2025-04-02 11:03:29
After a long, expensive, and closely watched race, Wisconsin went to the polls on Tuesday, and voted in a new state Supreme Court justice.
Susan Crawford, a liberal county judge backed by Democrats across the US, defeated the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, who was backed by the national GOP.
In a conversation for Vox’s daily newsletter Today, Explained, I asked politics reporter Christian Paz to break down the big race and its impact. Here’s what he had to say. (Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.)
So, tell me about what happened in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has a seat that’s opening up because one of the Democrats is retiring. (The state’s Supreme Court is technically nonpartisan, but there are “liberals” whom Democrats support and “conservatives” whom Republicans support.)
Right now, Democrats currently have a one-seat ideological majority on the court, and Tuesday’s race was about which party would have the majority for the foreseeable future. Tuesday night, it quickly became clear that would be the Democrats.
For people living in Wisconsin, the chance to decide the ideological makeup of the court was a big deal. Nationally, though, the race became important for a few other reasons.
One, this was the first major statewide race happening in a swing state, or really any state, since Trump’s inauguration. Democrats did poorly in swing states in the 2024 election, so this race is seen as a test of whether Democrats can still win races.
Two, we’re about 10 weeks into Trump’s second term, so this race was viewed as a referendum on the Trump administration so far.
Three, this race was also a referendum on Elon Musk’s power and influence. He managed to make the race in Wisconsin about himself, by spending tens of millions of dollars in support of Schimel, and by testing the limits of campaign finance rules, finding as many ways as possible to offer people money to pay attention to the race, including by giving away a million dollars to voters. He’s poured millions of dollars into canvassing, and even went to Wisconsin to hold a rally on Schimel’s behalf.
Finally, this election gives us a new data point to try to answer a question political scientists have wrestled with for a long time: Are there two electorates? Conventional wisdom suggests the answer to that question is yes, that there are lower propensity voters who only turn out in presidential elections, and then there are higher propensity voters who are very tuned into politics who turn out in every election, be it presidential, midterm, or special.
However, political polarization and the level of loyalty Donald Trump inspires has some wondering whether that still holds. Tuesday’s result helps suggest that it might.
This is an off-cycle race, and because of that, some political commentators saw this contest as favoring Democrats a little.
Last year, Kamala Harris performed particularly well with voters who said that they followed news closely, the classic high propensity voter. Again, high propensity voters tend to reliably vote in non-presidential elections, and the thinking was, those same Harris voters might help Crawford. And it seems like they did.
There are other races coming up this year, and midterms next year. Does Wisconsin tell us anything about those?
We shouldn’t put too much stock in one race.
That said, you could argue Susan Crawford’s win makes some kind of blue wave next year appear a little more likely.
There are a few factors that made this a somewhat unique case for Democrats, which makes it a little difficult to draw broad conclusions.
As I mentioned, the fact that this was an off-cycle election probably helped Democrats, and there’s another unique factor that may have helped too. Elon Musk wasn’t the only person pouring in money; wealthy Democrats did too, as did grassroots donors. That’s in part because this was the only big race going on; if you’re a liberal donor or a fundraiser, where else can you send your money? That won’t be the case in the midterms next year.
That said, Crawford’s win does buttress conventional wisdom. Political science would tell us that you can’t be an unpopular president with an unpopular agenda, leading an unpopular party, and flip a seat in a statewide race like this. And Republicans did fail to flip this seat.
That failure could have some implication for next year’s midterms. Those elections tend to favor the party out of power, with voters trying to use them to put a check on the incumbent administration. If the other races coming up this year — like Virginia’s gubernatorial race — shake out like the race in Wisconsin, Democrats may decide their best bet is to just try to ride an anti-Trump, anti-Musk, anti-status quo anger to midterm victory.
The result is also a huge warning sign about the power of Elon Musk. Last year, a lot of people ridiculed his canvassing efforts on behalf of the Republicans, and his funding of external groups outside of the political party system to turn out voters. Then Trump won, and his strategy suddenly looked good.
Wisconsin suggests there are limits to the idea that the world’s richest man can pour money into politics to influence minds, making voting essentially a financial transaction, and it will pay off.
2025-04-02 06:10:00
In mid-March, President Donald Trump invoked an almost-never-used federal law, claiming that it gives him the power to deport many immigrants at will with minimal or no legal process to determine if these deportations are lawful. The text of that statute, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, does not give presidents the power Trump claims.
