2026-02-13 07:40:00
这并不是你下个月的办公室。在X平台上一篇名为《Something Big Is Happening》的病毒式文章中，Matt Shumer写道，世界正在经历一个类似于人工智能早期发展的时刻。OthersideAI的创始人兼首席执行官Shumer认为，人工智能已经从有用的助手转变为具有普遍认知能力的替代品。更重要的是，AI现在正在帮助构建更强大的自身版本。很快，能够媲美人类大多数专业技能的系统可能会出现。虽然专家们知道变革即将到来，但普通大众可能即将措手不及。用疫情时代的比喻来说，Tom Hanks即将生病。
在Shumer的文章发表后，Anthropic安全团队负责人Mrinank Sharma辞职，他在离职信中警告称，“世界正面临危险”来自“相互关联的危机”，并暗示公司“不断面临压力，要放弃最重要的事情”以追求3500亿美元的估值。因此，一些人开始感到焦虑。更准确地说，那些已经对AI非常担忧的人现在更加焦虑了。
当然，我们不能忽视AI模型可能很快就会满足各种所谓的弱AGI（通用人工智能）定义，至少在某种程度上。许多技术专家和预测市场都持这种观点。不过，与其关注技术进步——尽管我确信生成式AI是一种强大的通用技术——不如从经济学的角度来看待一些基本的瓶颈和限制。从演示到实际部署的漫长道路。从“AI模型令人印象深刻，甚至比你意识到的还要厉害”到“一切都将立即改变”的跳跃，需要忽略经济系统如何真正吸收新技术。电力普及花了数十年才重新设计工厂。互联网并未一夜之间改变零售业。目前，美国不到五分之一的企业正在采用AI。在大型、受监管且风险规避的机构中部署AI，需要大量配套投资，包括数据基础设施、流程再造、合规框架和员工再培训。（经济学家称之为“生产率J曲线”）事实上，早期的投入可能会在可见成果出现之前抑制产出的测量值。富有并不总是意味着更忙碌。
让我们承认乐观者的观点——我当然也认为自己相当乐观——他们假设AI能力迅速提升。但产出并不会立刻激增。历史上，富裕社会往往选择更多的休闲时间，比如提前退休或缩短工作周，而不是在办公室或工厂里多花时间。经济学家Dietrich Vollrath指出，如果家庭因生产力提高而减少劳动供给，那么更高的生产力并不一定意味着更快的经济增长。福利可能大幅上升，但GDP增长却相对温和。
最慢的行业决定了整体增长速度。即使AI使某些服务变得非常便宜，需求也不会无限增长。支出会转向那些难以被自动化的行业，如医疗、教育和面对面体验，这些行业的产出更紧密地与人类时间相关。（这就是著名的“鲍莫尔效应”或“成本病”）随着整体工资上涨，劳动密集型且生产力增长缓慢的行业将占据更大的收入份额。结果是：即使AI取得显著进展，整体生产力增长可能也仅是适度的。
在由许多互补部分组成的系统中，经济学家Charles Jones指出，最狭窄的瓶颈决定了整体的流动。AI可以加速编码、起草和研究，但若能源基础设施、物理资本、监管批准或人类决策仍以普通速度推进，这些将成为限制整个经济快速增长的瓶颈。
经济系统是适应性强、复杂且美妙的系统。它们创造了体现并积累复杂信息的物理产品——经济学家Cesar Hidalgo称之为“想象力的结晶”。当它们发生变化时，它们会通过渐进的重组和重新配置来调整，而不是突然崩溃或立即起飞。因此，这应该是你的基本预期。
当然，一定程度的紧迫感可能是必要的。（Shumer建议现在就拥抱最强大的AI工具，并将其融入日常工作中，这似乎是有道理的。）但将AI与2020年初的疫情进行令人恐慌的类比则不太合适。本文最初发表于Pethokoukis的通讯《Faster, Please!》。
In a viral essay on X, “Something Big Is Happening,” Matt Shumer writes that the world is living through a moment similar to early Covid for artificial intelligence. The founder and CEO of OthersideAI argues that AI has crossed from useful assistant to general cognitive substitute. What’s more, AI is now helping build better versions of itself. Systems rivaling most human expertise could arrive soon.
