2025-12-06 03:50:00
2025年5月，奥尔加·乌尔比娜和她的儿子亚雷斯·韦伯斯特在美最高法院外举行抗议活动，反对特朗普总统试图终结出生公民权。此前，最高法院曾审理过与特朗普行政命令相关的案件。去年1月，由里根任命的法官约翰·科亨诺尔成为首位阻止特朗普攻击出生公民权的联邦法官，他直言不讳地表示：“我在法庭上工作了四十余年，我无法回忆起有哪一案件的问题像现在这样明确。”科亨诺尔是第一个得出这一结论的法官，但绝不是最后一个。在过去11个月里，许多法官都得出相同的结论：特朗普没有权力剥夺在美国出生的美国人的公民身份。
尽管最高法院在决定是否受理此案时有所拖延，但最终于周五宣布将听取特朗普诉芭芭拉案，该案询问宪法是否允许特朗普单方面剥夺在美国出生的美国人的国籍。如果大法官们能保持非党派立场，特朗普将以9比0的比分败诉。
特朗普在第二个任期的第一天发布了一项行政命令，声称要剥夺一些美国新生儿的国籍。该命令名为《保护美国公民身份的含义和价值》，声称要剥夺两类美国人的国籍：第一类是出生时母亲为无证移民，且父亲不是美国公民或合法永久居民的儿童；第二类是出生时父亲具有类似移民身份，而母亲当时合法但临时居留在美国的儿童。
在美国法律中，很少有比“在美国出生的婴儿是否是美国公民”这一问题更明确的了。美国内战后不久，美国通过了第十四修正案，其中第一句话规定：“所有在美国出生或归化的人，且受美国司法管辖者，均为美国公民及其居住州的公民。”“所有的人”包括那些母亲无证或父母移民身份不符合特朗普喜好的人。
第十四修正案有一个例外条款：只有“受美国司法管辖”的人在出生时才能享有出生公民权。所谓“受美国司法管辖”是指受美国法律约束。因此，如果最高法院认定特朗普所反对的美国人不受美国司法管辖，那么他们将无法被驱逐，因为这些人不受联邦移民法约束。
不过，这一例外条款并非完全空洞。正如最高法院在1898年的“美国诉温戈金·阿克案”中所解释的，这是一个狭窄但真实的例外，适用于特定群体。1868年通过第十四修正案时，被排除在公民权之外的主要群体是“直接效忠于各自部落的印第安人后裔”。当时，美国与原住民部落的关系常常紧张，甚至发生军事冲突，如小大角河战役发生在修正案通过后八年。因此，当时不给予这些人公民身份是合理的，尽管美国在100多年前已改变了对部落公民的政策。
1924年的《印第安人公民权法案》赋予了“所有在美国领土范围内出生的非公民印第安人”公民身份。此外，温戈金·阿克案还指出了一些其他不被视为受美国司法管辖的儿童群体，包括“外国君主或其外交官的子女、出生在外国政府船只上的儿童，以及在敌对占领期间出生的敌方儿童”。
其中，第一个豁免情况至今仍有现实意义。例如，去年8月，一家联邦上诉法院裁定，一名出生在纽约市的男子，其父亲当时是享有美国法律豁免权的尼加拉瓜外交官，因此他不具备美国公民身份。但宪法明确规定，所有在美国出生且不受其法律豁免的人都是美国公民。特朗普的律师们只能通过曲解宪法文本来绕过这一事实。例如，在请求最高法院审理出生公民权案件的请愿书中，特朗普的法律团队声称，第十四修正案仅适用于“完全受美国政治管辖”的儿童，即他们对国家有“直接和即时的效忠”并可享受其保护。然而，这些“完全”和“政治”等词并未出现在修正案的原文中。特朗普的论点实际上是在宪法中添加不存在的词语。如果大法官们具备任何诚信或对法治的忠诚，他们都将拒绝这一荒谬的论点。
Last January, when Reagan-appointed Judge John Coughenour became the first federal judge to block President Donald Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship, he did not mince words. “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” Coughenour said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is.”
Coughenour was the first judge to reach this conclusion, but he was hardly the last. In the last 11 months, numerous judges have reached the only conclusion that the Constitution’s text permits: Donald Trump does not have the power to strip Americans who are born in this country of their citizenship.
The Supreme Court took its sweet time before deciding to take up this issue, but, on Friday, the Court finally announced that it would hear Trump v. Barbara, a case asking whether the Constitution permits Trump to unilaterally denationalize Americans born in the United States. If the justices are capable of behaving in a nonpartisan manner, Trump will lose this case 9-0.
On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an executive order purporting to strip citizenship from some newborn Americans. The order, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” claimed to remove citizenship from two classes of Americans. The first is children born to undocumented mothers whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States. The second is children with fathers who have similar immigration status and whose mothers were lawfully but temporarily present in the US at the time of birth.
There are few questions in US law that are more settled than the question of whether babies born in the United States are citizens of this country. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the nation ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Its first line is, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
“All persons” means all persons. That includes people with undocumented mothers or whose parents otherwise have an immigration status that Donald Trump does not like.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s text contains one exception to this general rule: Only people “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at the time of their birth may claim birthright citizenship. Someone is subject to US jurisdiction if they are bound by US law. So, if the Supreme Court were to conclude that Trump’s disfavored Americans are not subject to US jurisdiction, that would mean that he would be unable to deport them, because they are immune from federal immigration law.
Which isn’t to say that this “subject to the jurisdiction” exception is completely empty. As the Supreme Court explained more than a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), it is a narrow-but-real exception that applies to limited groups of people.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the most significant group that was excluded from citizenship was “children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.” At the time, US relations with indigenous tribal nations were often tense and even resulted in military conflict; the Battle of Little Bighorn took place eight years after the amendment was ratified.
So, it made sense not to give citizenship to people who may be hostile to the US in 1868, although the United States changed its policy on tribal citizens more than 100 years ago. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 bestowed citizenship on “all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States.”
Additionally, Wong Kim Ark identified a few other groups of children born in the United States who are not subject to its laws: “children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory.” The first of these exemptions is still occasionally relevant today. Last August, for example, a federal appeals court concluded that a man born in New York City, whose father was a Nicaraguan diplomat with diplomatic immunity from US law at the time, is not a citizen of the United States.
But, the Constitution’s text is clear that everyone born in the US who is not immune from its laws is a citizen. And Trump’s lawyers can only get around this fact by pretending that the Fourteenth Amendment says something else. In their petition asking the justices to hear the birthright citizenship cases, for example, Trump’s legal team claims that the Fourteenth Amendment only “extends to children who are ‘completely subject’ to the ‘political jurisdiction’ of the United States, meaning that they owe ‘direct and immediate allegiance’ to the Nation and may claim its protection.”