For the moment, at least, a lower court order blocks Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation; that order is still in effect, although there is ongoing litigation about whether the Trump administration defied it by sending dozens of Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador after the lower court ordered the planes carrying these immigrants to be turned around.
Now Trump wants the Supreme Court to halt the lower court order and effectively allow him to resume deportations without any meaningful review, and without having to prove the immigrants targeted by his proclamation have actually done anything wrong. The case, which is known as Trump v. J.G.G., is before the Court on its “shadow docket,” a mix of emergency motions and other matters which the justices often decide after only cursory review of the case. A decision on the case could come any time in the next few weeks.
In J.G.G., Trump’s lawyers make three arguments that, when combined, would give him virtually unchecked authority to remove any noncitizen from the United States.
First, Trump claims the unprecedented authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act during peacetime, and against a nonstate actor — in this case, Tren de Aragua, a criminal gang that originated in Venezuela. That law, which does give the president sweeping authority to remove foreign nationals when properly invoked, only applies during a “declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government,” or during a military “invasion or predatory incursion” of the United States.
Congress — the only branch of government that can declare war — has not declared war on Venezuela, and the alleged presence of civilian criminals in the United States is not a military operation. Also, the Alien Enemies Act only applies to military actions by a “foreign nation or government.” Tren de Aragua is not its own nation, nor does it control the government of Venezuela.
Second, Trump’s lawyers argue that the immigrants challenging his proclamation may only bring their case in Texas federal court, under a legal procedure known as a “habeas” proceeding, which typically can only be used by a single individual to challenge their own detention.
That matters for two reasons. Federal cases brought in Texas appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a far-right court that routinely interprets the law in creative ways to benefit right-wing causes and the Republican Party, something likely to put anyone trying to stop a deportation at a disadvantage. Additionally, if challenges can only be brought on an individual basis, it may no longer be possible to obtain a broad court order blocking his entire proclamation.
Third, even if an immigrant targeted by Trump could convince the Fifth Circuit to shield them from deportation, they are unlikely to ever get that chance. As Judge Patricia Millett, one of four lower court judges who’s already heard the J.G.G. case, explains, the administration’s position is that once Trump’s proclamation goes into effect “it can immediately resume removal flights without affording Plaintiffs notice of the grounds for their removal or any opportunity to call a lawyer, let alone to file a writ of habeas corpus or obtain any review of their legal challenges to removal.”
If the Court were to accept this third argument, Trump would be able to deport people so quickly that, by the time a lawyer or judge learns they were deported, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked three times in American history: during the War of 1812 and during both world wars. In all three instances, Congress had formally declared war.
It’s likely that presidents have been reluctant to use this power in the past, even during other wars, because the authority provided by the Alien Enemies Act is extraordinarily draconian. When properly invoked, the law permits the federal government to arrest, detain, and remove “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized.” So during a declared war with Germany, the president may order nearly all German citizens removed from the United States, regardless of whether those German nationals took any aggressive or criminal action whatsoever.
Trump now claims that he can use this law during peacetime to target alleged members of Tren de Aragua.
Even setting aside the fact that the Alien Enemies Act only applies to foreign nations or governments — and Tren de Aragua is neither — there appears to be no legal authority whatsoever supporting Trump’s claim that this law can be used against a foreign gang engaged in ordinary criminal activity.
In its brief to the justices, the Trump administration claims that Tren de Aragua’s alleged presence in the United States constitutes a “predatory incursion” under the Alien Enemies Act. But the only source Trump’s lawyers cite to support this claim is a 1945 trial court decision that quotes President John Tyler (who became president in 1841) using the term “predatory incursion” to refer to military raids during a war between Mexico and the then-Republic of Texas.
So this 1945 opinion offers no support for the proportion that a “predatory incursion” can be committed by civilians during peacetime. And, in any event, it’s notable that the only legal source Trump’s lawyers could come up with is an 80-year-old decision by a single, low-ranking judge.
The J.G.G. plaintiffs’ brief, by contrast, quotes from numerous founding era dictionaries and other historical documents that use this term exclusively to refer to a military raid, including a letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, which used “predatory incursion” to refer to a British raid on American military supplies in Virginia.