While experts know transformative change is coming fast, normies are about to be blindsided. To stick with the pandemic-era metaphor, Tom Hanks is about to get sick.
Between Shumer’s essay and the resignation of Mrinank Sharma — he led Anthropic’s safety team and vague-posted quite the farewell letter warning that “the world is in peril” from “interconnected crises,” while hinting that the company “constantly face[s] pressures to set aside what matters most” even as it chases a $350 billion valuation — well…some people are starting to wig out. Or, more precisely, the folks already super-worried about AI are now super-worrying even harder.
Look, is it possible that AI models will soon indisputably meet various so-called weak AGI definitions, at minimum? Plenty of technologists, not to mention prediction markets, suggest it is. (As a reality check, though, I keep front of mind Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis’s statement that we still need one or two AlphaGo-level technological breakthroughs to reach AGI.)
But rather than technological advances — and I have high confidence generative AI is a powerful general-purpose technology — let’s instead talk about some basic bottlenecks and constraints from the world of economics rather than computer science.
The long road from demo to deployment. The leap from “AI models are impressive, even more than you realize” to “everything changes imminently” requires ignoring how economies actually absorb new technologies. Electrification took decades to redesign factories around. The internet didn’t change retail overnight. AI adoption currently covers fewer than one in five US business establishments. Deploying it across large, regulated, risk-averse institutions demands heavy complementary investment in data infrastructure, process redesign, compliance frameworks, and worker retraining. (Economists term this the productivity J-curve.) Indeed, early-stage spending can actually depress measured output before visible gains arrive.
Richer doesn’t always mean busier. Let’s grant the optimists — and I certainly consider myself pretty darn optimistic — their assumption about fast-advancing AI capability. Output still doesn’t explode on a dime. Richer societies historically choose more leisure — earlier retirements, short workweeks — not more time at the office or factory floor. Economist Dietrich Vollrath has pointed out that higher productivity doesn’t mechanically translate into faster growth if households respond by supplying less labor. Welfare might rise substantially while headline GDP growth stays relatively modest.
The slowest sector sets the speed limit. Even if AI makes some services far cheaper, demand does not expand without limit. Spending shifts toward sectors that resist automation — health care, education, in-person experiences — where output is tied more tightly to human time. (This is the famous “Baumol effect” or “cost disease.”) As wages rise economy-wide, labor-intensive sectors with weak productivity growth claim a larger share of income. The result: Even spectacular AI gains may yield only moderate growth in overall productivity.
The economy’s narrowest pipe. In a system built from many complementary pieces, explains economist Charles Jones, the narrowest pipe determines the flow. AI can accelerate coding, drafting, and research all it wants. But if energy infrastructure, physical capital, regulatory approval, or human decision-making move at ordinary speeds, those become the binding constraints that limit how fast the whole economy can grow.
Economies are adaptive, complex, wonderful systems. They create the physical objects that embody and accumulate complex information — what economist Cesar Hidalgo elegantly calls “crystals of imagination.” And when they change, they adjust through gradual reorganization and reallocation, not through sudden collapse or instant takeoff. I mean, that should be your baseline scenario.
Now, a degree of urgency may be warranted. (Shumer’s advice to embrace the most capable AI tools now and weave them into your daily work seems prudent.) Panic-inducing analogies to early 2020 probably are not.
This piece originally appeared in Pethokoukis’s newsletter “Faster, Please!”