This might be a plausible argument if the words “completely” and “political” actually appeared in the Fourteenth Amendment’s text. But, they do not. Trump’s argument literally rests on an attempt to add nonexistent words to the Constitution.
If the justices have any integrity at all, or any loyalty to the rule of law, they will reject this frivolous argument.
2025-12-06 03:30:00
2025年6月16日，在加拿大阿尔伯塔举行的G7峰会期间，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普与法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙、加拿大总理马克·加诺、英国首相基尔·斯塔默以及德国总理弗里德里希·默茨一同合影。| Suzanne Plunkett/AFP via Getty Images
美国不再以居高临下的姿态向其他国家政府讲授如何治理国家，也不再试图按照自己的模式塑造其他国家的社会，但对西方欧洲国家似乎是个例外。特朗普政府在周四晚间低调发布了其期待已久的国家安全战略（NSS）。NSS是一份定期发布的文件，阐述总统政府的外交政策优先事项。2025年版NSS的发布在华盛顿引发了一些困惑和关注。据称该文件早在夏季就已完成，但因多位官员要求修改，其发布被推迟了几个月。最近，财政部长斯科特·贝森特据说试图淡化有关中国的措辞，以免影响正在进行的贸易谈判。
这份NSS主要由《93号航班选举》一书的作者迈克尔·安顿撰写，他于2024年9月在第一版草案完成后辞去了特朗普总统政策规划主任的职务。该文件是一份典型的“特朗普主义”文件，对外国政策精英出卖美国利益、推崇全球主义原则进行了大量批评。不出所料，这与拜登政府2022年发布的战略大相径庭。但与特朗普首次任期2017年发布的战略相比，也有显著不同，后者主要聚焦于中国对美国外交政策构成的威胁。
在新战略中，西方美洲地区被置于优先位置，重点是防止大规模移民和打击“毒品恐怖分子”。该战略引入了“特朗普修正案”对门罗主义的重新诠释，即“阻止非美洲国家竞争者在我们的美洲地区部署军事力量或其他威胁性能力，或控制战略关键资产。”（这是否意味着要反对中国在该地区建设的港口和其他基础设施？目前，这似乎不如移民和毒品问题优先。）
关于中国部分，虽然一些鹰派人士担心美国会彻底放弃对中国的强硬立场，但该文件仍保留了美国长期以来对台湾主权问题的模糊态度，并强调了台湾的战略重要性。文件最引人注目的部分是关于欧洲的，其中指出欧洲面临“文明消失”的风险：
欧洲面临的主要问题包括欧盟及其他跨国机构对政治自由和主权的侵蚀、移民政策正在改变整个大陆并引发冲突、对言论自由的审查以及对政治反对派的压制、出生率暴跌、以及国家身份和自信心的丧失。如果当前趋势持续，欧洲将在20年后变得“不可识别”。文件还实际上支持欧洲的极右翼政党：“美国鼓励其在欧洲的政治盟友推动这种精神复兴，而欧洲爱国政党的日益崛起确实令人充满希望。”
此外，文件还呼吁“在欧洲各国培养对当前发展轨迹的抵抗”。该战略呼应了副总统JD·万斯在5月慕尼黑安全会议上提出的主题，引发了欧洲各国的强烈反应。
关于欧洲的移民政策、欧盟成员国对国家主权的影响，或大陆的仇恨言论法律，确实存在讨论空间。但将西方欧洲视为全球民主最受威胁的地区，这种说法显得奇怪。这与文件中其他部分强调主权和尊重政治差异的立场形成鲜明对比。
在中东地区，该战略批评美国“错误地试图迫使这些国家，尤其是海湾君主国，放弃其传统和历史政府形式”。在非洲，美国长期以来的策略被描述为过于专注于“传播自由主义理念”。文件中几乎没有提到中国对政治反对派的压制和对少数民族的镇压。
此外，该战略并未谴责俄罗斯对乌克兰战争的发动或持续，而是将责任归咎于“那些对战争中不稳定少数政府抱有不切实际期望的欧洲官员，这些政府往往践踏民主的基本原则来压制反对派”。
该战略还批评欧洲国家，特别是德国，继续依赖俄罗斯天然气进口，尽管它并未提及一个事实：特朗普政府在欧洲的意识形态盟友，尤其是匈牙利的维克托·欧尔班，正在积极推动欧洲摆脱对俄罗斯能源的依赖。
德国外长约翰·瓦德普法尔回应称，他的国家不需要“来自外部的建议”来指导其内部政治。这份战略究竟有多少会被付诸实践？正如洪都拉斯最近的例子所示，特朗普在国际舞台上的行动往往更多受到个人关系的影响，而非意识形态。但就“美国优先”的外交政策理念而言，该文件是对这一理念的清晰阐述。它并非孤立主义或“克制”的世界观，而是呼吁美国在国际事务中采取更加积极主动的角色。值得注意的是，在这种世界观中，俄罗斯的复仇主义者和中国的共产党人往往被视为对美国利益的威胁不如欧洲的自由主义者严重。
America is out of the business of giving patronizing lectures to other governments about how to run their countries and trying to mold other societies in its own image… except for the countries of Western Europe.
With little fanfare, the Trump administration released its long-awaited National Security Strategy Thursday night. The NSS is a periodically released document that lays out a presidential administration’s foreign policy priorities. The release of the 2025 document has been the subject of some confusion and curiosity in Washington. It was reportedly completed over the summer, but its release has been held up for months, with various officials pushing for amendments. In recent days, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had reportedly been pushing to water down language on China so as not to jeopardize ongoing trade talks.
This NSS was primarily written by “The Flight 93 Election” author Michael Anton, who stepped down as President Donald Trump’s director of policy planning in September after the first draft was completed. It is a very MAGA document, heavy on criticism of foreign policy elites for selling out America for globalist principles. Not surprisingly, this is a very different strategy from the one the Biden administration released in 2022. But it also differs significantly from the one the first Trump administration released in 2017, which was heavily focused on the foreign policy threat posed by China.
In the new strategy, the Western Hemisphere takes precedence, with a heavy focus on preventing mass migration and combating “narco-terrorists.” The strategy introduces a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: to “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” (Does this mean pushing back against Chinese-built ports and other infrastructure in the region? So far, this has been less of a priority than migration and drugs.)
The section on China is not quite the total sell-out that some China hawks feared, with some notably hawkish language on Taiwan’s strategic importance; the language keeps in place America’s longstanding ambiguous stance on Taiwanese sovereignty.
The most noteworthy section of the document concerns Europe, where the administration sees the risk of “civilizational erasure”:
The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
Europe, the document continues, will be “unrecognizable in 20 years” if present trends continue. And the document contains what is effectively an endorsement of European far-right parties: “America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.” It also calls for “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.”
The strategy picks up on the themes laid out by Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference in May, which caused a full-fledged freakout in European capitals. There’s room for debate about Europe’s migration policies, the impact of EU membership on national sovereignty, or about the hate speech laws on the continent. But it’s strange to suggest — as the document implicitly does — that Western Europe is the region of the world where democracy is most under threat.