Trump’s proclamation, in other words, relies on a wholly novel interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, one that posits it can be used in peacetime, despite what the text of the law says. And his lawyers did not find any support whatsoever for this new interpretation in over 200 years of American legal history.
Perhaps recognizing that its interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act is unprecedented, the Trump administration spends the bulk of its J.G.G. brief raising procedural objections to the lower court’s order blocking Trump’s proclamation, particularly its claim that this proclamation can only be challenged in habeas proceedings in Texas.
Habeas proceedings typically must be brought in the jurisdiction where the prisoner is held. The Trump administration incarcerated the J.G.G. plaintiffs in Texas, so it claims that their suits must be brought in Texas federal court.
However, habeas proceedings are a way — often the only way — for someone in federal prison to challenge their detention. And the plaintiffs in J.G.G. do not challenge the government’s ability to detain them while a valid removal case against them proceeds. They simply challenge the Trump administration’s attempt to remove them without due process under the Alien Enemies Act. And the Supreme Court has held that habeas is not the right remedy when a plaintiff does not challenge their detention.
As the Court said in Skinner v. Switzer (2011), there is no case “in which the Court has recognized habeas as the sole remedy, or even an available one, where the relief sought would ‘neither terminat[e] custody, accelerat[e] the future date of release from custody, nor reduc[e] the level of custody.’”
That decision means Trump’s attempt to shunt any challenge to his proclamation into individual legal proceedings, where the individuals bringing those proceedings can be deported before they can even speak to their lawyers, should have no merit. If one of the J.G.G. plaintiffs also want to challenge their detention, that case may need to be brought in Texas, but the Trump administration’s attempt to shut down a broader challenge to the Alien Enemies Act proclamation cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent.
Additionally, a different federal immigration law cuts against Trump’s claim that immigrants challenging the Alien Enemies Act proclamation must be brought in individual habeas suits. The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that it lays out “the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be … removed from the United States.”
This law, moreover, gives immigrants a variety of procedural rights, such as the right to claim asylum. It does permit expedited proceedings against some immigrants, including those that commit serious felonies, but even those noncitizens are entitled to notice and a hearing before they are removed from the country. And this law undercuts the administration’s argument that it can summarily deport people.
Of course, any legal analysis of any Supreme Court case involving Trump must come with a caveat. This is the same Court that ruled over the summer that Trump can use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, so there is no guarantee that these justices will follow existing law.
Nevertheless, the law — as it is understood now — is quite clear that Trump cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to cut off due process for immigrants during peacetime.
2025-04-02 05:39:31
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: Today my colleague Nicole Narea and I are focusing on the Trump administration’s admission that it wrongfully sent a migrant to a Salvadorian mega prison — a reminder of the danger of suspending due process.
What’s the latest? The administration admitted yesterday that it made an “administrative error” when it deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia — one of more than 100 people sent in March to a Salvadorian prison that is a “legal black hole” with documented human rights abuses. The administration says it’s unable to bring Garcia back from foreign soil, despite an immigration judge ruling in 2019 that Garcia could stay in the US pending further proceedings.
How did this happen? Trump invoked an 18th-century wartime powers law to deport Garcia and others who his administration accused of gang ties. A judge ordered Trump to halt those deportations mid-flight, but the administration did not. As a result, the migrants were denied due process — deported before their cases were legally resolved.
Is this an isolated incident? The Trump administration concluded some migrants were gang members based on criteria that included tattoos and clothing, the New York Times reported yesterday. Those criteria have resulted in multiple cases where non-gang members were quite possibly swept up.
What’s the big picture? It’s possible that, in time, some of these men will be proven criminals. Garcia, for example, has been accused — but not convicted — of ties to the gang MS-13. But that’s beside the point: In a functioning justice system, we use due process to first adjudicate guilt, and then levy punishment.
That’s partly why a federal judge ordered the deportation flights halted to begin with: to give the legal system time to figure out what rights these men did or didn’t have. The Trump administration, however, defied that order, and now it has imposed an extreme punishment it says it can’t take back — all while we’re still trying to figure out who these men are and what they did.
I am not, by any stretch, a knower of poetry, and so I’m lucky that, once long ago, I came across this poem: “The Summer Day.” I find it helpful on days like today, when it’s easy to feel exhausted or ungrateful. It’s a reminder to use our time well, particularly in a last line both haunts and inspires me: “Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?”