2026-02-13 07:30:00
特朗普总统和环保署署长李·泽尔丁于2026年2月12日抵达白宫，参加一个宣布撤销2009年“危害认定”的活动。| Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
这则新闻出自《Logoff》——一份每日简报，帮助您了解特朗普政府的动态，而不会让政治新闻占据您的全部生活。订阅这里。
欢迎来到《Logoff》：特朗普政府正在削弱联邦政府应对气候变化的能力。
发生了什么？周四，美国环境保护署宣布结束其2009年的“危害认定”——这一法律依据被我的同事乌马尔·伊夫兰描述为美国气候监管的“关键支柱”。如果没有这一认定，许多重要的气候法规可能会被废除。
这对应对气候变化意味着什么？目前，该政府正利用“危害认定”结束的机会，取消对车辆的排放标准。这是一件大事——汽车排放的温室气体是气候变化的重要因素之一，也是共和党长期以来的目标。但也许他们期望的并不完全实现：市场力量和电动汽车技术的进步都在激励汽车制造商继续生产更清洁、更高效的车辆。此外，法院裁决或未来民主党政府也可能恢复这一认定。
背景如何？我们早就知道这会发生的。环保署在7月正式表示计划撤销这一认定，但早在那时，当特朗普签署总统令，指示环保署署长李·泽尔丁审查该认定的“法律性和持续适用性”时，就已经预示了这一趋势。特朗普本人长期以来一直贬低气候变化，称其为“骗局”和“骗局”，他的政府也大力推动化石燃料，甚至不惜破坏可再生能源项目，并削减气候和环境保护措施。
接下来会发生什么？“危害认定”正式被撤销，但这并不意味着问题就此结束。正如乌马尔今天早些时候报道的那样，环保署的这一举措肯定会引发诉讼；这些诉讼有相当大的成功机会，但并非绝对。一位新总统也可能恢复“危害认定”，但这就需要经历与特朗普政府相同的漫长公众审查程序。
好了，现在是时候“下线”了。这里有一则令人愉快的奥运新闻：据报道，包括美国队新晋银牌得主、越野滑雪运动员本·奥格登在内的所有奥运选手都喜欢编织。如果您想了解更多关于他的故事，这篇《华盛顿邮报》的文章也很棒：“‘他有农夫的力量。’本·奥格登与一枚迟来的银牌。”（这是一个赠品链接。）
感谢阅读，祝您有一个美好的夜晚，我们明天再见！
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: The Trump administration is shredding the federal government’s ability to fight climate change.
What happened? On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the end of its 2009 “endangerment finding” — a legal justification for regulating greenhouse gases that my colleague Umair Irfan has described as a “load-bearing pillar of climate regulation in the US.” Without it, many key climate regulations could fall.
What does this mean for the fight against climate change? For now, the administration is using the end of the endangerment finding to eliminate emissions standards for vehicles. It’s a big deal — greenhouse gases produced by cars are a significant contributor to climate change — and a longtime Republican goal.
But it might not go as far as they’re hoping, either: Market forces and advancing electric vehicle technology both incentivize car manufacturers to keep making cleaner, more efficient vehicles, as does the possibility that a court ruling or a future Democratic administration could reinstate the finding.
What’s the context? We knew that this was coming. The EPA officially said in July that it planned to reverse the finding, but the writing was on the wall even before then, after Trump signed a day-one executive order directing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to review its “legality and continuing applicability.”
Trump himself has a long history of deriding climate change as a “hoax” and a “con job,” and his administration has leaned hard into promoting fossil fuels — even going out of its way to sabotage renewable energy projects — and slashing climate and environmental protections.
What happens next? The endangerment finding is officially repealed, but that doesn’t mean the issue is settled. As Umair reported earlier today, the EPA’s move is certain to draw lawsuits; these actually stand a fair chance of success, though it’s by no means a sure thing. A new president could also reinstate the endangerment finding, though that would require going through the same lengthy public review process the Trump administration has.
Here’s some delightful Olympian news: They all love to knit, reports Guardian sports editor Ella Brockway — including Team USA’s newly minted silver medalist, cross-country skier Ben Ogden. And if you want to learn more about his story, this Washington Post story is also great: “‘He’s got that farmer’s strength.’ Ben Ogden, and a silver medal long in the making.” (It’s a gift link.)
Thanks for reading, have a great evening, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!