This section is in notable contrast to the emphasis on sovereignty and respect for political difference elsewhere in the document. In the Middle East, for instance, the administration condemns “America’s misguided experiment with hectoring these nations—especially the Gulf monarchies—into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government.” In Africa, they suggest, US strategy has been guided for far too long by the desire for “spreading liberal ideology.” There’s nary a mention of China’s stifling of political opposition and crackdowns on ethnic minorities.
The strategy does not include any condemnation of Russia for either launching or perpetuating the war in Ukraine, instead putting blame on “European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.”
The strategy calls out European countries — naming Germany specifically — for continuing to rely on Russian gas imports, though it does not mention the inconvenient fact that the Trump administration’s ideological allies in Europe, particularly Hungary’s Viktor Orban, are the ones pushing hardest against efforts to wean Europe off Russian energy. Responding to the document, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said his country does not need “outside advice” on its internal politics.
How much of this strategy will actually be put into practice? As shown by the recent case of Honduras, Trump’s actions on the world stage are often guided by personal connections as much as ideology. But to the extent there is an “America First” foreign policy ideology, the document is a pretty tidy encapsulation of it. Far from an isolationist or “restrained” worldview, it calls for a very assertive American role on the world stage. And notably, it’s a worldview in which Russian revanchists and Chinese communists often seem to be treated as less of a threat to America’s interests than European liberals.
2025-12-06 00:30:00
2025年12月4日，一名示威者在美国佐治亚州亚特兰大市疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）总部外举着标语。美国一个有影响力的疫苗顾问小组预计将推翻长期建议，即新生儿应在出生24小时内接种乙肝疫苗，这一改变被认为几乎肯定会危及儿童健康。| Megan Varner/Bloomberg via Getty Images
美国联邦政府将结束其对所有新生儿出生时接种乙肝疫苗的普遍推荐，这是美国历史上对儿童疫苗接种计划最重大的一次调整，由美国卫生与公众服务部长罗伯特·F·肯尼迪小儿子推动。根据周五发布的新的美国免疫实践咨询委员会（ACIP）建议指南，特朗普政府将把这一决定交由“个人自主选择”。如果CDC采纳这些建议，大多数父母将自行决定是否在医生指导下为婴儿接种乙肝疫苗（母亲乙肝病毒呈阳性或未知的孕妇仍会被建议在婴儿出生时接种）。
CDC此前已撤回新冠疫苗的推荐，让个人自行决定，今年秋季也对一种较少使用的麻疹联合疫苗采取了类似做法。但乙肝疫苗的情况不同，自1982年以来一直被普遍推荐，近年来美国超过70%的新生儿在出生后三天内接种了该疫苗。乙肝疫苗也是公共卫生领域的重大胜利。在20世纪80年代之前，每年约有30万例乙肝新发病例，而2023年估计仅有1.4万例。
在本周的会议上，由肯尼迪小儿子于6月彻底重组的疫苗委员会挑战了长期以来的共识，即所有新生儿应在出生几天内接种第一剂乙肝疫苗。发言人称，出生时接种的疫苗可能无法提供长期保护，且其安全性尚未得到充分研究。他们还声称，除非母亲乙肝病毒呈阳性，否则新生儿感染乙肝的风险较低。
然而，这些观点很快遭到委员会成员和外部专家的质疑。一位专家表示：“这让人想起魔术师的手法，他们只挑选支持自己观点的数据。”梅森纳博士则追问是否有任何健康状况正常的婴儿在出生时接种乙肝疫苗后仍感染乙肝的案例。CDC工作人员表示，他们并不知道有这样的案例。
同样，关于安全风险的报告主要依赖于“缺乏证据”的论点，而非实际数据。当梅森纳博士询问是否有任何关于出生时接种乙肝疫苗导致危害的确凿证据时，发言者马克·布莱克希尔（一位反疫苗活动人士，曾声称疫苗与自闭症有关，并目前在CDC任职）回答称：“安全证据非常有限，我不愿对安全或危害做出猜测。”
尽管如此，委员会仍继续推进改变建议。这种政策转变体现了反公共卫生的倾向。在本周的会议上，一些希望修改乙肝疫苗建议的委员会成员承认，他们缺乏足够的数据支持自己的决定，但认为由于许多美国人不再信任公共卫生专家，他们必须采取行动。这种做法相当于逐步拆解几十年来的科学共识。
布莱克希尔表示：“我多年来一直批评CDC，所以能在这个机构内部工作是一种荣誉和特权。”许多肯尼迪挑选的疫苗委员会成员都持有与他相似的边缘观点，这些观点更符合他长期以来主张的疫苗导致自闭症等健康问题的错误理论。
“他们个人受到自身观点的驱使，这些观点他们多年来一直公开表达，”陈博士说道。“现在他们有了一个讲台来传播自己的观点。”
如今，他们有机会真正改变政府政策。即使没有紧急理由，他们也不会浪费这个机会。尽管特朗普政府声称相信“黄金标准科学”，但其疫苗专家显然愿意为了符合其议程而忽视科学证据。
在本周的会议上，多次有委员会成员和联邦卫生官员——包括一些支持改变的人——承认，对于出生时接种乙肝疫苗的两个月时间线，或委员会批准的新建议（即父母可在接种后续剂量前进行抗体检测以检查孩子的免疫力）缺乏基于数据的正当理由。这种做法很可能会进一步削弱公众对疫苗的信任。
许多共和党人原本就对政府的健康指导持怀疑态度，而如今民主党人也开始失去信心。如果疫苗接种率大幅下降，更多人可能会因此患病。一位在免疫实践咨询委员会会议上发表意见的医生警告称，这种改变可能导致即使一个孩子也感染乙肝。这就是他们所承担的风险。
The federal government is ending its recommendation that every infant receive a hepatitis B vaccination at birth, the most substantive change to the childhood immunization schedule yet under US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Instead, the Trump administration is leaving the question to “individual decision-making,” according to new guidelines recommended by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Friday. If the new guidelines are adopted by the CDC, as expected, most parents will be left to decide on their own in consultation with their doctor. (Mothers who test positive for hepatitis B or whose hep B status is unknown will still be advised to give their baby the shot at birth.)
The new recommendations will suggest, however, that if your child does not receive the birth dose, you should wait until they are at least two months old before giving it to them. At least two members of the committee — Dr. Joseph Hibbeln and Dr. Cody Meissener — argued that there was no scientific basis for the two-month recommendation and that no data had been presented to justify it.
“It’s unconscionable,” Hibblen said Friday shortly before the final vote. Nevertheless, the change was approved as part of a 8-3 vote.