Thanks for reading. I hope you have a good night, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow.
2025-04-02 05:00:00
The boys are alt-right.
At least that’s what polling and voting data suggests. Men under 25 were nearly 20 percent more likely to vote for Donald Trump than women in that age group in the 2024 election, revealing a gender gap far larger than those in older generations.
Democrats have been freaking out about their young men problem. They’re starting podcasts. They’re talking about sports. They’re cursing more.
And increasingly they’re courting Hasan Piker: a 33-year-old Twitch streamer some are calling the “Joe Rogan of the left.” Piker livestreams for eight hours or more nearly every day. He has millions of followers, a group that skews young and male. Piker is a self-described leftist. He’ll vote Democrat as the lesser of two evils, but he’s been very critical of the party, especially over its handling of Israel’s war in Gaza.
He’s overtly political — but also an entertainer. During a recent streaming session, Piker bantered about his squat form and riffed on Andy Samberg’s face, before pivoting to a long interview with New York Times politics reporter Astead Herndon.
The message is equal parts self-improvement and how to fight for a better world, emphasis on fight. His message to his followers — and to Democrats seeking a way forward — is to get more antagonistic in pushing for what they believe in.
“You should fight back,” Piker told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. “You should be like, ‘No, this is what I believe.’ Why do you not want to give health care to poor people? Like, what’s wrong with you?”
Piker’s conversation with Today, Explained ranged from his protein intake, to Lyndon B. Johnson’s thoughts on race, to the “warm blanket” of right-wing media. Make sure you listen to the whole thing at the link below or wherever you get your podcasts. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What’s your protein intake? Is there a lot of protein going on?
Yes, I consume about 200, at a minimum, 220 grams of protein every day.
Amazing.
I mean, it’s alright. I eat a lot of chicken. I love chicken. So this is fine. Just straight white chicken breasts every day.
Oh! How much do you feel like being kind of yoked is like part of your draw and your persona?
I think it initially in leftist circles is a…it’s a negative. People look at me and immediately assume that I am a right-wing dude. At this point it’s hard to say that because obviously most people know what my politics are. But if you don’t know who I am from afar, you think like, “Oh, that’s like an alpha bro potentially right kinda guy.”
My demeanor also is like that too. I’m just authentically myself. I do not like putting on a show. I don’t even think I’d be capable of lying and being inauthentic for 10 hours a day in real time — especially as I’m responding in real-time to both news that is happening, but also then to people who are trying to argue with me about it. It’s just who I am. There’s not much I can do to change it. And I don’t even want to change the way I behave.
What is your read on why this male optimization, (getting, you know, really beefed up) has a left-right divide? And what is that divide about?
There’s a bunch of different reasons for it, but I think, like a lot of these guys, they don’t think too hard about politics and then they find themselves trapped in this right-wing bubble. And then I think that they just like to associate that with self-improvement and self-help with that in general. Self-help inherently is not like a leftist or a right-wing thing.
But it does seem like a lot of the content creators that are promoting that and presenting themselves as that are definitely, at the very least, right-wing. But I think part of it is because that’s just the domineering attitude in general, if you don’t really think about things too much and you kind of find yourself susceptible to social conditioning. And that does have a right-wing slant, the whole commonsense narrative. It’s like, “Oh, this is just common sense…two genders: commonsense.”
You didn’t put a lot of thought into it. That’s just what you learned your entire life. So of course you kind of slot yourself into the right-wing in that regard.
I guess the other reason is because self-improvement can turn into hyper-individualism very quickly, which is also another incredibly American attitude in general, but that’s what it is.
You try to couple self-improvement with helping others, which feels really critical in this moment where a lot of people feel lost, but that leads to them becoming more inward, introverted, even angry. How do you feel like you’re fairing in that battle right now to not just improve yourself inside and out, but to be more considerate of those around you?
I don’t know. I’m just…I’m a stubborn dude. I’m not doing deliberate gym content specifically because I want to penetrate the alpha bro fitness space. It’s just something that I have always liked to do organically. And, the content creators that I watch from this space are people that I end up collaborating with or have at least some mutual interests.
It feels like we’re at a pretty important juncture for young men, right? And there’s a lot of people telling them to regress, to be expecting women to take their last names, and to stay at home and to make lots of babies and to not ask too many questions. And then, I don’t know, it feels like you’re on the other side of that fight trying to tell men to grow.
