2026-02-09 12:13:00
坏兔子（Bad Bunny）在2026年2月8日于加州圣克拉拉的利维斯体育场举行的超级碗LX中场表演中，以全西班牙语演出震撼全场。这场表演不仅展现了他对家乡波多黎各的深厚情感，还融入了历史、政治和欢乐等元素。作为Vox上最狂热的坏兔子粉丝（他的全名是Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio），我整理了他这场历史性演出中不容错过的八个亮点：
为什么坏兔子的球衣号码是64
这个号码代表了2017年飓风玛丽亚过后最初报告的死亡人数，尽管后来被修正为2975人，甚至有研究认为实际死亡人数更高。这个数字象征着灾难后的争议与痛苦。
“casita”（小屋）的象征意义
在表演中，坏兔子展示了他标志性的“casita”——一种典型的波多黎各风格小屋。这些小屋在乡村地区尤为常见，但近年来因殖民状态导致的强制城市化而面临被遗弃的危机。坏兔子将“casita”作为派对场所，邀请了众多名人，如佩德罗·帕斯卡、卡迪·B等，表达了对保留波多黎各文化的支持。
与Toñita合唱“Nuevayol”
Toñita是纽约威廉斯堡的加勒比社交俱乐部老板，也是波多黎各文化的重要代表。这首歌是对波多黎各侨民的致敬，同时也展现了纽约作为波多黎各人聚集地的重要性。
将格莱美奖杯递给一个孩子
在表演中，坏兔子将格莱美奖杯递给一个与移民儿童利安·拉莫斯（Liam Ramos）长相相似的孩子。这一举动象征着将文化传承给下一代，也表达了对未来的希望。
“El Apagón”中的农民形象
在歌曲中，坏兔子描绘了飓风玛丽亚后电力短缺的困境，以及波多黎各人对外国资本的不满。他通过“jibaros”（传统农民）的形象，表达了对被边缘化的群体的同情。
里基·马丁与《Lo Que Pasó a Hawaii》
里基·马丁是波多黎各的另一位文化偶像，他通过演唱这首歌曲重新强调了自己的波多黎各根源。坏兔子的全西班牙语表演与马丁的母语演唱形成对比，突显了文化认同的重要性。
蓝色旗帜的象征
在表演中，坏兔子展示了波多黎各历史上曾被压制的1895年蓝色旗帜，这与他音乐视频《La Mudanza》中的意象相呼应。他提到：“他们在这里因为挥舞旗帜而杀人，所以我现在随身带着它。”
“God Bless America”——致敬整个美洲
坏兔子在表演中用西班牙语表达了对整个美洲的祝福，并展示了多面旗帜。大屏幕上的标语“比仇恨更强大的是爱”则传递了积极的信息。
You don’t have to speak Spanish to understand that Bad Bunny’s blockbuster Super Bowl halftime show was a powerful one: rooted in place, history, politics, and most importantly, joy.
But if you’re not intimately familiar with the oeuvre or the island, there are a lot of smaller details you might have missed — from all of the very Puerto Rican activities in the intro to Bad Bunny’s light blue Puerto Rican flag.
As Vox’s biggest Bad Bunny enthusiast — his full name is Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio — I collected some of the most striking details from his history-making performance: the first Super Bowl halftime show to be performed entirely in Spanish, building on Shakira and Jennifer Lopez’s joint performance in 2020.
Here are the eight can’t-miss moments from Benito’s show:
This is my Super Bowl. I’m Bad Bunny’s biggest fan here at Vox. I’ve been listening to Benito since 2016 — back in his bald stud era! — to the point where several of my coworkers texted me minutes after it was announced he was performing for the Super Bowl. I’ve seen him perform several times, including at his iconic residency in Puerto Rico last year. To a casual listener, it may seem that Bad Bunny only sings about bagging baddies. That’s partially true. But for any Puerto Rican, from those on the archipelago to in the diaspora, there are deeper layers. I wanted y’all to feel like you, too, are in on the secret.
Benito’s jersey, emblazoned with one of his last names, also features the initial number of reported deaths in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017 — likely a gross undercount. That number, 64, became the center of debate, as rural parts of the archipelago suffered from immense infrastructural damage and lack of electricity and clean water. The number was also used to minimize the severity of the storm. In the months following the devastation, the governor revised the toll to 2,975 deaths. Some studies put excess deaths even higher at 4,645.
A fixture of his latest era, the casita is a pink, traditionally Puerto Rican-style concrete house. You’ll find these literally anywhere on the island, but they’re most popular in rural areas. Debí Tirar Más Fotos chronicles the challenges of forced gentrification caused by the island’s colonial status. While the beaches and fancy apartments in San Juan may be swooped up by wealthy tourists and short-term rental hosts, what remains are the old homes in the mountains — many of which have been abandoned because of unclear wills, inability to afford maintenance, and emigration for better opportunities. (This is the case for my own family, sadly.)
Bad Bunny’s celebration of the casita as a party destination, full of celebrities from Pedro Pascal and Cardi B to Alix Earle and Young Miko, cements the fight to stay on the island. It’s also a fun continuation of his residency last summer on the island, where anyone who’s anyone had an invite.
Another fun fact about the casita: When Bad Bunny falls through the roof into that blue room, it’s a callback to the music video visualizers for his 2020 album, YHLQMDLG. He didn’t get to tour that album, so this is an easter egg for some of his real OGs.
Debí Tirar Más Fotos is a love letter to the diaspora as much as it is to those on the island. New York has the highest density of Puerto Ricans outside of Puerto Rico, living in neighborhoods like Washington Heights and Alphabet City. One of Bad Bunny’s most special “if you know, you know” guests is Toñita, the owner of the Caribbean Social Club in Williamsburg, who has a shoutout in the song. High-key, it’s one of my favorite places to hang, dance, and play dominoes — a home away from home.
One of the most powerful moments of tonight’s performance was when Bad Bunny leaves the party scene in New York and passes his Grammy for best album to a child who looks uncannily similar to Liam Ramos, the 5-year-old boy who was taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as bait. Benito’s speech against ICE plays in the background, but I think this is more of a symbolic gesture of passing on the mantle to the next generation. In either case, it speaks to faith and hope for the future.
After Hurricane Maria, there was a new push to “revitalize” Puerto Rico’s economy and infrastructure. Luma, a private electricity company, became the provider for the territory. But it didn’t work out as planned: Blackouts became the new norm. All the while, rich Americans moved to benefit from newly created tax breaks as an austerity regime closed down schools. “El Apagón” sings of this tension, of the desire for outsiders to leave, but also an acknowledgment that “todos quieren ser latinos” — or “everyone wants to be Latino.”
The men with the straw hats and white clothes are jibaros, a traditional subsistence farmer common in the mountains who typically use a curved machete to harvest crops and cut through sugarcane. They also have a kind of folk music that’s used as the basis of many Puerto Rican cries (“lelolai”). The jibaros climbing on the powerlines are a reflection of the changing times and how they’re getting left behind.
Ricky Martin — who is as much of a Puerto Rican icon as Marc Anthony, Jennifer Lopez, and Roberto Clemente — is most famous for crossing over into the American market with songs like “She Bangs” and “Livin’ la Vida Loca.” He first found fame through the boy band Menudo, but it really wasn’t until he started singing in English that he found international success.
Martin singing “Lo Que Paso a Hawaii” is a reclamation of his heritage. It’s a song dedicated to those who stay and those who are forced to leave and change. Bad Bunny performed for the Super Bowl entirely in Spanish, something that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. Ricky Martin has always been proudly Puerto Rican, but it feels different when he can sing in his mother tongue alone.
