the stories societies were telling about themselves, which is a great thing in lots of ways, but it also produced a lot social turbulence.

Derek Thompson
I agree with the idea that we’re all looking into fewer mirrors, but it’s not obvious to me that the mirrors we were looking into were reflecting reality. They were reflecting a version of reality that left out a lot. The news of the 20th century did not report on racial justice at anything like the level of quality that we now expect reports in racial justice to do. The mirrors of the 20th century and news reports of the 20th century did not, I think, uncover all sorts of problems of governance that took years to understand. Didn’t report on the environmental degradation of industrial America in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s. Protests had to fill the void of media that was under-representing minorities in urban America.

None of this is to accuse you personally of overlooking those problems because I’m sure you would agree with all of them, but it’s to remind all of us that when we feel nostalgia for the media environment of the 1940s and 1950s, we are feeling nostalgia for a news media ecosystem that in many ways was inferior to and even blind to the problems that we know to pay attention to today. And I do think that in many ways, the fragmentation of the media can sometimes create competition that allows us to see behind corners and understand things, root out problems that we didn’t see before.

I’m a capitalist overall, and I think that more competition in most markets is good. I just think it’s important to understand, as we do in some markets, that there can be negative externalities. A huge gaping negative externality of abundance in media is that superabundant media creates a scenario where news entrants feel like they have to be antagonistic. A news environment like that is going to create a lot of distrust, it’s going to create a lot of disharmony, it’s going to confuse a lot of people, and it will replace a world with a small number of flawed mirrors with a riotous and unthinkable number of mirrors, some of which are absolute bullshit mirrors and some of which are quite good.

Sean Illing
The problem of “distrust” is what I was getting at. I never liked the phrase “post-truth” because it implied there was a golden age in which we lived in truth. That’s bullshit. So I’m not nostalgic in that way and I’m not making the case that we understood our world better, or that society was more just, when everyone was watching the same handful of networks or reading the same handful of newspapers. I’m just saying that was a period where there was more trust in authority, in part because of this near-monopoly on information at the top. And when that near-monopoly shattered, people could see and hear more and that eroded trust in authority, trust in experts, trust in information. Is that a good thing in the long term? Probably. I don’t know. But I don’t think our institutions were equipped to manage the transition from that world to this one.

Derek Thompson
I think I agree with a lot of that. What I most want to hold down on is the idea that almost all nostalgia for a past golden age is nostalgia for a world that did not exist or a world that we would find inexcusably terrible today. If someone believes that the world of 1950s or ’60s was better in this way, then why didn’t that shared reality lead to a world where we fixed our problems faster? Why didn’t a shared reality more expeditiously reveal the injustice of Jim Crow and voting laws before the 1965 Act? Why didn’t it help us see the terrible things that we were doing to leaded gasoline and the air and the water? Why, essentially, was the world of monocultural news so flawed if monocultural news is so useful for showing the electorate what’s important in the world? That’s the question that I feel like is never answered when people start waxing nostalgic about the middle of the 20th century.

They are just fucking insane...

It’s a Good Time to Start Worrying About Christian Nationalism

One tweet illustrates the threat.

DAVID CORN

In response to rising concern among liberals and others about the spread of Christian nationalism, conservative voices have been pressing a counterattack, claiming all this fretting is just lefty hysteria from secularists who are not willing to acknowledge the role of Christianity in American society and who want to brand all politically active Christians as extremists. Last year, the far-right Heritage Foundation published an article declaring that Christian nationalism is a term “mostly used as a smear against conservative Christians who defend the role of religion in American public life” and that the “lack of standard definition allows critics to bundle evils like white supremacy and racism with standard conservative views on marriage, family, and politics.” More recently, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, addressing liberal unease, wrote, “Today’s religious conservatives are mostly just normal American Christians doing normal American Christian politics, not foot soldiers of incipient theocracy.” He added, “It’s not clear to me that secular liberals should really fear Christian nationalism more today than in 2000 or 1980.”

Really?

By now, you’ve heard of Project 2025, the enterprise established by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing outfits to both set a radical-right agenda for a possible second Trump term and recruit Dear Leader loyalists for government posts in that administration. As I’ve noted, this venture has cooked up plans and measures with an authoritarian bent. It also has been preparing to inject Christian nationalist ideas into a Trump 2.0 presidency. One example from the Project 2025 handbook: “maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family.” That does sounds a bit Gilead-ish.

The anti-anti-Christian nationalists’ effort to cast libs as the-sky-is-falling worrywarts is either naive or a purposeful effort to deflect attention from this threat to civil society. And though it usually is best to avoid dependence on one data point, allow me to zero in on a single tweet that appeared recently to highlight the danger.