I don’t tell people like, “Women have to stay in the kitchen,” or “Women don’t have to stay in the kitchen.” I’m just more like: Treat women as individuals, you know? Just like you would your sisters or your mother with respect as like a normal human being. Let them do whatever they want to do. That’s my attitude on it at least.
I think that the reason why the right is so successful at capturing the attention of young men in particular is because they’re taking a lot of the worst aspects of the hopelessness that I was just talking about — that everyone in the next generation is experiencing. And right-wing commentary is like a warm blanket that you can surround yourself with that says: “You’re right to be angry and you should be angry at vulnerable populations. You should be angry at people who have no power over you. And then if you dominate them a little bit, then that gives you a little bit of power, right?”
It reminds me of the LBJ quote about telling the lowest white man that he is higher than any Black man.
“If you can convince the lowest white man, he’s better than the best colored man. He won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
I think what you’re getting at here is the vision that the right is selling to young men is very compelling, because it doesn’t necessarily involve growth or progress. It just affirms what they already believe or maybe what their fathers and their fathers before them believed. But you seem to do something special which is you create an alternate vision for young men, for young people, what keeps you hopeful?
The one area of hope that I have right now is the momentum that I’ve seen from AOC and Bernie Sanders, who are going out and speaking in front of tens of thousands of people, people that may have not even voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, right? Like people from all different walks of life — both Democrats and maybe even some not Democrats — coming together and being like, “Yeah, everything is messed up. We need to do something about it.”
So there’s definitely a lot of interest amongst the American working class to to change things. Some people have associated that change with Donald Trump. I find that kind of change to be worse because I think Donald Trump is further breaking the system that was broken previously prior to this.
The fact that some people recognize that there must be a difference, there must be a different mechanism for change. And they find Bernie to be a vehicle for that is somewhat positive, but it entirely depends on where it goes from here. Does the Democratic Party turn around and go, “Okay, we got to do that. Enough with this, you know, third-way neoliberalism.”
This kind of [neoliberal] attitude is ridiculous. I think it’s academic, it’s smug, it’s elitist, and it’s wrong. It’s demonstrably wrong. And I think people don’t want to hear it anymore.
So, I hope the Democratic Party recognizes that, and then more and more people run for office and say, “No, I don’t want corporate donations. I’m done with the billionaires and millionaires. I’m done with you. I’m done with the rest of the Democratic Party. I’m going to be a Democrat, but I’m done with the Democratic Party.”
That’s what Republicans did over the course of many, many years as well. They feared their base. They did not worry about the potential political repercussions of pushing for incredibly unfavorable and unpopular policies. And look where they’re at now. They got rewarded consistently time and time again. Or at least doing something.
That’s the attitude that many Americans have. They’re just like, “Yeah, everything is messed up. At least this guy wants to break the system. And I don’t really like the system anyway. I don’t like the institutions anyway. They, what have they done for me? So let’s test this out.”
2025-04-02 03:30:00
If you check in on any of New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s social media pages today, you’ll probably notice that he’s been talking for a while.
He’s standing on the Senate floor (occasionally resting against his desk) to criticize the Trump administration’s agenda and the work of Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency.” He’s also showing his fellow Democrats what it looks like to “do something” when you’re locked out of power in Washington DC.
Into his second day of a marathon address on the Senate floor, Booker is engaging in almost, but not quite, a filibuster — an old congressional tradition. Filibusters are marathon addresses used as a procedural tool. They take advantage of the Senate’s rules that allow for unlimited debate or speaking by a senator unless there have been special limits put in place. Senators recognized by the presiding officer can speak indefinitely, “usually cannot be forced to cede the floor, or even be interrupted”…but “must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously,” according to the Congressional Research Service.
But Booker’s address isn’t a filibuster — there’s no legislation that he’s trying to hold up. Instead, it’s a form of political theater and protest against the Trump administration. And it comes at a time when overwhelming shares of his party’s membership think their elected leaders aren’t putting up a tough enough fight to resist Donald Trump’s agenda. About two-thirds of Democratic voters would prefer their leaders “stick to their positions even if this means not getting things done in Washington” a March NBC News poll found.