As Marissa Martinez wrote for Vox earlier this week, explaining the rise of calls for Puerto Rican independence:
She and other fans will be ready to shout if she sees la bandera con azul celeste, the once-suppressed 1895 light-blue version of the current flag associated with the pro-independence movement that Bad Bunny featured in the music video for “La Mudanza.”
“They killed people here for waving the flag,” he sings on that track. “That’s why now I take it everywhere.”
A quick Spanish lesson, first: If you’re talking about US citizens, you might think that “americano” is the direct translation. It’s actually “estadounidense” (literally United States-ian). Anyway, my point here is that “americano” encompasses all of the Americas, from Canada down to Argentina. Bad Bunny closed his performance with a shoutout to all of the Americas, from Chile to Canada, and a procession of flags. On the jumbotron behind him, a simple message shone: “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.”
2026-02-08 21:30:00
几周前，临近圣诞节时，我的家人像往常一样在假期期间观看《家有喜事》（Home Alone）。当时，乔·佩西和丹尼尔·斯通饰演的“湿盗贼”（Wet Bandits）正在策划入室盗窃，我开始思考一个问题：1990年，这部影片上映时，美国的入室盗窃真的如此普遍，以至于观众不会觉得以家庭盗窃为主题的喜剧电影有什么不妥吗？事实上，在影片设定的芝加哥郊区温内特卡（Winnetka），1990年发生了53起入室盗窃案，其中大部分都发生在像麦克阿利斯特一家这样的住宅中。这个盗窃率是每10万人中有435起，这在当时其实相对较低。然而，在芝加哥市区，当年的入室盗窃案超过5万起，即每10万人中有1800起。而全国范围内的入室盗窃率也超过了每10万人1200起，这是美国历史上财产犯罪率最高的时期之一。因此，影片中“湿盗贼”在主人外出度假时入室盗窃的情节，确实并非完全虚构。（当然，考虑到麦克阿利斯特一家在假期旅行中两次弄丢孩子，我对他们的防盗措施并不太有信心。）但当《家有喜事》被翻拍时（我确信好莱坞终将这么做），可能需要改变剧情设定。自1990年以来，美国全国范围内的入室盗窃率下降了超过80%。芝加哥的盗窃率也下降了相似的幅度，这在1990年代盗窃率极高的背景下显得尤为显著。而富裕的温内特卡虽然下降幅度较小，但也下降了超过60%。尽管近年来美国暴力犯罪率的下降受到了广泛关注，包括本通讯，但财产犯罪（如抢劫、入室盗窃和机动车盗窃）的下降却常常被忽视。自1990年以来，美国的总体财产犯罪率下降了66%，甚至比暴力犯罪的下降幅度更大，且已降至自1976年全国数据开始记录以来的最低水平。虽然这一趋势大多是长期稳定的，但在2023至2024年间，财产犯罪率下降了9%，这是有记录以来最大的单年降幅。因此，可以说，如今的美国人比以往任何时候都更安全了。
要理解发生了哪些变化，我们不妨回顾一下20世纪80年代末和90年代初的“常态”。在那个时期，许多城市的财产犯罪就像背景天气一样，人们会围绕它安排生活，即使不每天谈论它。## 关键要点
当然，这些变化也带来了一些负面影响。摄像头的普及可能导致一个监控社会的形成，其负面效应正在显现。现金的减少削弱了财务隐私，并加剧了社会不平等。而智能手机的普及，其弊端更是不言而喻。此外，我们曾经认为的“财产犯罪”并未完全消失，而是以不同的形式存在。20世纪末的经典噩梦是物理性的，比如窗户被砸、汽车被盗、陌生人闯入家中。而现代的犯罪更多是虚拟和官僚化的，如诈骗、账户入侵，以及最糟糕的身份证盗窃，这给美国人带来了数十亿美元的损失。此外，一些新的街头盗窃行为也显得非常具体，比如从门口拿走网购包裹，这在1990年是无法想象的。这些犯罪的代价并不小。2024年，美国联邦调查局的网络犯罪举报中心记录了166亿美元的损失，而邮政服务估计当年至少有5800万件包裹被盗，造成的损失可能高达160亿美元。这些数据并不否定入室盗窃和抢劫的下降趋势，只是更新了我们对“安全财产”的定义。也许在下一部《家有喜事》中，湿盗贼会变成网络诈骗者（不过我至少希望麦克阿利斯特一家在那个孩子身上装了AirTag）。本文最初发表于《好消息》（Good News）通讯。点击此处订阅！
A few weeks back, in the run-up to Christmas, my family was doing what it always does during the holiday season: watching Home Alone. And, around the time that Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern’s Wet Bandits began plotting their break-ins, I began wondering something: Were home robberies really so common in 1990, when the film was released, that audiences wouldn’t blink at the idea of a comedy based around home burglary?
In 1990, in the Chicago suburb of Winnetka where the film is set, there were 53 burglaries, the vast majority of which were in residences like the McAllisters’ house in the movie. That adds up to a rate of 435 robberies per 100,000 people, which was actually fairly low for the time. But in nearby Chicago, there were more than 50,000 burglaries, or around 1,800 per 100,000 people, that year. The nationwide burglary rate was over 1,200 per 100,000 people — part of an overall property crime rate that was near the highest the US had ever recorded.
So, yes, the idea that a couple of bandits might break into your home while you were off on a Paris vacation wasn’t far-fetched. (Although given that the McAllister family were so disorganized they twice lost one of their kids on Christmas vacation trips, I’m not all that confident about their home security approach.)
But when Home Alone is remade — as I’m certain a remake-obsessed Hollywood will do eventually — they might need to change up the premise. Nationwide, burglary rates have fallen by more than 80 percent since 1990. Chicago has seen rates fall by similar levels, a story that is all the more remarkable given just how high those rates were in the 1990s. Wealthy Winnetka had less far to drop, but it’s still down by over 60 percent.
While the historic drop in violent crime in the United States has gotten a lot of attention recently, including in this newsletter, the dip in property crimes like robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft has gone under the radar. The overall property crime rate has fallen by 66 percent in the US since 1990, even steeper than the decline in violent crime, and the lowest level since national data began in 1976. And while this has largely been a steady, long-term trend, there was a 9 percent decline between 2023 and 2024 — the sharpest single-year decline on record.
For our stuff, as well as for our lives, there’s an argument to be made that Americans are safer now than they have ever been.
To understand what’s changed, it helps to remember what “normal” looked like at the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s. In that period in many cities, property crime was like background weather: something you planned around and simply had to live with, even if you didn’t talk about it every day.
Nationally, the overall property crime rate was just over 5,000 incidents per 100,000 people each year around 1990. If you do the math, that means the country was recording roughly one property crime for every 20 residents on average. Of course, the average wasn’t how people lived. Then, as now, crime could be highly concentrated in some neighborhoods and virtually absent in others. But that’s still a staggering level of routine predation.
On a dollar level, the average residential burglary in 1990 resulted in a loss of around $2,800 to $3,400, while total losses for all property crime was nearly $40 billion. (Both numbers are adjusted for inflation.) But there was also a price on human lives. By one estimate, roughly one in four robberies — like your classic street mugging — resulted in some form of physical injury to the victim, while roughly one in 10 of all murders occurred in the course of a felony like robbery and burglary. Based on homicide numbers at the time, that meant as many as 2,500 people may have lost their lives due to incidents that began as simple thefts or robberies.