2026-02-13 05:00:00
一项新研究指出，每天只要5分钟的中等强度运动，就能显著降低死亡率。奥运会为我们提供了一个观察世界顶级运动员饮食和训练方式的窗口，面对这些例子，人们很容易感到自己不够好。我们往往被那些非凡的个体所吸引，比如冬季奥运会的运动员。琳赛·冯（Lindsay Vonn）疯狂追求奥运金牌，即使在撕裂前十字韧带的情况下仍坚持滑雪，最终却因摔倒导致骨折，这种精神被视为一种榜样。如果你没有全力以赴，那还有什么意义？一种可能的解释是，人们在面对自己认为必须完成的运动量时会感到畏惧，从而放弃。但其实我们不应该这样想。事实上，一项重要的新研究应该改变我们对身体活动和健康的看法。
订阅《Good Medicine》通讯
我们的政治健康环境已经发生了变化：新领导人、可疑的科学、矛盾的建议、信任的破裂以及令人窒息的系统。面对这一切，人们该如何理解？Vox的高级记者Dylan Scott在健康领域已有十多年的经验，每周他都会深入探讨各种争议话题，回答合理的问题，并解释美国医疗政策的最新动态。点击此处订阅。
我们总是过多地谈论运动。每两年关注一次奥运会的一大乐趣，就是看到世界级运动员为了取得优势所采取的极端甚至荒谬的措施。但这些极端的健身追求可能是误导的。我的同事韩娜·西奥（Hannah Seo）最近询问了专家，是否存在运动过量的情况。专家告诉她，实际上，对大多数人来说，当运动达到一定量时，其带来的益处会逐渐减少。主要的益处来自于那些原本不运动的人开始进行一些运动。而根据这项令人震惊的新研究，实现真正健康益处的门槛非常低。别再担心运动过量，真正的问题是运动太少。每一分钟都有帮助，哪怕只是轻微的活动，也可能挽救你的生命。即使你有运动习惯，也应该注意减少久坐时间。找到适合自己的30分钟锻炼时间，你就能做好准备。毕竟你不是琳赛·冯。
但将运动视为孤立的活动，只在特定的短时间内进行，也存在危险。半小时的剧烈运动很好，但如果其余时间都坐在沙发上，你很快就会失去这些益处。因此，我们不仅应该关注运动，还应关注日常的活动，以及如何保持全天候的活动状态。最近发表在《柳叶刀》（Lancet）上的研究显示，即使是短时间的活动，比如每小时散步几分钟，也能带来巨大的健康益处。
这项研究是一项大规模的调查，涉及来自挪威、瑞典、西班牙、澳大利亚和美国的研究人员。他们专门研究运动与死亡率之间的关系。以往的研究未能清晰地描绘出这种关系，通常依赖于参与者自我报告的数据，这种数据往往不可靠。此外，以往的研究大多只评估人们是否达到了特定的运动建议标准，而这些标准对大多数人来说并不现实。研究人员分析了大量数据集，涉及数万名参与者，通过可穿戴设备追踪他们的身体活动，并以时间的微小单位来衡量。借助这些数据，他们能够识别出即使短时间的活动（如起身走一圈，绕着房子走一圈）也能带来的影响。他们分析了那些活动最少、每天平均仅运动两分钟的人群，以及更广泛的人群（排除了运动最积极的20%的人）。他们利用活动数据来估计不同运动水平和久坐程度下的死亡风险，并预测如果人们稍微更活跃或久坐时间减少，会发生什么变化。
研究结果令人震惊。对于最久坐的人群，每天增加5分钟的中等强度（如快走、骑自行车）到剧烈强度（如跑步、游泳）的运动，似乎可以防止该群体中多达6%的死亡。对于更广泛的人群，每天增加10分钟的运动可能预防10%的死亡。减少每天久坐时间30分钟，即使不提高心率，只是简单地活动一下，也能使高风险人群的死亡率降低3%，而对其他所有人则降低7%。
对于任何新研究，我们都应保持一定的怀疑态度。但无论运动能降低死亡率5%还是10%，其核心观点是明确的：每小时或每两小时绕着街区走一圈，仍然有助于延长寿命。即使你有运动习惯，也应该考虑如何减少久坐时间；每天多活动半小时，对大多数人来说都是健康的一大福音。换句话说：你不必成为奥运选手，但也不必放弃任何一点活动。
The Olympics offer a fascinating window into the diets and workout routines of some of the world’s finest athletes, and it would be easy to feel inadequate in the face of these examples of the human body’s awesome potential.
We tend to gravitate to extraordinary outliers, like the athletes in the Winter Games. Lindsay Vonn’s maniacal pursuit of Olympic glory, skiing on a torn ACL only to crash and break her femur, is treated as aspirational. If you’re not pushing yourself to the absolute limit, then what’s the point? One way to interpret the enormous gaps between the share of Americans who say exercising more is important and the share who actually get enough exercise is that people become daunted by what they think is necessary — and give up.
But we shouldn’t think that way. In fact, a major new study should reframe how we think about physical activity and our health.