The changes are in keeping with Kennedy’s track record so far on vaccines, seeking to cast doubt on their value and remove official recommendations for them, leaving decisions instead to individual patients. The CDC already walked back the Covid-19 vaccine recommendations to leave it up to individuals and did the same earlier this fall for a rarely used combination measles vaccine.
But the hepatitis B vaccine is a different case.
It has been universally recommended since 1982, and more than 70 percent of newborns have received it within their first three days of life in the US in recent years. It’s also a clear public health win. Before the 1980s, there were about 300,000 new cases of hepatitis B every year. In 2023, there were an estimated 14,000 new cases.
So, why would they do this?
During this week’s meeting, the new vaccine committee — whose membership had been completely overhauled by Kennedy Jr. in June to better reflect his own vaccine skepticism — challenged the long-held consensus that every newborn should receive their first dose within days of being born. Presenters argued that the birth dose might not confer long-term protection to patients and that the safety risks of the vaccine hadn’t been appropriately studied. They also asserted that, unless a mother is positive for hepatitis B, the risk to a newborn is low.
But, those arguments were quickly challenged, both by some of the committee members and outside experts watching the meeting. “It calls to mind a magician with a sleight of hand,” Chen told me. “They were picking data, whatever it is that supports their argument.” Meissner pressed the presenters on whether there was any confirmed case of somebody who was otherwise healthy and received the recommended hep B birth dose but later developed an infection. CDC staff later said they were not aware of any such case.
Likewise, the presentation on safety risk was largely limited to appealing to an absence of evidence, arguing that the available data was simply too limited. When Meissner pressed on whether there is any real evidence of harm from the birth dose, the presenter, Mark Blaxill, an anti-vaccine activist who has alleged a connection to autism and is now employed at the CDC, replied, “The safety evidence is very limited. I wouldn’t want to speculate on safety or harm.”
Nevertheless, the committee pressed ahead with changing the guidance.
This shift in policy represents the victory of anti-public health vibes. Over and over again in this week’s meetings, the committee members who wanted to make a change to hep B vaccine guidance acknowledged the limited evidence to justify their decision but argued that, because so many Americans no longer trust public health experts, they had to do something. That something amounts to a piece-by-piece dismantling of decades of scientific consensus.
“I’ve also been a critic of the CDC for many years,” Blaxill said, “so it’s been an honor and a privilege to work on the inside.”
Many of Kennedy’s vaccine committee members were specifically selected because they shared fringe views on vaccines that aligned more with Kennedy’s, who has long pushed the debunked theory that vaccines cause autism, as well as other health problems.
“They are personally motivated by their own internal views, which they voiced for many years,” Chen said. “They now have a soapbox on which they can preach.”
And now, they are in a position to actually change government policy.
They aren’t going to waste that opportunity — even if there is not an urgent reason to make these changes. While the Trump administration claims to believe in “gold-standard science,” its vaccine experts are clearly willing to skirt the science if it fits their agenda. More than once during this week’s meetings, committee members and federal health officials — even some of those who were supportive of the changes — acknowledged a lack of data-based justification for the two-month timeline for the first shot or a new recommendation approved by the committee that parents may administer antibody tests to check their child’s immunity before administering later doses.
That is an approach that is likely to further erode trust in vaccines. Many Republicans were already dubious about the government’s health guidance, and now Democrats are losing faith, too. If vaccination rates drop far enough, more people may get sick. One doctor who spoke during the public comment period at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting urged panel members to consider the possibility that even a single child could get infected hepatitis B because of this change.
That is the risk they are taking.
2025-12-06 00:25:00
示威者在最高法院外抗议选区划分不公。 | Olivier Douliery/Getty Images 在周四晚间，最高法院恢复了得克萨斯州的一项选区划分不公行为，预计此举将使共和党在国会众议院获得五个额外席位。此前，一家下级联邦法院曾裁定该选区划分不公。在政治争议较大的案件中，大法官们似乎完全按照党派立场进行投票，只有三位民主党大法官投了反对票。最高法院在“阿博特诉联合拉丁裔公民联盟案”（Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC）中的裁决被视为对共和党的胜利，同时也可能对今后所有挑战选区划分不公的联邦诉讼产生毁灭性影响。尽管LULAC案的裁决书简短，但它对选区划分不公诉讼的原告施加了沉重的负担，使得未来几乎没有人能够成功挑战此类选区划分。
要理解LULAC案，了解两种不同类型的选区划分不公之间的区别是有帮助的。通常，州立法机构会根据执政党来设计选区，这类选区划分被称为“党派性”选区划分。有时，州政府也会通过选区划分改变某些立法选区的人种构成，通常是为了给白人选民带来优势，这类选区划分被称为“种族性”选区划分。实际上，党派性和种族性选区划分之间的界限往往很模糊。例如，黑人美国人通常倾向于支持民主党。因此，旨在最大化共和党权力的选区划分往往也会减少黑人代表的数量。
在LULAC案之前，法院在判断某项选区划分是出于党派还是种族原因时，会做出重要区分。在2019年的“Rucho诉Common Cause案”中，最高法院的共和党多数裁定联邦法院不能受理针对党派性选区划分的诉讼。因此，如果法院认定某个选区划分完全出于党派原因，该划分将被维持。此外，最高法院还采取了多项措施削弱针对种族性选区划分的原告，预计在本任期后期会进一步废除《投票权法案》中对这类选区划分的保护。然而，在LULAC案之前，仍有一种情况允许原告成功挑战种族性选区划分。根据最高法院在2024年的“Alexander诉南卡罗来纳州NAACP案”中的裁决，如果立法机构在选区划分中将种族作为主要考虑因素，那么该选区划分将受到最严格的宪法审查。这很重要，因为在LULAC案中，得克萨斯州在实施该选区划分之前，唐纳德·特朗普总统的司法部曾发信要求得克萨斯州重新划分选区以改变其种族构成。司法部声称，任何包含少数族裔占多数选区的地图都是非法的，并威胁要起诉得克萨斯州，除非其消除这些选区。下级法院在推翻该选区划分时指出，有大量证据表明得克萨斯州是为了遵守司法部的要求而重新划分选区的。LULAC案的最高法院裁决并未明确反驳这一结论，但认为下级法院未能对挑战种族性选区划分的原告采取强有力的“立法善意”推定。根据LULAC案多数意见，下级法院未能正确解释模糊的直接和间接证据，从而对立法机构不利。
这一结论有两点值得注意。首先，最高法院的共和党多数曾在“阿博特诉佩雷斯案”（2018）及其他一些案件中裁定，州立法机构在划分选区时享有“种族无罪”的推定。其次，LULAC案中确实存在大量证据支持原告的主张，即得克萨斯州是出于种族原因划分选区，同时也存在证据支持得克萨斯州的主张，即其划分选区是出于党派原因。然而，LULAC案的裁决似乎表明，当双方都有证据时，法院应倾向于支持州政府，维持被挑战的选区划分。因此，除非能够提出一个同样具有党派倾向但种族影响较小的替代选区划分方案，否则种族性选区划分几乎无法被挑战。如果得克萨斯州要最大化共和党的选票优势，就必须分裂黑人和拉丁裔社区，LULAC案的裁决意味着得克萨斯州几乎可以随意这样做。
此外，最高法院在LULAC案裁决中还批评下级法院“在选举前夕修改选举规则”。虽然不清楚大法官们是否考虑了下级法院裁决的时间点，但这一说法显然在事实层面是错误的。下级法院是在2025年11月18日裁定得克萨斯州的选区划分不公，距离2026年的中期选举还有将近一年时间。无论如何，LULAC案的裁决可以被描述为对州政府选区划分不公诉讼提供全面豁免的又一步。在“Rucho”、“Perez”和“Alexander”等案件中，最高法院已经让挑战任何类型的选区划分变得极为困难，而LULAC案则为原告增加了新的负担。这些负担的累积效应可能对几乎所有反对种族或党派性选区划分的诉讼当事人造成压倒性的影响。最高法院的共和党多数似乎正在完全摆脱对选区划分不公的责任，并向各州发出明确信号：它们可以随意行事。
The Supreme Court reinstated a Texas gerrymander that is expected to give Republicans five additional seats in the US House on Thursday evening, after a lower federal court struck that gerrymander down. As is often the case in politically contentious cases, the justices appear to have voted entirely along party lines, with only the Court’s three Democrats dissenting.