And these numbers may just touch the surface. Police-reported crime is partly a measure of crime and partly a measure of reporting crime. In a high-crime environment, people often stop calling the police for “smaller” thefts — because the expectation becomes that nothing will happen, or because the hassle isn’t worth it. So even these ugly numbers likely understate how saturated daily life could feel with property crime.
All of which raises the question: What changed? It’s probably not because Americans suddenly became nicer. Instead, it’s due to a confluence of factors in how we police crime, how we protect ourselves from it — and even the kind of stuff we own now.
The bottom line is that we changed our environment in a way that made burglary and robbery harder to pull off, less profitable, and more likely to fail.
For one thing, homes and apartments are simply harder to burgle than they used to be. We have better door and window locks. Better frames. Better outdoor lighting. More apartment buildings have controlled entry, buzzer systems, and cameras. Alarms got cheaper. And now, in many neighborhoods, a kind of informal surveillance mesh exists: doorbell cameras like Amazon’s Ring, building cameras, storefront cameras, even the scourge that is Nextdoor. The Wet Bandits wouldn’t stand a chance today.
A paper published in 2021 directly links the startling drop in burglary to security improvements like the above, which helps explain why property crime kept dropping in diverse cities, across different presidencies, up and down economic cycles, almost without stopping. Burglary is an opportunity crime. If it takes longer to break in and burglars are more likely to be spotted, fewer people will try — and fewer will succeed. One nugget from the paper: The average age of burglars increased as younger people found it harder to do.
Second, stealing stuff got a lot less lucrative — and a lot more traceable. In 1990, a burglar who found a stack of home electronics could convert it to cash pretty quickly. Today, a lot of our most valuable consumer tech is easy to disable from a distance and track. Sometimes the math doesn’t add up: Stolen tech often isn’t worth that much on the resale market because products have gotten cheaper. One plus of living in a richer society — which America very much is compared to 1990 — is that the wages of crime pay less comparatively.
At the same time, there’s the simple fact that people carry — both on themselves and at home — far less paper cash than they used to. For any would-be mugger, the expected take is lower and the expected risk is higher. Notably, one study on Missouri linked the state’s shift from paper welfare checks to electronic benefit transfer led to a decline in crime. And that’s true in commercial operations too, as customers today are far more likely to pay with credit cards or their phone.
Third, cameras and coordination changed the game. Doorbell cameras don’t just ward off potential burglars — they provide far more specific identification if someone still tries. The same goes for ubiquitous smartphones, which enable people to instantly call for help, share a suspect’s photo, and even ping a lost device. (Good luck doing any of that in 1990 — Kevin McAllister’s land line didn’t even work!) All of this raises the perceived chance of getting caught, even if actual police clearance rates for property crimes remain very low.
Of course, all of these changes have their downside. Ubiquitous cameras can bleed into a surveillance state, one whose negative effects we’re seeing. The decline of cash reduces financial privacy and exacerbates social inequality. And the ubiquity of smartphones… well, you don’t need me to tell you the downsides of that.
It’s also true that some of what we used to think of as “property crime” didn’t vanish so much as change form. The classic late-20th-century nightmare was physical — a smashed window, a missing car, a stranger in your house. A lot of modern predation is more virtual and more bureaucratic: scams, account takeovers, and worst of all, identity fraud, which costs Americans tens of billions of dollars. And some of the “new” street-level thefts are oddly specific, like taking e-commerce packages off your stoop, something that wasn’t even conceivable in 1990.
The price tag is not small. In 2024, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center logged $16.6 billion in reported losses, while the Postal Service estimates at least 58 million packages were stolen in 2024, adding up to as much as $16 billion in losses.
None of this negates the good news about burglaries and robberies. It just updates the definition of what “safe property” means in 2026. Maybe in the next Home Alone, the Wet Bandits will be cyberfraudsters (though at least I hope the McAllisters put an AirTag on that kid).
A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!
2026-02-08 20:00:00
美国司法部（DOJ）公布了与杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）调查相关的超过300万份文件，但这一过程显得混乱不堪。许多文件被大量遮蔽，而另一些则似乎暴露了受害者的个人信息和照片，这些信息本不应公开。官员表示，这些是将要公开的所有材料，且不太可能有新的刑事指控。现在文件已经公布，我们到底学到了什么？还有没有人会因此被追责？
为了探讨这个问题，Today, Explained的客座主持人乔纳·希尔（Jonquilyn Hill）采访了Business Insider的记者玛迪·伯格（Maddie Berg），她专注于财富与权力相关议题。以下是他们对话的节选，内容经过删减和润色。
从这次文件公布中我们学到了什么？我认为最突出的发现是，这些文件为我们提供了一个罕见的视角，观察那些非常富有和有权力的人——主要是男性——是如何交流、如何互相帮助的。他们谈论女性的方式令人不安。这似乎表明，这一阶层对爱泼斯坦的行为容忍度很高。
此外，我们还看到一些人与爱泼斯坦的关联。例如，埃隆·马斯克曾表示自己已与爱泼斯坦断绝关系，不认识他，也从未去过他的岛屿，但文件显示他曾经给爱泼斯坦发邮件，请求邀请他参加一个“狂野”的派对。还有霍华德·卢特尼克（Howard Lutnick），他声称在2005年就与爱泼斯坦断绝关系，但邮件显示他似乎在2012年曾去过爱泼斯坦的岛屿。还有布拉德·卡普（Brad Karp），他是律所Paul Weiss的主席，文件显示他突然辞去主席职务，但仍在该律所工作。这些文件还显示了伍迪·艾伦（Woody Allen）与爱泼斯坦之间的联系，似乎爱泼斯坦曾帮助伍迪·艾伦的女儿进入巴德学院（Bard College）。
还有哪些有影响力的人被提及？前身为威尔士亲王的安德鲁·麦唐纳（Andrew Morton）多年来一直与爱泼斯坦有关联。在这些邮件中，似乎有性贩卖的证据，他似乎要求爱泼斯坦为他安排与女性的接触。此外，还有莎拉·费格森（Sarah Ferguson），即安德鲁的前妻，以及挪威王储，他们与爱泼斯坦的交流方式非常友好。这些联系都是在2008年爱泼斯坦因与未成年人发生性关系而被判罪之后出现的。
我们还看到彼得·曼德森（Peter Mandelson）被提及，他曾是英国驻美大使，现已辞去上议院职务。英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）也因在任命曼德森为大使时似乎知情而受到批评。目前，外国领导人受到的后果似乎比美国领导人更多。
你认为为什么会这样？美国的许多领导人名字都与商业界有关，我们可能会看到这些人的后续发展。例如，美国国家橄榄球联盟（NFL）正在调查史蒂夫·蒂施（Steve Tisch），他是巨人队的老板。随着更多信息的披露，我们可能会看到这些人的反应。
“我发现这些人写下的内容非常详细，几乎像是他们认为自己凌驾于法律之上。” 我认为这次文件公布的主要目的并不是寻找新的证据，而是为了证明司法部已经彻底调查了所有相关人员，考虑过起诉他们，但最终只找到了足够的证据起诉格蕾丝琳·麦克斯韦（Ghislaine Maxwell）和爱泼斯坦。虽然一些人可能行为令人反感、不道德，但缺乏足够的刑事证据来起诉其他人。
如果没有人被起诉，公众应该怎么做？我认为公众需要意识到，那些非常富有和有权力的人是如何彼此互动的，他们如何谈论女性，如何利用彼此。同时，也要认识到，很多人在爱泼斯坦2008年被判罪后都否认与他有任何联系，但其实他们在说谎。因此，我们应坚持问责，不轻信他们的说法。
我还发现这些人写下的内容非常详细，似乎他们认为自己不会受到法律制裁或后果。当然，并非所有富人和权势者都这么想，但有些确实如此。现在，公众需要决定他们要面对什么样的后果。
The Department of Justice has released more than 3 million files tied to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The rollout has been chaotic.