Following President Joe Biden’s recent State of the Union speech, William E. Wolfe, a midlevel official at the Pentagon and the State Department during the Trump administration and a Christian nationalism advocate, tweeted out his response. Here it is in full:

My response to the #SOTU:

We need to see the deeper spiritual realities at play. This ain’t just a political fight, it’s a spiritual war. Heaven and Hell are real. Demons exist.

And there are two main demons being worshipped in America right now:

1) Molech, who demands child sacrifice (abortion)

2) Baphomet, whose demonic goat-like representation is gender-bending (LGBTQIA+) The “Equality Act” and “Reproductive Rights” aren’t just “policies” that the radical Left/Democrats support

 They are sacraments, acts of worship to their demon gods

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12  

It’s time for Christians to call on America to repent of our idol worship of demons and return to the One True Living God and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ

Maybe God raise up more idol smashers for our days yet.

This tweet illustrates a basic component of Christian nationalism: spiritual warfare. That’s the notion that all that transpires in our world is a manifestation of the mammoth and eternal clash between God and Satan. The tussle over abortion is not an argument between fellow citizens with conflicting views on bodily autonomy or the question of when life begins; it is a battle between Jesus and Lucifer. Consequently, those who support reproductive freedom are demons or, at the least, in league with or controlled by demons.

Wolfe contends that Americans who champion reproductive rights are doing so as a ritual sacrifice to Molech, who in the Bible appears to be a Canaanite god (though there’s disagreement among scholars over who or what Molech is). And he insists that passing LGBTQ protections is a form of praying to Baphomet, a deity that the Knights Templar, a Catholic military order active early in the second millennium, were accused of worshipping that later became associated with the occult. (You might recall the Knights Templar from The Da Vinci Code and the Indiana Jones movies.)

This is esoteric stuff and a bizarre and troubling political analysis. Yet it’s telling. Wolfe sees the political opposition to Trump, Christian fundamentalism, and conservatism as literally a satanic force. How then can he and his comrades expect to have civil discourse with it? You certainly cannot work with or strike legislative compromises with actual demons. And why should you accord them or their allies any civil rights or protections? These servants of the devil must be crushed by any means necessary to make way for a nation that is ruled according to the precepts of Christian fundamentalism, right? This is the core of Christian nationalism.

Now why should we care about the radical view of this one fellow? Wolfe is a close associate of Russell Vought, who was budget director for the Trump White House and now is president of the Center for Renewing America, one of the right-wing organizations behind Project 2025. As Politico recently reported, “Vought’s beliefs over time have been informed by his relationship with Wolfe. The two spent time together at Heritage Action, a conservative policy advocacy group. And Vought has praised their yearslong partnership. ‘I’m proud to work with @William_E_Wolfe on scoping out a sound Christian Nationalism,’ he posted on X, then Twitter, in January 2023.”

Wolfe, who is now the executive director of the Center for Baptist Leadership (which battles liberalism within the Southern Baptist Convention) and who has advocated ending sex education in schools, surrogacy, and no-fault divorce, is far from a rando. He’s intimately tied to the fellow who is the architect of the next possible Trump administration and who has been mentioned as a potential White House chief of staff for Trump.

There are many carnival barkers within Christian nationalism. For instance, disgraced former Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn, who has embraced the banner of white Christian nationalism and proclaimed, “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God, and one religion under God.”

Or Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, who called on men to “fight for Jesus” so the world will be “dominionized” and “conquered” for Jesus.

Yet the most devilish ones are those like Wolfe who are scheming to burrow into the government to advance their radical religious agenda.

Like Douthat and the Heritage Foundation, Wolfe dismisses liberal critics of Christian nationalism. “Apparently, any Christian who wants to see just laws grounded in biblical principles and Christian morality enacted in America these days is now a scary ‘Christian nationalist,’ according to secularists,” he wrote last month. What these detractors want, he added, “is nothing less than to silence politically engaged conservative Christians.”

Yet Wolfe himself goes far beyond the Christian conservatism that underlies the right’s opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and much else. He is promoting a Manichean worldview that holds that only the Christians he deems true Christians deserve to serve in government. Dismissing criticism of Christian nationalism as a sneaky liberal ploy to attack all right-of-center Christians is profoundly disingenuous. But I suppose when you’re combatting Beelzebub in the name of Jesus, the Ninth Commandment is not operative.

Back to Douthat. In his column, he concluded that “religious conservatism” would “influence a second Trump administration,” but “it would be the influence of an important but weakening faction in a de-Christianizing country, not a movement poised to overthrow a secular liberalism.” He should spend some time with Wolfe.