The Court’s decision in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is a victory for the Republican Party. And it is likely to have brutal implications for all future federal lawsuits challenging gerrymandered maps. Though the Court’s order in LULAC is brief, it imposes such heavy burdens on gerrymandering plaintiffs that few, if any, such plaintiffs will be able to succeed in future cases.
Indeed, LULAC is so hostile to anti-gerrymandering suits that many civil rights lawyers and plaintiffs may simply decide not to bother challenging illegal maps, because their chances of prevailing in court will be so hopeless.
To understand LULAC, it’s helpful to also understand a distinction between two different types of gerrymanders. Often, state legislatures draw maps that favor whichever party controls that legislature. These maps are known as “partisan” gerrymanders. Other times, states may draw their maps to change the racial makeup of various legislative districts, often to give an advantage to white voters. These maps are known as “racial” gerrymanders.
As a practical matter, the line between racial and partisan gerrymanders is often thin. Black Americans, for example, tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. So a map that seeks to maximize Republican power will often closely resemble a map that seeks to minimize Black representation.
Prior to LULAC, however, it mattered a great deal whether courts determined that a particular map was drawn for partisan or racial reasons. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court’s Republican majority held that federal courts may not hear challenges to partisan gerrymanders. So, if a court determined that a disputed map was drawn entirely for partisan reasons, the map would be upheld.
The Court has also taken several steps to undercut plaintiffs challenging racial gerrymanders, and it is expected to eliminate the Voting Rights Act’s safeguards against these gerrymanders later in its current term. But, prior to LULAC, there was still one set of circumstances when a plaintiff challenging a racial gerrymander could prevail. As the Court held in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024), “if a legislature gives race a predominant role in redistricting decisions, the resulting map is subjected” to the most skeptical level of constitutional scrutiny.
This matters because, before Texas enacted the gerrymander at the heart of the LULAC case, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department sent a letter to Texas that essentially ordered it to redraw its maps to change their racial makeup. The DOJ claimed, falsely, that it is illegal for a state to draw any map that includes a district where white people are in the minority, and two other racial groups combine to make up the majority. And it threatened to sue Texas unless the state eliminated districts that fit this description.
As the lower court that struck down the maps explained in its opinion, there is considerable evidence that Texas decided to draw its new gerrymandered maps in order to comply with this letter.
The Supreme Court’s order in LULAC doesn’t explicitly contest this conclusion. But it faults the lower court for not applying a very strong presumption against plaintiffs challenging a racial gerrymander. “The District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature,” according to the LULAC majority.
Two things can be said about this conclusion. The first is that the Court’s Republican majority has said, in Abbott v. Perez (2018) and some later decisions, that state legislatures enjoy a presumption of racial innocence when they draw legislative districts. The second is that, in LULAC, there was in fact considerable evidence supporting both the plaintiffs’ claim that Texas drew its lines for racial reasons, and Texas’s claim that it drew them for partisan reasons.
But LULAC seems to conclude that, when there is evidence on either side, courts must construe that evidence in favor of the state and uphold the challenged map. It may still be possible for civil rights plaintiffs to challenge racial gerrymanders when the evidence of racial bias is simply overwhelming, but cases like that are exceedingly rare.
LULAC’s strong presumption against anti-gerrymandering plaintiffs, moreover, will likely make it nearly impossible to challenge maps that target Black voters. Because nearly any map that seeks to diminish Black representation will closely resemble a map drawn for partisan purposes, there will almost always be some evidence that an anti-Black racial gerrymander was drawn solely to achieve partisan ends.
The LULAC majority also faults the plaintiffs in this case for not producing “a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals.” This line imposes a rigid rule that anyone challenging an alleged racial gerrymander must produce a map that is just as partisan as the one drawn by the state, but that does not divide voters based on race.
The Court did previously say, in Alexander, that a plaintiff’s failure to submit such a map “may be dispositive in many, if not most, cases where the plaintiff lacks direct evidence or some extraordinarily powerful circumstantial evidence” that a state drew its lines for racial reasons. But the lower court in LULAC found considerable direct evidence that Texas drew its lines to comply with the DOJ’s demand for a racial gerrymander. LULAC, by contrast, says that any plaintiff’s failure to produce an alternative map is a “near-dispositive” reason for them to lose their case.
The upshot of this new, “near-dispositive” requirement is that racial gerrymanders will only be vulnerable when it is possible to draw an equally partisan map with fewer racial implications. If the only way for Texas to maximize Republican voting power is to crack up Black and Latino communities, LULAC establishes that Texas may nearly always do so.
Additionally, there’s also a troubling line in the Court’s LULAC order faulting the lower court for “alter[ing] the election rules on the eve of an election.” It is unclear whether the justices considered the timing of the lower court’s order when it weighed the merits of the LULAC case, but the line is still troubling because it is obviously factually false. The lower court did not hand down its decision on the “eve of an election.” It declared the Texas gerrymander unconstitutional on November 18, 2025 — almost a full year before the 2026 midterm elections.
In any event, it is fair to describe the LULAC decision as merely an incremental step towards full lawsuit immunity for states that draw gerrymandered maps. The Court, in cases like Rucho, Perez, and Alexander, already made it very difficult to challenge a gerrymander of any kind. LULAC merely adds new burdens to already beleaguered plaintiffs.