Many documents were heavily redacted, while others appeared to expose victims’ personal information and photos that were not supposed to be public.
Officials say this is the full set of materials that will be made public and that additional criminal charges are unlikely. So now that the files are out: What have we actually learned, and will anyone be held accountable?
To find out, Today, Explained guest host Jonquilyn Hill spoke with Business Insider reporter Maddie Berg, who covers wealth and power.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
What have we learned from this latest document dump?
I think the overarching thing I’ve really taken away is it’s a really rare look about how rich and powerful people — mainly men — communicate, how the network works, how they do favors for each other.
And they talk about women in a way that is really scary. That’s kind of the overarching theme I’ve taken away, is how permissive this rich and powerful class has been or was to Epstein.
Additionally, there have been revelations about figures. People like Elon Musk, who have said: I have cut ties with Epstein, I didn’t know him, I never went to the island, etc., but we’re seeing that he was emailing Epstein, asking for an invite to the island to go to a “wild” party.
We’re seeing Howard Lutnick. He said he cut ties with Epstein in 2005, but their emails, which indicate he seemingly went to Epstein’s Island in 2012.
We’re seeing Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, the law firm, step down overnight as chairman. He’s still working as a lawyer there.
There’s a lot of Woody Allen/Epstein overlap in this. He actually helped Woody Allen’s daughter, one of them, get into Bard College, it seems like. So again, there’s so much overlap in terms of who you think of as kind of creepy men.
Who are other powerful people mentioned in the files?
The man formerly known as Prince Andrew has been connected to Epstein for years. In these emails, the evidence seems like sex trafficking. It seems like him asking Epstein to be set up with women.
Additionally, we’re seeing Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew’s ex-wife. Prince spoke to Epstein in a very friendly way. Same with the Crown Princess of Norway — and this is all, by the way, after 2008, when he was convicted of prostitution with a minor.
We’re also seeing Peter Mandelson. He was the former British ambassador to the US. He resigned from his position in the House of Lords, and we’re seeing fallout for that. Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the UK, is under fire at the moment because he apparently knew about some of Peter Mandelson’s ties to Epstein when Starmer named him ambassador.
We’ve seen more repercussions to foreign leaders than to Americans. Why do you think that is?
A lot of the leaders in America, the names that are jumping out are business leaders. We’re kind of going to see how that plays out.
We’re seeing the NFL is looking into Steve Tisch, the owner of the Giants. We’re going to really kind of see how the pieces fall as we learn more and more.
“I found it interesting how much these people put into writing. It was almost like they believed they were above the law or above repercussion.”
I also think that, repercussions-wise, the whole point of the document dump is not to find new evidence. It’s for the Department of Justice to prove that it did not leave any stone unturned. It looked into everybody. It thought about prosecuting these people. It went down those rabbit holes. It couldn’t find enough to criminally prosecute anyone else other than Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein.
Some of these correspondents might be creepy, it might be sleazy, it might be gross, it might be unethical; but there wasn’t enough criminal goods in this to prosecute anyone else named.
What do consequences look like if they’re not criminal charges?
I think a lot of it is up to the public, if we’re not okay with something that we read in this, whether it’s from a politician or a business leader, to really push back and to say, This is not okay. We want this leader out. We want them out of government, out of their business, whatever it is. It’s kind of up to the court of public opinion.
Now, that said, we are going to see some of these people testifying in front of Congress later this month. The Clintons are going to testify. Les Wexner, who was listed in a draft document by the DOJ as a co-conspirator or potential co-conspirator of Epstein’s, will too. So we are going to see these people questioned by the government.
We might get more answers, and we might then, it won’t be criminal charges necessarily, but we might get repercussions from the public, and there might be more consequences in that way.
What should the public take away from all of this whole thing?
I think it’s important to understand how the very, very, very wealthy, the very, very powerful interact with each other. How they speak about women, how they use each other.
And also how many people can’t be taken at their word. So many people denied having a connection to Epstein or visiting his island or talking to him after his conviction in 2008, but they were lying. And I think it’s really important that we hold people to account, and we don’t take their word at face value.
I found it interesting how much these people put into writing. It was almost like they believed they were above the law or above repercussion. And not everybody, obviously, but some very rich and powerful people think they’re immune to consequences. And it’s really up to the public now that this is out there, what consequences they face.
2026-02-07 20:30:00
“我认为，一个贾辛·克洛特（Jasmine Crockett）的选民是那些对政治现状感到沮丧的人，”克洛特告诉阿斯特德·赫尔顿（Astead Herndon）。“我不是那种政治人物会感到兴奋的类型。” 今天，解释（Today, Explained）将每周六发布视频版节目，以音频和视频形式呈现与政界和文化界重要人物的深入访谈。订阅Vox的YouTube频道，或在您常听的播客平台收听。
美国众议员贾辛·克洛特（D-TX）已成为真正的政治明星。在国会任职仅两年，她就成为全国知名人物，以对特朗普总统、共和党同僚，甚至一些民主党人的尖锐批评而闻名。这使她赢得了数百万社交媒体关注者，但也让她成为一些共和党人的攻击目标，以及一些民主党人眼中的麻烦人物，他们认为她可能把个人品牌置于党派利益之上。
克洛特对如何走到今天这一步毫不掩饰，她说：“在这一刻，你必须明白政治已经发生了变化。民主党一直面临的挑战是，他们仍然被视为共和党的‘软柿子’。选民一直在问，‘哪里有反对？哪里有斗争？’而我们却一直说，‘这些是规则，我们努力遵守规则’，而实际上，人们正在街头被枪杀，却没有任何问责。” 她认为，民主党品牌之所以在受欢迎度上挣扎，是因为人们觉得民主党总是遵守规则，而美国人其实希望所有人都遵守规则。但不幸的是，现实并非如此，这就是为什么现在有如此强烈的紧迫感，为什么看到越来越多的民主党人和共和党人退出国会，因为当前的政治环境并不正常。而民主党尝试用正常方式应对，结果并不理想，现在我们甚至在思考民主是否还能继续生存。
克洛特在早期职业生涯中曾是公共辩护律师和民权律师。她想知道这些经历如何塑造了她的政治观。她说：“我每天都在思考选举事务，但从未有过一个瞬间让我突然决定要参选。我一直想解决实际问题。律师的职责就是如此，有人遇到问题来找你，你就要帮助他们。在担任公共辩护律师期间，我深刻意识到我们的系统有多破碎。我有很多关于这段经历的故事，它们一直留在我的记忆中。人们不了解的是，作为公共辩护律师，你代表的是那些经济困难的人，你开始明白某些事情发生的根源。你开始意识到贫困如何导致一些人进入司法系统。”
关于政治上的“真实性”，克洛特表示：“我的真实性并不是为了迎合某个政党。而是我理解真实人们所感受到的愤怒、恐惧和创伤。” 她认为，自己的目标是团结更多人，而不是制造分裂。她特别强调，拉丁裔女性是她最有力的支持群体之一。
这场竞选之所以变得如此激烈，部分原因在于围绕种族主义和性别歧视的争议。她曾与一些人就她的竞选进行过推特上的争论，因为反对她的激烈程度有时让人感到震惊。但克洛特也表示，她希望直接回应一些批评，这些批评来自某些顾问阶层，他们认为她代表了民主党有时将种族和性别作为挡箭牌的做法，比如将特朗普的移民执法与奴隶巡逻进行类比，这种语言可能让选民转向共和党。他们说这可能对个人有利，但对民主党不利。对此，克洛特回应道：“我的真实性不是为了迎合某个政党。而是我理解真实人们所感受到的愤怒、恐惧和创伤。我知道我不是党派的代表，我一直都是人民的代表。”
Today, Explained will now be publishing video episodes every Saturday in audio and video, featuring compelling interviews with key figures in politics and culture. Subscribe to Vox’s YouTube channel to get them or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) is a bona fide political star. In just two terms in the House of Representatives, she’s turned herself into a national name, known for her sharp attacks against President Donald Trump, her Republican colleagues, and even some Democrats.