Our political wellness landscape has shifted: new leaders, shady science, contradictory advice, broken trust, and overwhelming systems. How is anyone supposed to make sense of it all? Vox’s senior correspondent Dylan Scott has been on the health beat for more than a decade, and every week, he’ll wade into sticky debates, answer fair questions, and contextualize what’s happening in American health care policy. Sign up here.
We end up talking so much about exercise. One of the pleasures of following Olympics every two years is the coverage of the extreme — and truly bizarre — lengths to which world-class athletes go to gain an edge.
But those extreme fitness obsessions can be misguided. My colleague Hannah Seo recently asked experts whether there is such a thing as too much exercise. And they told her, actually, yes, for most people, at a certain point, there are diminishing returns.
The big benefits are for people who are otherwise not active and start to do something. And, according to this remarkable new research, the threshold for seeing real health benefits is shockingly low. Forget too much exercise; there’s really no such thing as too little exercise. Every minute helps. A little movement can save your life.
And even if you do exercise, this is advice you should heed. Exercise has numerous benefits. But most of us have busy lives; our careers are not dedicated to our bodies. Trying to squeeze your routine into its own little time slot is tempting. If you can find the right 30-minute workout to fit into your schedule, you’ll be all set.
You’re not Lindsay Vonn, after all.
But there is also a danger in thinking of exercise as its own isolated activity, something you do for a specific, short period of time before you move on with the rest of your day. A half hour of rigorous exercise is great. But if the rest of your time is spent on the couch, you rapidly start to lose those benefits.
Instead, we should think not only about exercise but movement — and how to keep ourselves moving throughout the day. That was the big takeaway from the recent research published in the Lancet that showed even small bursts of activity — as little as 5 to 10 minutes — and being less sedentary can have huge health benefits.
And if you don’t have a workout routine, don’t worry. That was the authors’ real message: Just move a little bit, and you — yes, you — can do yourself a lot of good.
The Lancet study was a massive effort, involving researchers from Norway, Sweden, Spain, Australia, and the United States. They set out specifically to document a relationship between exercise and mortality. Pre-existing research hadn’t provided a clear picture of that, often relying on self-reported data from participants, which can be unreliable. And previous studies also tended to only narrowly evaluate whether participants were meeting specific public health recommendations for exercise — which, as the authors note, is not always realistic for people.
The researchers reviewed large data sets, involving tens of thousands of participants, that tracked physical activity through a wearable device and measured it in small increments of time. With that data, they could identify the effect of even short intervals of movement — standing up and walking a lap around your house, for example. They analyzed the effects for both the people whose tracking data showed they were the most sedentary, or active on average for only two minutes per day, and the broader population (excluding the most active 20 percent of people, based on the tracking data collected). They used the activity data to estimate the mortality risk for different levels of physical movement and sedentariness and then estimated what would happen if people were to be a little more active or a little less sedentary.
And what they found was striking.
For the most sedentary people, an increase in their moderate (brisk walking, riding a bike) to vigorous (running, swimming) physical activity of just 5 minutes per day appeared to prevent as many as 6 percent of deaths from any cause among that population. For the broader population, 10 percent of all deaths may be prevented. Reducing the amount of time they were sedentary by 30 minutes every day — not even getting their heart rate up to exercise levels, just literally moving around — was associated with 3 percent fewer deaths among high-risk participants and 7 percent fewer deaths among all but those most active people.
With any new study, you should reserve some skepticism. But whether a little movement reduces your chances of death by 10 percent or by 5, the point stands: A walk around the block every hour or two can still help extend your life. Even if you do exercise, you should still think about how to reduce your sedentary time; just an extra half hour of movement every day looks like a boon to most people’s health.
In other words: Sure, you’re not an Olympic athlete, but you don’t have to be.