But the cumulative effect of these burdens is likely to prove overwhelming for nearly all litigants who oppose racial or partisan gerrymanders. The Court’s Republican majority appears to be washing its hands of responsibility for gerrymandering altogether. And it is loudly signaling to states that they can do whatever they want.
2025-12-05 21:30:00
一只年轻的雄性貉蜷缩在一个小型铁丝笼中，位于波兰的一家毛皮农场。| Andrew Skowron/We Animals
全球第二大毛皮生产国波兰正告别毛皮产业。周二，波兰通过了一项法律，计划在未来八年逐步淘汰毛皮农场，这对全球毛皮行业是一个重大打击。2023年，波兰中部欧洲国家的毛皮农民为了制作大衣和装饰品，屠宰了约三百万只狐狸、水貂、貉和天竺鼠，占国际毛皮贸易中动物总数的约七分之一。这些野生动物被关在狭小的铁丝底笼中数月，直到被用二氧化碳气体或肛门电击的方式杀害。它们的毛皮随后被运往世界各地的服装制造商和时尚品牌。
最近的一项民意调查显示，超过三分之二的波兰人支持禁止毛皮农场。波兰总统卡罗尔·纳乌罗基在X平台上发布的视频中表示：“这是一个波兰人期盼多年的决定，反映了我们的同情心、文明的成熟以及对所有生命的尊重。”
自上世纪80年代以来，全球动物权益活动人士一直在反对毛皮养殖。过去几十年进展缓慢，但自2010年代中期以来加速，毛皮养殖动物数量从2014年的1.4亿只下降到2024年的2050万只。这一进展得益于各国的禁令、对大型时尚品牌和零售商的抗议，以及中国和俄罗斯等主要毛皮进口国的经济挑战。波兰的新法律应有助于加快这一趋势。
波兰的禁令是动物权益活动人士坚持不懈的结果，这是他们第七次尝试通过此类法律。同时，这也是联盟建设的典范。尽管波兰的活动人士多年来一直在抗议毛皮农场，但2012年，倡导组织“开放笼子”（Otwarte Klatki）发布了一份涵盖50多家毛皮农场的调查报告，包括一些由波兰毛皮行业巨头拥有的农场。调查显示，动物被密集关在肮脏的小笼中，遭受严重伤害，死动物在笼中腐烂（伴随着大量苍蝇幼虫），动物在笼中来回踱步并不断啃咬笼壁（显示出压力和沮丧）。
此后，“开放笼子”和波兰动物权益组织Viva! Poland继续展开更多调查，并组织抗议活动，推动零售商放弃使用毛皮，同时获得名人和政界人士的支持。
这一故事最初发表于《未来完美》（Future Perfect）通讯。点击此处订阅，探索世界面临的复杂问题以及最有效的解决方法。每周两次发送。
活动人士还在毛皮农场所在的农村地区找到了盟友。欧洲动物保护组织Anima International的主席基斯蒂·亨德森告诉我：“大型毛皮农场是一个巨大的麻烦，气味难以忍受，生活质量下降，房产价值也下跌。”据亨德森称，自2010年代初以来，农村地区的活动人士已组织了约180次抗议活动，平均每月一次。随着全球毛皮产业在过去十年的衰退，波兰的毛皮产业也逐渐萎缩，这削弱了继续维持毛皮农场的经济论点。
该法律将为农场工人和所有者提供补偿，对提前关闭农场的经营者给予更高的支付。
国际毛皮联合会的项目主管Jyrki Sura在一封电子邮件中表示：“虽然这个消息令人失望，但毛皮养殖在欧洲一些国家仍然很盛行，我们的世界领先的毛皮产品仍被顶级时尚品牌使用。”
波兰禁止毛皮农场的举措虽然本身意义重大，但其影响可能波及整个欧洲大陆。2023年，动物福利活动人士在欧盟成员国收集了150万份支持欧盟全面禁止毛皮养殖的签名。这迫使欧盟委员会——欧盟的执行机构——正式考虑并回应这一提议。目前，欧盟仍在权衡是否实施禁令，而波兰、芬兰和希腊的一些政界人士曾对此表示反对。但随着波兰率先在本国实施禁令，这种反对声音可能会减弱。
“如果欧洲最大的毛皮生产国都能禁止这种残酷的行业，那么欧盟就没有理由不这么做，”Anima International的亨德森告诉我。“是时候让布鲁塞尔结束这种零散的政策，制定全面的立法，反映欧洲公民的明确意愿。”
尽管近年来大多数工业化动物剥削形式都在增长，但波兰的禁令和其他反对毛皮养殖的近期进展表明，进步是可能的。就在本周，纽约时装周宣布将不允许在T台上展示毛皮制品，该活动组织的CEO表示，他希望借此“激励美国设计师更深入地思考时尚产业对动物的影响”。
现在显然，未来将是无毛皮的。只是问题在于，这个未来何时到来。
The world’s second-largest fur producer is saying goodbye to fur. On Tuesday, Poland passed a law to phase out fur farms over the next eight years — a major blow to the global fur industry.
In 2023, fur farmers in the Central European nation killed some three million foxes, minks, raccoon dogs, and chinchillas for coats and trim, accounting for about one out of every seven animals in the international fur trade.
The wild animals are confined in small wire-bottom cages for months — in facilities that resemble the kind of factory farms where animals are raised for meat — until they’re killed via carbon dioxide gassing or anal electrocution. Their pelts are then shipped around the world to clothing manufacturers and fashion houses.
A recent poll found that over two-thirds of Poles support a fur farm ban. “This is a decision that Poles have awaited for many years,” Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki said in a video posted on X. “A decision that reflects our compassion, our civilizational maturity, and our respect for all living creatures.”
Since the 1980s, animal activists around the world have campaigned against fur farming. Progress was slow going for decades but accelerated in the mid-2010s, with the number of animals farmed for fur falling from 140 million in 2014 to 20.5 million in 2024.
That progress came about through a combination of country-level bans; protests against major fashion houses and retailers; and economic challenges in China and Russia, the biggest fur buyers. Poland’s new law should only speed up that momentum.
Poland’s fur farm ban is a case study in persistence, given it was activists’ seventh attempt to pass such a law. It’s also a case study in coalition building.
While activists in the country have protested against fur farms for decades, their campaign picked up speed in 2012 when the advocacy group Otwarte Klatki — Polish for “Open Cages” — released a sprawling investigation into more than 50 fur farms, including some owned by titans of the country’s fur industry. The investigation revealed animals packed tightly into small, filthy cages; animals suffering from severe injuries; dead animals rotting in cages with living ones (and lots and lots of maggots); and animals pacing in their cages and repeatedly biting the sides of their enclosures (signs of stress and frustration).
More investigations by Otwarte Klatki — and the animal rights group Viva! Poland — followed, along with protests, campaigns pressuring retailers to ditch fur, and support from celebrities and politicians.
Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.