This has earned her millions of social media followers, but it’s also turned her into a lightning rod, a favorite target of some Republicans, and a nuisance to some Democrats who argue that she could be putting her brand above the party’s. Crockett remains unapologetic about how she’s gotten here, telling me, “I think that in this moment you have to understand that politics has changed. And one thing that the Democrats have struggled with is that they continue to be viewed as the doormat for the Republicans. [Voters] continue to say, where’s the opposition? Where’s the fight?”
Crockett’s decision to run for Senate this year was controversial; she’s now locked in a neck-and-neck primary race against Texas state Rep. James Talarico. But the differences in their race so far have not really been about policy. They’ve been about candidate preference — which one of them is best positioned to win the general election, and whether Crockett has enough substance to go with all her style. Crockett believes she can beat the Republican candidate in November — and that she can do it her way.
Below is an excerpt of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
How would you describe your base? Who is a Jasmine Crockett voter?
I think a Jasmine Crockett voter is anyone that is frustrated with everything that they’re seeing in politics. Whether you identify as a Democrat or Republican or independent, there are a lot of people that have found themselves frustrated and feel as if it doesn’t matter which party is in power. There’s no one that sees them, hears them, or feels them or advocates for them. I am the type of person that real people can relate to. I am not the type of person that politicos get excited about. And so my voter is real people.
You are a relatively new member of Congress, but you exploded in popularity in May 2024 when you had a famous exchange with Marjorie Taylor Greene in the House Oversight Committee. She talked about your eyelashes, and you replied that Greene had a “bleach blonde, bad built butch body.”
Did you practice that, or was it off the cuff?
No, I did not practice that.
You didn’t have that in your back pocket? This was off the top?
People have asked that over and over. You know, I actually sat there, I did write it down as we were going through this back and forth about whether or not she was going to be allowed to continue on in the hearing. I finally got word that they were going to allow her to disrespect me. And I basically understood the rules, because as a lawyer, the first thing that you’re supposed to figure out is: What are the rules? And then I wanted to illustrate how quickly something like this could devolve if we set this precedent, while also making sure I didn’t violate the rules.
But in showing how things can devolve if that space is opened up, I wonder if there is any cost. As much as the phrase blew up, should we want our politicians to be clapback artists?
I think that in this moment you have to understand that politics has changed. And one thing that the Democrats have struggled with is that they continue to be viewed as the doormat for the Republicans. [Voters] continue to say, “Where’s the opposition? Where’s the fight?” And instead we continue to say, “These are the rules and we try to play by the rules,” as they literally are shooting people dead in the middle of the street. And there’s no accountability.
And so the reason I personally believe that the Democratic brand has been struggling as it relates to their popularity is because people feel as if the Democrats play by the rules. And frankly, I think Americans want everybody to play by the rules. I think whether you’re a Democrat or Republican or independent, they actually want a government that is very boring and just plays by the rules. That keeps things going.
But unfortunately that’s not where we are. That’s why there is this fierce urgency of now; this is why you see a historic number of both Democrats and Republicans, in my opinion, that are retiring both from the House and Senate. Because this environment is not a normal environment. To respond to it in a normal way — Democrats have tried that. It’s not worked out very well for us. And right now we’re wondering whether or not our democracy is even going to survive.
You spent much of your earlier parts of your career as a public defender, a civil rights attorney. I wanted to know how that shaped your worldview. What were you seeing at that time that said, “Hey, I want to get into elected office.”
Listen, I wake up every day scratching my head about elected office. I don’t know that there’s ever been a point where I just said like, “Oh, my gosh.”
I’ve always been the type of person that has wanted to solve for problems. I mean, that’s what lawyers are supposed to do. Someone has an issue; they come to you; they want you to help them. And so as I worked as a public defender, I became acutely aware of how broken our system is.
I have so many stories of my experiences as a public defender that have stuck with me. What people don’t understand is that when you are a public defender, you’re representing indigent people, and you’re starting to learn the source of why certain things happened. You start to learn how poverty can play a role in some people ending up in the system.
How do you view the question of political authenticity? You’re someone who comes up when people talk about authentic candidates, and people who are willing to be themselves. But politics is a performance in some ways. What does being yourself even mean?
When you think about how you show up to politics, is this the authentic version? Are we seeing Jasmine Crockett — the real one?
It’s me. You know, we recently had a fundraiser down in Houston, and one of my classmates from law school was the one that was hosting it, and she’s like, “This is what Jasmine has always been.” I’ve always been someone who has been intellectual. I was top 10 percent of my class, at Texas Southern, my first year in law school. I was always very much digging in and wanted to understand. I was always the person that would bring the receipts and wouldn’t back down.
Were you always clapping back too?
I was always, I was always, yeah. There was always a push back. [When] I feel like I am right on something, I have always been very clear about that.
I want to think more, also, about your strategy to win. The Houston Chronicle this week endorsed your opponent in the primary and said that, when you were asked about your path to victory, you pointed to celebrity endorsements and turnout operations.
I know that you have said that the reason that you should be the preferred Democratic nominee is that you plan to expand the electorate. But how do you expand the electorate past the efforts we’ve already seen for many Democrats that haven’t worked?
Yeah. I don’t know what efforts we’ve seen.
If we’re talking about celebrity endorsements and turnout operations, we certainly heard that in 2024.
The way that I evaluate this is that I’m starting moreso at third base instead of starting at first base, when you are trying to engage people that have not been engaged with. It does [require] keeping an excitement and enthusiasm, and the idea that one person can do that in a state of 30 million people, a state that has some of the most expensive media markets in the country.
What you need to do is make sure that you can communicate to people that normally aren’t communicated to. And so yeah, you go to CNN all day long. You can go on MSNOW all day long. And you’re going to communicate to the same kind of group of people.
“My authenticity is not about me trying to do the bidding of a party. It is me understanding the anger, the fear, the trauma that is being inflicted on real people.”
Texas has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the entire country. But the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. The goal has consistently been to go and get people that aren’t a part of the base. And then what happens is: The base feels like they are not getting courted, and instead they’re being ignored. And there’s an assumption that they will come out.
So for me to do what we’ve consistently done that has consistently not worked, I don’t think that that makes very much sense. Now, does that mean that there are Republicans, and I’m like doing like what we saw in Arizona and saying, “No, no Republicans”? That’s absolutely crazy.