2026-02-13 00:55:00
2026年2月11日，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普与环保署署长利·泽尔丁在华盛顿特区白宫举行活动，签署了一项行政命令，要求军队从燃煤电厂购买电力。| 萨尔·洛埃/法新社/盖蒂图片社
特朗普政府即将推翻一项关键的裁决，该裁决认定气候变化对美国人的健康构成威胁。今天，环保署宣布将发布最终规则，以废除温室气体的“危害认定”——这是环保署实施美国主要气候法规的法律基础。然而，在气候监管方面，最终规则并不意味着终结，这一举措将给行业、环境以及普通民众带来令人沮丧的不确定性。这是特朗普及其盟友长期努力推翻气候变化法规的最终结果。
“危害认定”是一项决定，认为气候变化对公共健康构成威胁，并要求环保署采取行动。它构成了美国主要的气候法规基础，尤其是对汽车和卡车的温室气体排放限制。废除这一认定一直是特朗普及其盟友的长期目标，但此举将引发一系列诉讼，其结果尚不确定。
如果“危害认定”得以保留，特朗普政府将被迫出台新的气候法规；如果被废除，则可能为更多减排规则的撤销铺平道路。未来民主党政府可能会逆转这一决定。这种监管不确定性正在使美国人暴露在更多污染之下，并使行业难以应对不断变化的法规。
“危害认定”的故事本身就是一个漫长的过程。2007年，美国最高法院裁定，如果温室气体危害公共健康，环保署有权根据《清洁空气法》进行监管。2009年，奥巴马政府下的环保署确认了这一点，即温室气体确实对人类生命构成威胁。多年来，化石燃料行业和共和党主导的州不断挑战这一决定，但联邦法院一直维持其有效性。
“危害认定”最重要的后果是为更严格的汽车和卡车污染限制提供了依据。汽车制造商可以通过提高燃油效率或电动化车队来遵守这些限制。交通运输业是美国最大的温室气体排放来源，其中大部分来自公路车辆。如果没有“危害认定”，这些针对汽车的温室气体排放规定将不复存在。一旦这一“多米诺骨牌”倒下，其他如电厂污染等气候法规也可能随之瓦解。
然而，政府的任何行动都不简单。以下是三种可能的结局，但可以确定的是，诉讼将不可避免。
结局一：废除“危害认定”被阻止
环保组织认为，特朗普政府废除“危害认定”的理由在科学和法律上都不充分。他们指出，大量研究已经证明，燃烧汽油和柴油等燃料产生的温室气体正在加剧全球变暖，进而导致极端高温、地面臭氧污染增加、过敏原浓度上升以及更严重的天气事件。这些证据在2009年就已经确立，近年来也愈发明确。环保署有责任保护美国人的健康，而监管温室气体显然属于其职责范围。特朗普政府可能会辩称这些证据过于模糊，但生物多样性中心的丹·贝克指出，这属于“地平说科学”。他说：“他们实际上是在说，这些科学证据是骗局。”
多年来，“危害认定”在联邦法院的法律挑战中一直站稳脚跟。哥伦比亚大学气候变迁法中心的迈克尔·伯格表示：“从法律角度来看，‘危害认定’和环保署的监管权已经确立。”挑战废除“危害认定”的诉讼可能最终回到最高法院。虽然2023年推翻“罗诉韦德案”的决定表明最高法院有可能打破先例，但目前6-3的共和党多数尚未表明他们认为2007年的决定是错误的。西拉俱乐部的高级律师安德烈斯·雷斯特雷波表示，在涉及具体法律的案件中，最高法院通常会维持之前的裁决。他说：“我认为政府在最高法院上很难赢得这场官司。”
如果特朗普政府失败，“危害认定”得以保留，他们将不得不制定新的温室气体排放法规。但雷斯特雷波认为，特朗普政府可能会试图绕过这一要求，出台最宽松的标准。他说：“在这种情况下，我们将准备挑战这些法规。”
结局二：废除“危害认定”成功
如果法院支持特朗普政府的废除决定，政府将不再监管温室气体排放。但这并不意味着大污染企业可以高枕无忧。联邦气候法规曾是社区对化石燃料、电力和汽车公司提起诉讼的替代途径。一旦“危害认定”被废除，企业可能面临来自小团体的新一轮法律诉讼。雷斯特雷波表示：“如果特朗普政府真的废除了这一认定，这将消除大公司面临的法律责任保护。”他补充说：“我认为他们实际上会增加行业面临的重大法律风险，而许多行业人士对此感到担忧。”
然而，即使特朗普最终成功废除“危害认定”，这一决定也不太可能长期维持。
结局三：这场令人沮丧的“乒乓球”游戏继续
两年后将举行下一次总统选举，气候政策的天平可能会再次转向。一位民主党总统可能会撤销特朗普的政策。雷斯特雷波表示：“这将是未来政府的第一项任务。”
造成这一监管反复的根本原因是，国会从未通过一部专门针对温室气体排放的法律，而是在1970年代通过了针对传统空气污染物的法律。因此，每次民主党试图进行气候监管时，都不得不依赖一部原本并非为此设计的法律。缺乏专门法律，限制温室气体排放的努力将始终受到政治意愿的影响。
恢复“危害认定”需要重新启动一个过程，下一届政府必须再次发布通知并进行公众意见征集，这也将面临司法审查。这种长期的、繁琐的“乒乓球”式较量，正在剥夺美国人采取有效行动应对真实健康威胁的机会，同时使他们的生活成本上升。
尽管美国在过去20年中在控制气候变化方面取得了一定进展，但主要归功于市场驱动的煤炭发电减少和效率提升。如果在这些争论期间，汽车和电厂的气候污染限制得以实施，减排速度将更快。然而，目前许多碳排放源也同时排放对健康有直接影响的污染物。
在特朗普的第一个任期中，其环保署曾指出，削弱温室气体法规将导致每年数百例过早死亡和数万例哮喘发作。这种反复无常对特朗普政府试图扶持的行业也造成了损害。汽车和电力行业通常更倾向于宽松的污染法规，但法规频繁变动反而更糟糕。汽车制造商正在为2030年代设计新车，但目前尚不清楚他们将面临哪些法规，这增加了不确定性并提高了成本。美国汽车制造商还希望在其他国家销售汽车，而这些国家有自己的气候法规和电动车要求。如果他们放缓向更高效和电动化的方向发展，将失去竞争力。
同样，电力公司需要投资数十亿美元建设发电厂，这些投资将在数十年内收回。法规的频繁变化使他们难以制定商业计划，甚至可能导致电力价格上涨。
环保署称，废除“危害认定”是为美国人节省开支的策略，因为更严格的污染标准会提高车辆和电力生产的成本。然而，更严格的汽车排放限制可以提高燃油效率，从而减少驾驶者的燃料支出。汽油已经是大多数美国家庭最大的能源开支。特朗普政府还试图复兴美国煤炭行业，但燃煤电厂因成本高于天然气和可再生能源而逐渐关闭。