This kind of show of political force, at least, has been what top Democrats were saying when warning about Trump on the campaign trail last year.
They would prefer congressional leadership use whatever tools they have available to slow down the administration’s work: One recent poll, for example, even found that about three-quarters of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters support the idea of “using procedural tactics like the filibuster to prevent Republican bills from passing.”
Still, attention-grabbing moments like these aren’t guaranteed to have staying power. It’s far too early to tell whether Booker is galvanizing a lasting opposition as he might have hoped, or whether this will be drowned out by another Trump story. Still, it’s feeding the Democratic base’s hunger for (any kind of) Trump resistance — as he overruns traditional checks on his power.
That’s not easy to do when you’re locked out of power, so Booker’s gamble is yet the latest attempt of Democrats trying to figure out how to fight back.
Booker’s speech started on Monday evening, when he announced he would be “speaking as long as he is physically able to lift the voices of Americans who are being harmed and not being heard in this moment of crisis.”
“These are not normal times in our nation,” he said. “And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.”
Since then, he’s only stopped to allow the Senate chaplain to deliver a traditional prayer at noon, and to allow fellow Democratic senators to ask him questions and give him a bit of a rest. Yet he has remained standing, and only taken a couple drinks of water. He’s already entered the top rankings of the longest Senate speeches delivered. (Only one other sitting senator, Republican Ted Cruz of Texas, has delivered a longer address, when trying unsuccessfully to defund the Affordable Care Act.)
This kind of show of political force, at least, has been what top Democrats were saying when warning about Trump on the campaign trail last year. Yet many in the Democratic base have felt like since Trump entered office, their leaders weren’t acting with that kind of urgency. Poll after poll shows that the Democratic rank and file feel adrift, leaderless, and dissatisfied.
That fury intensified last month, when Democrats voted for a GOP-brokered spending bill to keep the government open. The thinking at the time was that a shutdown would do more harm than good, but many in the party’s base saw it as an unforgivable cave.
Booker’s speech is an attempt to try something else. And whether or not it works, it’s something different.
Update, April 1, 2025, 7:45 pm: This story was originally published earlier in the day and has been updated to reflect that Booker has been speaking for 24 straight hours.
2025-04-01 23:57:08
Our world has too much information and not enough context.
We’ve been hearing this a lot lately from those of you in our audience – understandably so, these are chaotic times. There is simply too much news, too many push alerts, too much confusion about what’s happening. It’s leaving many people feeling overwhelmed and at a loss for where to even start. Worse still, we hear from people who say they’re avoiding the news altogether, at a moment when the stakes for our democracy have never been higher.
We want to help solve that problem. At Vox, we have always been committed to helping you understand what truly matters and how to think about it.
That’s why today, we have a couple exciting announcements for our audience.
The first is that today, we’re rolling out a new tagline and mission statement that we think better captures what Vox can do for you in this current era of information overload. And we wanted to tell you about it because it’s inspired by what we’re hearing from our audience every day.
Our new tagline is Making sense of it all.
Our new mission statement is: Our world has too much noise and too little context. Vox helps you understand what matters.
If this sounds like what we’re already doing, then that’s good news for us. It’s been at the core of Vox since our founding more than a decade ago, and it’s hopefully already reflected in the work we’re doing. But we’re making it explicit because we consider this our promise to you — we won’t drown you in panic-inducing headlines or an endless stream of notifications. We’ll sift through the noise and help you make sense of what matters and why. We’ll offer clarity, insight, and tools to help you live a better life. And we’ll have some fun, too.
A good example of what we’re trying to do is The Logoff, our new daily newsletter that tells you — briefly — about the one important political news story you need to know about each day. You’ll start to see more story formats where we tell you about a topic in 400 words or explain it with one chart.
And second, we’re delighted to announce a new benefit as part of the Vox Membership program: Members will be able to access ad-free versions of Vox podcasts. We know that this has been one of the most-requested perks by our Members, so we’re excited to be able to thank our most loyal audience members with this new podcast listening experience. You’ll be able to listen to all your favorite shows, like Today, Explained, The Gray Area, Explain It to Me, and Unexplainable, with no ad breaks. If you’re a Member, you can find instructions on how to access your ad-free podcasts here. (And if not, you can join here.)
Vox exists for you. Our mission is to help you stay informed in a world of too much noise. Tell us how we can be useful.