Your focus, if I hear correctly, is kind of the loyal base of Democrats — the people who feel as if the party hasn’t been focused toward them, particularly Black voters, and then to reach people who have not traditionally voted. And you’re saying in Texas, that is a majority minority community.
Absolutely.
Okay. But even in that strategy, you would still need to activate those nonvoters.
There has been some controversy with previous statements where you’ve said that Latinos seem to have a “slave mentality” when it comes to supporting anti-immigration Republicans.
Would it be easier to win those people over to your side if statements like that hadn’t been made?
Yeah so, I think we absolutely will be fine, because here’s the thing: You know, when you’re running in elections, people love to just, like, go and cherry-pick, and not get full context of statements. Number one.
Number two, one of the things that I talked about is: I’m like, listen, we know that when it came down to Donald Trump, Donald Trump was like, “Oh, they’re poisoning the blood. And oh they’re criminals; they’re rapists.” [Trump] said all these things, and it did not impact it. To the extent that he actually got more support amongst Latinos than any Republican ever has. But the one thing that is impacting him is his policies.
And when it comes down to it, I have a very strong record, specifically as a civil rights lawyer. I’ve been very clear that for me as a Black woman and the lens that I see things, it is in the lens of the Black experience. I see a lot of the same hate that is spewed towards Latinos, is hate that historically has been skewed towards African Americans. So my goal will be to make sure that we understand that there’s more that unites us than divides us. But the third best demographic that I have is Latinas.
There are those that want to make inflammatory types of feelings take place. And then there are those that know me because they’ve seen my work. And so I think that they are like, “You know who she is.”
Part of what’s made this race more contentious is the question of racism and sexism that seems to be swirling around it. I’ve gotten into some Twitter fights with folks on your behalf, because the intensity of their opposition feels so wild at some times.
But I wanted to also put the critique to you directly from what I hear from — maybe a certain group of a consultant class. Their argument has been that you represent the Democratic Party that has sometimes used race and gender as a shield, and in doing things like comparing Trump’s ICE to slave patrols, that you’ve engaged in some language that have driven people toward Republicans.
They say that this may serve your interest personally, but not the interest of the Democratic Party. Can you respond to that?
Listen — again, my authenticity is not about me trying to do the bidding of a party. It is me understanding the anger, the fear, the trauma that is being inflicted on real people. I think that we know that I’m not the party pick. I’ve always been the people’s pick.
2026-02-07 20:00:00
特朗普对海地人的侮辱令人心痛，他们担心他的行动会更加恶劣。在特朗普最后一次竞选期间，他曾在总统辩论现场错误指控俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德的海地人吃宠物。他私下在第一任期内就曾批评海地为“粪坑”国家，应切断移民通道，而在第二任期内则公开自豪地表达这一观点。如今，海地社区正担心他即将将这些言论付诸行动。数以百万计的海地人来到美国是为了逃离家乡的暴力和动荡，他们现在正在为成为特朗普政府移民执法行动的下一个目标做准备。在斯普林菲尔德，关于即将发生的移民局（ICE）突袭的报道引发了恐慌，志愿者们迅速组织应急培训以保护移民邻居，海地社区也开始为孩子可能被拘留或驱逐的情况制定应对计划。
尽管明尼苏达州索马里社区的居民大多是公民和长期居民，无法被合法驱逐，但白宫正积极剥夺海地人的现有保护，使他们可能面临大规模遣返。尽管特朗普在政治压力下表示要对移民政策采取“更温和”的态度，但像斯普林菲尔德这样的社区仍担心最严重的行动可能还在后头。
斯普林菲尔德拥有约15,000名海地人，占当地人口的约25%。居民们密切关注着特朗普政府计划进行的遣返行动。这次行动的时间点特别敏感，因为它与海地人获得临时保护地位（TPS）的保护期结束日期——2月3日——相吻合。TPS允许海地移民在美国合法居住和工作，因为海地被认为不安全。斯普林菲尔德新闻太阳报（Springfield News-Sun）于1月27日首次报道了有关可能持续至少30天的行动，以及联邦政府已识别出当地有遣返令的人，并有选择性拘留其他无合法身份的人的权力。MS Now随后报道称，行动可能最早在2月第一周开始。
“将海地人遣返海地，现在等同于判处死刑。”——海地桥联盟（Haitian Bridge Alliance）执行董事古尔琳·乔泽（Guerline Jozef）说。乔泽上周前往斯普林菲尔德，她一直在为这一天做准备，从总统竞选开始，以及伴随而来的种族主义言论。周一，她参加了一场有700人参加的教会活动，为法院做出有利裁决祈祷。她说：“消防官员不得不让200人离开，因为人太多。看到黑人和白人、移民和非移民的人们团结一致，肩并肩地支持社区，真的很美。”
然而，就在当天晚上，法院临时阻止了政府终止TPS的计划。在裁决中，地区法官安娜·雷耶斯（Ana Reyes）也认可了海地社区对种族主义言论的担忧，指出国土安全部长克里斯蒂·诺姆（Kristi Noem）可能因对非白人移民的敌意而做出终止TPS的决定，并未遵循正确的程序。裁决引用了诺姆2025年的一条社交媒体帖子：“我建议对每一个涌入我们国家的国家实施全面旅行禁令，包括杀手、寄生虫和自以为是的人……我们不想要他们，一个都不想要。”
尽管如此，TPS的保护仍处于脆弱状态。国土安全部（DHS）已经表示不认同这一裁决，并正在研究下一步措施。法律专家预计该部门将提出上诉，而上诉的持续时间和结果仍不确定。斯普林菲尔德海地支持中心（Haitian Support Center）的负责人维尔斯·多萨因维尔（Viles Dorsainvil）表示：“自总统辩论以来，这里一直存在持续的恐惧。我不确定这次法院裁决值得庆祝，因为最终这并不是一个巨大的胜利。斗争仍在继续，但至少给了我们一点喘息的时间。”
这并不是海地人第一次在特朗普政府下面临法律上的不确定性。特朗普政府在2017年也曾试图终止海地和其他几个国家的TPS，并在2020年似乎即将成功，但特朗普输掉大选后，拜登总统上任并延续了TPS。目前，美国仍持续将海地人遣返海地，2025年有12次ICE遣返航班，如果TPS终止，这个数字可能会上升。然而，由于海地的主机场因帮派袭击而关闭，这些遣返航班并未降落在太子港的主要机场。
与明尼阿波利斯一样，斯普林菲尔德的志愿者们也在建立快速反应网络，以保护移民邻居。一个名为G92的志愿者组织由信仰团体组成，已经连续几个月举办“了解你的权利”培训。即使在法院裁决之后，他们仍在周二晚上举办了另一场培训。志愿者马乔里·温特沃思（Marjory Wentworth）说：“我们意识到必须采取行动，他们正在基于肤色和口音进行针对，这是不可接受的。”
明尼阿波利斯1月发生的蕾妮·古德（Renee Good）和亚历克斯·普雷蒂（Alex Pretti）被杀事件进一步加剧了社区对ICE行动可能带来的危险的担忧。温特沃思在最近一次Zoom会议上提到，他们讨论是否要订购防弹背心。多萨因维尔说：“这是一个新的现实，如果你不是移民，但试图支持移民，你也会面临危险。”
尽管俄亥俄州在总统选举中明确支持特朗普，但当地和州政府官员却因海地人对经济的贡献而支持他们。斯普林菲尔德市长罗布·鲁（Rob Rue）在声明中表示，该裁决“为已经融入我们社区的家庭提供了清晰和稳定，反映了许多人每天都在工作、缴税、抚养家庭并为我们的城市生活做出贡献的现实。”
在法院裁决之前，俄亥俄州共和党州长迈克·德温（Mike DeWine）曾表示，终止海地人的TPS是一个错误。他说：“在俄亥俄州，有成千上万的人在工作、谋生、支持家庭，帮助经济成长。”德温还表示，俄亥俄州公路巡逻队将准备协助当地警方应对移民执法人员可能的激增，并呼吁执法部门遵守良好的执法规范。
然而，俄亥俄州没有本地庇护法律，这意味着地方执法部门可以配合联邦移民行动，包括将有遣返令的人交给当地监狱。多萨因维尔说：“海地移民在美国几乎没有控制自己未来的能力，因为他们没有长期居留的途径。”他说：“你无法在这里为未来做计划，因为你不知道什么时候会发生什么，只能一天天过下去。”
President Donald Trump stood onstage at a presidential debate in his last campaign and falsely accused the Haitians of Springfield, Ohio of eating pets. He derided their place of birth as a “shithole” country that should be cut off from immigration — privately in his first term, then proudly and publicly in his second.