所有这些反复无常对各方都令人沮丧，尤其是对限制气候变化的努力。伯格表示：“当然，这一切都不理想。你希望有一个稳定的、符合科学要求的温室气体减排状态，但这就是我们目前的处境。”要实现持久的气候行动，可能需要专门的立法，但国会短期内不太可能通过此类措施。在那之前，气候行动倡导者只能使用现有的不完善工具，努力构建他们想要的世界。
The Trump administration is about to tear down a load-bearing ruling that considers climate change as a threat to Americans’ health.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency is announcing that it will publish its final rule to dismantle the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases — the legal foundation of the EPA’s major US climate regulations. But when it comes to climate regulation, a final rule is not the final word, and the move means frustrating uncertainty for industry, for the environment, and for ordinary people.
This is the culmination of a long campaign for President Donald Trump and his allies to undo climate change regulations. The endangerment finding — which an EPA spokesperson described to Vox in an email as “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history” — was name-checked as a target in Project 2025. Last year, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote that repealing these rules would drive “a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.”
The tale of the endangerment finding is its own saga. In 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if they harm public health. In 2009, the EPA under President Barack Obama found that, indeed, gases that heat up the planet endanger people’s lives. The fossil fuel industry and Republican-led states have challenged the decision over the years, but federal courts have continued to uphold it.
The most important consequence of this finding is that it justifies tougher pollution limits on cars and trucks. Car companies can then stay within those caps by increasing fuel efficiency or electrifying their fleets. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, the bulk of which come from road vehicles. Without the endangerment finding, these specific regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from cars go away.
Once this domino falls, other climate change regulations like those governing pollution from power plants are likely to fall next.
But of course, nothing the government does is simple.
Here are three possible ways this all could play out — though one thing we know for certain is that there will be lawsuits.
Environmental groups argue that the Trump administration’s justification for the repeal is weak on the science and on the law. And here they have an advantage.