Activists also found allies in the countryside where the fur farms are located. Bigger fur farms are “a great nuisance,” Kirsty Henderson, president of the European animal protection group Anima International, told me over email. “The smell is unbearable, the quality of life decreases, and property values drop.” According to Henderson, rural activists have held 180 protests — around one per month on average — since the early 2010s.
And as the global fur industry collapsed over the last decade, so did Poland’s, which weakened the economic argument to keep fur farms open. The law will provide severance for farmworkers and owners, with higher payments to operators who shut down sooner.
“It’s obviously disappointing news but fur farming is very strong still in a number of European countries and our world leading fur is used by top fashion brands,” Jyrki Sura, a program director at the International Fur Federation, told me in an email.
Poland’s fur farm ban alone is a big deal, but its impact could ripple across the entire continent.
In 2023, animal welfare activists gathered 1.5 million signatures from European Union citizens in support of an EU-wide fur-farming ban. That required the European Commission — the EU’s executive branch — to formally consider and respond to the proposal. It’s still weighing a ban, which has faced opposition from some politicians in Poland, Finland, and Greece. But that opposition should weaken now that Poland has proactively banned fur farming within its own borders.
“If the continent’s biggest producer can ban this cruel practice, there is no reason the European Union cannot do the same,” Henderson of Anima International told me. “It’s time for Brussels to end the patchwork approach and introduce comprehensive legislation that reflects the clear will of European citizens.”
While most industrialized forms of animal exploitation have only grown in recent decades, Poland’s ban and other recent developments in the campaign against fur farming shows progress is possible. Just this week, New York Fashion Week announced it will not allow fur on runways, with the CEO of the organization that plans the annual event stating that he “hopes to inspire American designers to think more deeply about the fashion industry’s impact on animals.”
The future, it’s now clear, is fur-free. It’s just a matter of how soon that future arrives.
2025-12-05 20:00:00
北美最小的隼类——美国游隼，全天候地帮助一些樱桃园控制害虫。如果你有幸在这个节日吃到一块温暖的樱桃派，你应该感谢这种鸟。它是美国游隼，体型大约和蓝松鸦相当，是北美最小的隼类。在密歇根州——美国的酸樱桃生产中心，这种鸟帮助农民种植樱桃。
关键要点
游隼是捕食者，它们捕食昆虫、啮齿动物和其他鸟类，而这些鸟类常常吃樱桃。因此，当樱桃园安装游隼巢箱时，农民会发现较少的樱桃食鸟，如知更鸟和乌鸫。一项2018年的研究显示，每投入一美元安装巢箱，农民就能节省多达357美元的樱桃损失。如果游隼入住，果园中的害鸟就会减少，因为这些小隼会吃掉害鸟或吓跑它们。
最近，科学家发表了一项新研究，进一步明确了游隼对果园的好处。研究显示，有游隼入住的果园比没有游隼的果园受到的损害更小，樱桃被吃或部分被吃的情况也更少。研究还发现，有游隼的果园中鸟类排泄物更少。这很重要，因为鸟类粪便可能携带病原体，如弯曲杆菌，这种细菌可能导致人类食物中毒。
这项新研究是越来越多关于保护野生捕食者如何造福人类的研究之一。狼群可以减少汽车事故，因为它们阻止了鹿靠近公路；海獭保护海藻林，从而支持沿海渔业；而游隼这种在美国大部分地区数量正在下降的捕食者，可以帮助控制农田害虫。它们只需要一个栖息地。
生态学家通过收集鸟粪获得的发现
科学家们早在十多年前就在樱桃园中安装了高架巢箱，以研究游隼对密歇根樱桃种植者的影响。这些巢箱常常吸引游隼，因为它们喜欢在树洞中筑巢。根据密歇根州立大学的退休副教授凯瑟琳·林德尔的说法，安装巢箱后，研究人员比较了有游隼和没有游隼的果园，发现当游隼存在时，害鸟数量减少。他们于2018年发表了一篇具有里程碑意义的论文，引起了广泛关注。
农民很难控制吃樱桃的鸟类，他们通常不能像控制昆虫那样用毒药。其他方法，如用网覆盖作物，成本很高。游隼巢箱成本约115美元（2018年数据），是一种经济实惠的替代方案。2018年的论文证明了这种方法的有效性。
最新的研究则采用了更为“令人作呕”的方法：由密歇根州立大学的奥利维亚·史密斯领导的团队收集了有游隼巢箱和没有游隼巢箱的果园中的鸟粪，并送往实验室检测其中是否含有弯曲杆菌。研究发现，没有游隼的果园中鸟粪更多。史密斯解释说，这是因为没有游隼的果园中害鸟更多，它们在偷吃樱桃时会留下粪便。
研究还发现，一些鸟粪中含有弯曲杆菌，这可能导致人类腹泻。但这并不意味着这些果园的樱桃总是危险的——弯曲杆菌在空气中存活时间不长，而且农民不会采摘带有粪便的果实。此外，樱桃在出售前也会被清洗。不过，这项研究确实表明，游隼可能在采摘前减少樱桃上的细菌，从而降低污染风险。
默默无闻的农场劳动者
美国游隼并不是唯一帮助我们生产食物的野生捕食者。自2005年起，科学家们在新西兰将濒危的游隼迁移到葡萄酒种植园，这些地方有大量入侵性鸟类，如乌鸫和黑鸟，它们会吃葡萄。后续研究显示，引入游隼后，果园中的害鸟数量减少，葡萄损失减少了95%。
对游隼友好的葡萄酒？
美国一些葡萄酒庄也依赖游隼，包括美国游隼，来控制害虫。例如，密歇根州的“Chateau Grand Traverse”酒庄已经安装了三个（即将安装第四个）游隼巢箱，酒庄老板爱迪·奥基夫告诉《vox》：“拥有一个能真正起作用的自然捕食者，感觉很酷。”他说，游隼不仅控制老鼠和田鼠，还能吓跑其他可能造成问题的鸟类，这是一种几乎不费力的预防措施。
与此同时，全球各地的农民多年来一直依赖猫头鹰来控制吃作物的啮齿动物，如老鼠和沙鼠。例如，在以色列，农民通过安装数千个猫头鹰巢箱，作为替代杀鼠剂的手段，从而减少了对人类和本地野生动物有害的杀鼠剂使用。近年来，随着越来越多的农民使用吸引猫头鹰的巢箱，以色列的杀鼠剂使用量下降了45%。
鸟类在不同农场中扮演的角色各不相同，但总体而言，让捕食性鸟类在农田中栖息，有助于提高作物产量。2021年的一项分析指出，排除野生鸟类会显著增加作物损失，因此建议将野生鸟类视为有效的生物防治手段。
然而，最令人印象深刻的例子是蝙蝠。大多数北美蝙蝠以昆虫为食，包括农田中的害虫，如蛾类和甲虫。研究表明，随着蝙蝠数量因“白鼻综合征”等疾病而急剧下降，农民不得不使用更多农药，以弥补蝙蝠减少带来的害虫控制缺失。这导致农民种植同样多的作物需要花费更多金钱，并且向环境中排放更多可能危害人类健康的化学物质。
一项去年发表的惊人研究甚至将蝙蝠数量下降与婴儿死亡率上升联系起来。密苏里西部州立大学的生物学家和鸟类专家朱莉·杰德利卡说：“大自然为人类提供了这些服务，而且是免费的。”她表示，问题是：“我们如何利用这些服务？”
讽刺的是，农田是野生动物和自然生态系统的主要杀手。农业行业整体上导致了捕食性鸟类，包括游隼的数量下降，因为农田取代了自然栖息地，而农药又杀死了它们的猎物。这些研究显示，恢复一些自然景观特征，如鸟类捕食者，对农民有益，也对那些享受他们劳动成果的人有益。
If you’re lucky enough to enjoy a warm slice of cherry pie this holiday, you should probably thank this bird.