Now, the community is living in fear that he’ll soon put action to those words. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians who came to the United States to flee violence and instability in their home country are already preparing to become the next targets of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement sweeps that have roiled cities like Minneapolis and Chicago.
In Springfield, reports of imminent ICE raids sparked panic last week, with volunteers responding by holding rapid response trainings to protect their immigrant neighbors, and the Haitian community making contingency plans for children in case their parents were detained or deported.
While the Somalian neighborhoods in Minneapolis similarly targeted by Trump largely consisted of citizens and long-term residents who could not be legally deported, the White House is aggressively trying to strip Haitians of their existing protections — leaving them potentially vulnerable to mass removal. Even as Trump talks about a “softer touch” on immigration after a political backlash to his approach, communities like Springfield are worried the most drastic operations may be yet to come.
In Springfield, home to an estimated 15,000 Haitians who make up about 25 percent of the population, residents watched with alarm as reports emerged that the Trump administration was planning raids.
And not just any raids, but an operation timed to the expiration of their protections on a specific date: February 3. That was the day that approximately 350,000 Haitians were expected to lose Temporary Protected Status, a legal designation that allows Haitian immigrants to live and work in the US because their home country has been deemed unsafe.
The local Springfield News-Sun first reported on January 27 about secondhand rumblings that an operation could last at least 30 days, and that the federal government had already identified people in town who had removal orders, with discretion to detain additional people they encountered who lacked status. MS Now followed up with a report that the operation could begin as early as the first week of February.
“Deportation to Haiti is a death sentence right now.”
Guerline Jozef, Haitian Bridge Alliance executive director
Reports of imminent raids drew Guerline Jozef, executive director of the national nonprofit Haitian Bridge Alliance, to Springfield last week. She had been preparing for this day ever since the presidential campaign, and the racist rhetoric that came with it. On Monday, she attended a church service with 700 people who prayed for a favorable court ruling.
“The fire marshal had to come and ask 200 people to leave because we were at capacity,” Jozef said. “That was really beautiful to see how Black and white people, immigrants and nonimmigrants alike, came together standing shoulder to shoulder with the community.”
Then they received a last-second reprieve: A federal court temporarily blocked the administration from ending TPS. In her ruling, District Judge Ana Reyes also validated the Haitian community’s concerns about racist rhetoric, writing that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem likely made her termination decision “because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants” and failed to follow proper procedure. The ruling cited a 2025 social media post by Noem that said: “I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies. … WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.”
That night when the ruling came down, Jozef saw relief on people’s faces.
“Deportation to Haiti is a death sentence right now,” she said.
While TPS was initially put in place in response to a devastating 2010 earthquake, the potential dangers awaiting deportees have multiplied since then. Haiti has held no elections since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Violent gangs now control vast areas of the country, responsible for murders, kidnappings, and sexual violence. The country has 1.5 million internally displaced people, and another 16,000 have been killed since January 2022, according to the United Nations. The US Department of State has placed Haiti on a level four travel warning, similar to war-torn countries.
In recent years, many Haitians escaped violence by fleeing to South American countries and then traveling north through the Darien Gap to the Southern US border.
“A lot of them have died on the way,” Jozef said. “The few who survived…when we received them at the border, we thought they were miracles to even survive that journey. And when they finally got here, they thought they were safe only for the rug to be pulled from underneath them.”
The latest court decision protecting the community is still fragile. DHS has already stated that it disagrees with the ruling and is determining next steps. Legal experts expect the department to appeal the ruling, and the length of the process and outcome are both unclear.
“It has been a constant fear here since after the presidential debate,” said Viles Dorsainvil, director of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield. “I am not sure [the court ruling] is something to celebrate, because at the end of the day, it’s not a huge victory. The struggles continue, but it’s something that can give us a little time to breathe.”
This isn’t the first time Haitians have faced legal precarity under Trump. The first Trump administration also tried to end TPS for Haiti and several other countries in 2017, and appeared poised to succeed in 2020 after years of federal litigation. After Trump lost the election, however, President Joe Biden took office and extended it.
US deportations to Haiti are ongoing, with 12 ICE flights happening in 2025 — a small number that would increase if TPS ends. Deportation flights are not landing in the main airport in Port-au-Prince because it is closed to US flights due to gangs shooting at planes.
As they sit in legal limbo, Dorsainvil said Haitians in Springfield are afraid to leave the house. “They are reluctant to come out and continue to be cautious, because if they come out on the street, anything can happen to them,” Dorsainvil said.
As with Minneapolis, volunteers in Springfield are creating a rapid response network to keep their immigrant neighbors safe. A volunteer-run coalition of faith-based groups called G92 has hosted “know your rights” trainings for several months. Even after the court ruling, they hosted another training on Tuesday night.
“We realized we have to do something,” said Marjory Wentworth, an American volunteer with the G92 leadership team who serves on the board of the Haitian Support Center. “They’re targeting people based on the color of their skin and their accent — that’s unconscionable.”
The January killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis have only further stoked fears in the community about the dangers an ICE operation could bring. During a recent Zoom meeting, Wentworth said they discussed ordering bulletproof vests.
“This is a new reality,” Dorsainvil said. “If you’re not an immigrant, and you try to support an immigrant, things can happen to you too.”
Ultimately, though, Haitian immigrants have little control over their time in the US, because there are few pathways to stay long term.
The Haitian Support Center continues to coordinate with other groups to mobilize volunteers to bring groceries to people who are afraid to leave the house. Some people were laid off before the court ruling, because employers were unsure of their status, so the Center is providing rental assistance until they find work. Dorsainvil said attorneys are on hand to help parents develop a plan in case they are detained.
“They’re telling them to give guardianship to a person they trust in case they are being detained or deported, for those kids to have a person to look after them,” he said.
Immigration attorney Inna Simakovsky is providing legal help to Haitians in Springfield. She has been receiving calls for months from groups who were concerned about kids whose parents were facing deportation.
“The possibility of TPS going away for Haitians is pretty good, but hopefully it’ll take a long time,” she said, adding that applying for asylum is another way that Haitians can try to stay in the United States.
Jozef’s Haitian Bridge Alliance began outreach to Haitian communities across the country in the run-up to Trump taking office, warning them to make a family plan for children if their parents were detained.
“We realized that [if TPS expires] this will be the largest family separation in modern US history,” Jozef said. “As long as they have no pathway to permanent status, the fear of family separation, the fear of deportation, continues to loom over them.”
Although Ohio decisively voted for Trump, local and state officials are showing support for Haitians, in part due to their large contribution to the economy. Springfield Mayor Rob Rue said in a statement that the ruling “provides clarity and stability for families who are already part of our community. It reflects the reality that many individuals are working, paying taxes, raising families and contributing every day to the life of our city.”
Before the court ruling, Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, who is from Springfield and runs a school in Haiti, called removing TPS for Haitians a mistake. “You have a whole bunch of people, thousands of people in Ohio who are working, making a living, supporting their families, helping the economy grow,” he told reporters.
DeWine said the Ohio State Highway Patrol would be ready to support local police in case of a surge in immigration agents, and called on agents to follow good policing practices. Ohio lacks local sanctuary laws, meaning local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration operations, including by handing over people with removal orders who end up in local jails.
Ultimately, though, Haitian immigrants have little control over their time in the US, because there are few pathways to stay long term.
“You cannot plan for the future as an immigrant here, because you don’t know when things can happen to you,” Dorsainvil said. “You just live day by day.”
2026-02-07 07:40:00
2月1日，南希·古思里（Nancy Guthrie）的失踪事件引发了美国公众的广泛关注，因为它结合了两个最吸引眼球的话题：名人和悲剧。过去一周，今日秀（Today show）的气氛变得沉重，因为共同主持人萨凡娜·古思里（Savannah Guthrie）因母亲失踪而缺席。据警方称，古思里的母亲是在亚利桑那州图森市附近住所被绑架的。随着警方试图找到嫌疑人或相关人士，案件细节变得愈发黑暗，而公众也对此事议论纷纷，无法移开目光。
调查始于上周日，当时南希·古思里没有出现在教堂，促使社区成员通知她的家人。在家人报警后，亚利桑那州警方前往其住所，发现了一个“犯罪现场”，并开始搜寻。警方随后公布了古思里失踪当晚的时间线，其中包括她的门铃摄像头被断开，以及她的心脏起搏器应用程序与手机断开连接等细节。这些基本事实本身已经令人震惊，而案件与今日秀主持人萨凡娜·古思里有关，更让整个事件显得混乱不堪。
然而，这正是当前媒体环境下令人不安的事件类型。南希·古思里的失踪正好处于公众将名人犯罪故事视为娱乐素材的交叉点。在“真凶文化”盛行的今天，这类新闻不再只是被观察或同情，而是成为一种互动媒介，让网络观众纷纷发表自己的猜测，进行所谓的“业余侦探工作”。对于博主和内容创作者来说，扮演这些热门事件的专家甚至可以带来收益。
类似的事件发生在去年12月，当好莱坞导演罗布·里纳（Rob Reiner）及其妻子米歇尔·里纳（Michelle Reiner）据称被他们的儿子尼克·里纳（Nick Reiner）杀害后。此后，创作者们纷纷分析尼克的肢体语言和旧采访中的言论，甚至将他们参加的由喜剧演员康纳·奥布莱恩（Conan O’Brien）主持的星光熠熠的圣诞派对作为讨论的焦点。同样地，围绕南希·古思里失踪的讨论也已带上阴谋论和八卦的色彩。许多TikTok用户急于发布自己的“理论”来猜测谁可能是绑架者。与此同时，萨凡娜·古思里及其兄弟姐妹在社交媒体上发布的求救视频，也被业余侦探们分析，导致毫无根据的猜测，甚至怀疑这个家庭可能卷入其中。
TMZ（美国知名八卦媒体）的介入则标志着悲剧转化为网络八卦的最后一步。周二，这家臭名昭著的名人新闻机构透露，他们收到了一封要求支付数百万美元比特币的勒索信；警方也确认，其他同意不报道此事的媒体也收到了类似的信件。与此同时，一名来自加利福尼亚州的男子周三被捕，被指控假扮成疑似绑架者，向古思里一家发送了虚假的赎金要求。
由此可见，当个人悲剧成为公众关注的焦点时，人们有多种方式介入其中，进一步加剧了混乱。如今，公众似乎又回到了一种类似90年代末至2000年代中期的八卦文化中的窥视心理。尽管许多人如今对那个时代持批评态度，但人们仍从远处集体谴责它。随着社交媒体日益变得“寄生式”、“无序”且具有盈利性，人们被激励以这种方式使用它。一位失踪的84岁女性也不例外。
A heavy feeling has loomed over the Today show for the past week: Co-anchor Savannah Guthrie has been noticeably absent while dealing with an extremely public nightmare.
On February 1, authorities began searching for Guthrie’s 84-year-old mother, Nancy Guthrie, following what is now believed to be an abduction from her home outside of Tucson, Arizona. As police try to identify a suspect or even a person of interest, the details of the case have become increasingly dark. And the public can’t look away.
The investigation began last Sunday when Nancy Guthrie didn’t show up to church, prompting community members to notify her family. After her family called 911, Arizona law enforcement went to her home, discovered what Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos described as a “crime scene,” and then began search efforts. Authorities have since released a timeline of the night Guthrie disappeared; it says, among other details, that her doorbell camera was disconnected and that her pacemaker app had been disconnected from her phone.
The basic facts of Nancy Guthrie’s case are shocking enough. And its connection to the Today host who brightly delivers news and human interest stories to millions of Americans every morning makes the story even more disorienting.
But it’s the kind of disturbing saga that thrives in our current media landscape. Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance sits at the intersection of two subjects the American public treats as fodder for entertainment: celebrity and tragedy.
In a post-true crime world, news stories like Guthrie’s aren’t just observed or even necessarily sympathized with. Instead, personal tragedies have become a source of interactive media, allowing online spectators to chime in with their theories and do their own sort of nebulous “detective work.” For bloggers and content creators, posing as experts on these trending stories can even be profitable.
A similar phenomenon occurred after the deaths of Hollywood director Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle Reiner, allegedly at the hands of their son, Nick Reiner, last December. Creators spent the following days evaluating Nick Reiner’s body language and soundbites in old interviews. Details about the family’s whereabouts the night of the Reiners’ death, when they attended a star-studded holiday party hosted by comedian Conan O’Brien, became added “tea” to speculate about.
Similarly, the conversation around Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance has already taken on a conspiratorial, gossipy tone. Many TikTok users are eager to post their own “theories” as to who is responsible for the alleged abduction. Meanwhile, videos that Savannah Guthrie and her siblings posted to social media, pleading with their mother’s presumed kidnappers to release her, are being dissected by amateur sleuths and have led to baseless speculation about the family’s involvement in her disappearance.
That TMZ became a part of the story is the final step in the tragedy-to-online-gossip pipeline. On Tuesday, the notorious celebrity news outlet revealed it had received a ransom note demanding millions of dollars in Bitcoin; authorities confirmed a note was sent to other news outlets that agreed not to report on it. Meanwhile, a California man was arrested on Wednesday, accused of pretending to be the suspected abductor; he allegedly contacted the Guthrie family with a fake ransom demand. It turns out there are multiple ways someone can insert themselves in another person’s tragedy when it becomes a public spectacle, adding more chaos to an already awful situation.
It’s been dizzying to watch the public revert to a sort of voyeurism that’s largely associated with the late ’90s and mid-2000s tabloid culture — an era that many of the people who lived through it now rebuke. It’s a time period we like to collectively rebuke from a distance. As social media becomes increasingly parasocial, lawless, and monetizable, people are incentivized to use it this way. A missing 84-year-old woman is no exception.