It’s an American kestrel, the smallest falcon in North America, which is roughly the size of a blue jay. And in some parts of Michigan — the nation’s tart cherry capital — this bird helps farmers produce cherries.
Kestrels are predators, and they prey on insects, rodents, and other birds, many of which eat cherries. So when cherry farmers have kestrel nest boxes in their orchards, they see fewer cherry-eating birds, such as robins and grackles, as one 2018 study revealed. According to that study, farmers can save as much as $357 worth of cherries for every dollar they spend on installing nest boxes, which are essentially elevated wooden birdhouses. If kestrels move in, orchards have fewer bird pests, since the fierce little falcons eat them or scare the pests away.
Now, scientists have published another study that makes the benefits of the raptors even clearer.
It shows that orchards with occupied nest boxes have less damage — less eaten or partially eaten cherries — than those without kestrels. The authors also found that cherry orchards with kestrels had less bird poop.
That’s key, because avian excrement can carry pathogens, such as Campylobacter, a type of bacteria that can give people food poisoning.
The new study is part of a growing body of research on how conserving wild predators benefits humans. Wolves can limit car accidents by keeping deer away from roads. Sea otters safeguard kelp forests that, in turn, support coastal fisheries, by consuming urchins. And falcons — which are in decline throughout much of the US, for reasons that are still unclear — help curb farm pests. They just need a place to live.
Scientists first figured out that American kestrels are good for Michigan cherry growers by installing elevated nest boxes in orchards more than a decade ago. Those boxes often attract kestrels because the birds like to nest in cavities, according to Catherine Lindell, an associate professor emerita at Michigan State University, who has spent 15 years studying falcons in cherry orchards. After installing the boxes, the researchers compared orchards with and without kestrels, finding that there are fewer pest birds — species that eat cherries — when kestrels are present.
They published their results in a seminal 2018 paper, and it was a big deal. Farmers have a tough time managing fruit-eating birds. They typically can’t poison them, the way they control insects. And other measures, like covering crops with nets, are far more expensive. Kestrel nest boxes cost about $115, including installation (as of 2018), making them a cheap alternative. And the 2018 paper proved that they work.
The new study, published in late November, goes a step further, relying on methods that are, you might say, disgusting.
Scientists led by Michigan State University researcher Olivia Smith collected bird poop in orchards with active kestrel nest boxes, and in those without. They then shipped the poop to a lab to test it for Campylobacter, the leading cause of bacterial food-borne illness globally.
Smith and her coauthors ultimately found more poop on branches in orchards without kestrels. The logic here is that avian pests are more common in kestrel-free orchards, and they defecate while raiding the cherries, Smith said.
The study also revealed that some of the poop contained Campylobacter, which can cause diarrhea in humans. That doesn’t mean that cherries from those orchards are always dangerous — Campylobacter doesn’t survive long in the open air, and farmers are not supposed to harvest fruits with feces on them. Plus, the cherries are, of course, cleaned before they’re sold. But the study does suggest that kestrels may at least lower the amount of bacteria on cherries before they’re harvested, and thus lower the small risk that dirty orchards pose to consumers.
“If you [a farmer] can get kestrels nesting, it’s a big benefit,” Lindell, who was involved in the new study, said.
American kestrels aren’t the only wild predators helping produce our food. Starting in 2005, scientists relocated threatened falcons in New Zealand to wine vineyards that have a number of invasive avian pests, including blackbirds and song thrushes. Those invasive birds eat grapes. Subsequent research on the project, known as Falcons for Grapes, linked the introduction of falcons to a decrease in pest birds and a “95 percent reduction in the number of grapes removed relative to vineyards without falcons.”
A number of US wineries also rely on falcons, including American kestrels, for pest control. A winery in Michigan called Chateau Grand Traverse, for example, has installed three (and soon-to-be four) kestrel nest boxes, winery owner and president Eddie O’Keefe told Vox.
“It’s kind of cool to have a natural predator out there that actually does work,” O’Keefe said. “They take care of the mice, the voles, and in addition, they also keep other birds that could be a problem in flight, because they’re afraid. It’s just a good preventative measure that really doesn’t take much effort.”
Meanwhile, farmers around the world have for decades been relying on barn owls to control rats, pocket gophers, and other rodent pests that eat crops. Through a program in Israel, for example, farmers have installed thousands of owl nest boxes as an alternative to rodent-killing chemicals that can harm people and native wildlife. In recent years, as more and more farmers started using owl-attracting nest boxes, the use of rodenticide in Israel has plunged by 45 percent.
The role of birds varies from farm to farm, but broadly speaking, having predatory birds on the landscape — those that eat other animals, including insects and rodents — benefits crop production. “Overall, we found that excluding wild birds significantly increased crop damage,” authors of a 2021 analysis of 55 existing studies wrote. “We recommend that wild birds be considered as effective biological control agents.”
But if there’s one example that’s most impressive of all, it’s bats.
Most bat species in North America eat insects, including farm pests like moths and beetles. And research has shown that as bat populations plummet — as they have, largely from a disease called white nose syndrome — farmers use more pesticides, presumably because bats aren’t there to eat pests. That means farmers spend more money growing the same amount of food, and they put more chemicals into the environment that can harm human health. A remarkable study published last year even linked the decline of bats to a rise in infant mortality.
“Nature is providing these services for humans for free,” said Julie Jedlicka, a biologist and bird expert at Missouri Western State University, who was not involved in the research. The question, she said, is, “How can we take advantage of that?”
The irony, of course, is that farmland is the leading killer of wildlife and natural ecosystems. In fact, the agricultural sector, broadly, has contributed to the decline of predatory birds, including kestrels, as farmland has replaced natural habitat and pesticides have killed off their prey. What these studies show is that bringing back at least some natural features of the landscape, such as avian predators, can be good for farmers — and those of us who indulge in the literal fruits of their labor.