The core of the endangerment finding is that convincing research shows that the heat-trapping gases resulting from burning fuels like gasoline and diesel are warming up the planet. That then leads to consequences like more extreme heat that can worsen ground-level ozone pollution, greater concentrations of allergens like pollen, and more severe weather events.
This was well established in 2009, and in the years since, the connection between climate change and health has only grown stronger. The EPA has a mandate to protect Americans’ health, and if you look at the evidence, regulating greenhouse gases is clearly part of that mandate.
The Trump administration is likely to argue that the evidence for this is too muddled to make that case, but as Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, argues, “This is flat-Earth science.”
“They’re essentially taking robust science that has only become more clear since the endangerment finding was issued and they’re saying that it’s, as Trump puts it, a hoax,” Becker added.
The endangerment finding has withstood numerous legal challenges over the years in federal courts. “The endangerment finding and EPA authority is well established at this point as a legal matter,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
The challenge to the repeal of the endangerment finding may end up back at the Supreme Court. Could the high court buck its own precedent? As the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2023 showed, it’s within the realm of possibility. And as the West Virginia v. EPA decision in 2022 demonstrated, the court is happy to handcuff the EPA’s efforts to address climate change.
However, the current 6-3 Republican majority on the court hasn’t yet hinted that they think the original 2007 decision confirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions was bad law.
Andres Restrepo, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club, said that in cases dealing with specific laws like this, the Supreme Court does tend to let prior decisions stand. “I think that ultimately the government before the Supreme Court will be hard-pressed to make a winning case,” Restrepo said.
If the Trump administration loses and the endangerment finding survives, they will be bound by law to come up with regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. But “[the Trump administration] will probably try to get around it and issue the weakest standards possible,” Restrepo said. “In those cases, we’ll be ready to challenge them.”
If the courts side with the Trump administration, the government won’t be in the business of regulating greenhouse gases anymore. That doesn’t necessarily mean that big polluters will be home free, though. Federal climate regulations stood in place of other avenues of litigation from communities against fossil fuel, power, and auto companies. With the endangerment finding gone, businesses could face a new wave of legal action from small parties.
“If the Trump administration indeed goes ahead and removes this endangerment finding, I think that will eliminate that liability shield for major companies,” Restrepo said. “I think that they’re actually going to be exposing industry to significant litigation risk by doing this and I think a lot of people in industry are nervous about that.”
However, even if Trump ultimately succeeds in revoking the endangerment finding, it may not stay buried for long.
In two short years, there will be another presidential election. And the pendulum on climate change could swing back. A Democrat could take the White House and undo Trump’s work to undo the rule. “It would be the first order of business for a future administration to overturn this,” Restrepo said.
The root of the problem that has led to this regulatory back-and-forth is that Congress has never been able to pass a new law to directly regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as it was able to in the 1970s with conventional air pollutants. As a result, every Democratic attempt to regulate climate change has been forced to rely on a law that was never designed to regulate climate change. Without a dedicated law, efforts to limit greenhouse gases will remain vulnerable to political whims.
Getting the ball rolling to reinstate the endangerment finding is its own process. The next administration would have to go through another notice and comment period to reinstate the endangerment finding that would also be subject to judicial review.
This long-running, tedious ping-pong match is robbing Americans of meaningful action against a genuine threat to their health while making their lives more expensive.
Because the two parties can’t agree on the endangerment finding, climate regulations keep getting tied up in court and reversed by new administrations, never getting a real chance to cut emissions. The US has made progress to rein in climate change: its greenhouse gas emissions have declined over the past 20 years. But that was mainly due to the market-driven decline of coal power and gains in efficiency.
If limits on climate pollution from cars and power plants actually took effect during all of these years of squabbling over the regulation, the dropoff would have likely been much faster.
In the meantime, many of the sources of carbon dioxide also emit pollutants that have immediate detrimental effects on health. During Trump’s first term, his EPA found that weakening greenhouse gas regulations would lead to hundreds more premature deaths and tens of thousands more asthma attacks each year.
And all of this capriciousness is damaging to the industries that the Trump administration is trying to boost.
Greenhouse gas-emitting sectors like the auto industry and power generation generally would prefer weaker pollution rules than strong ones, but having the goalposts move every few years is even worse for them. Car companies are already designing cars for the 2030s, but right now it’s not clear what regulations they’ll face, creating uncertainty and raising costs for the auto industry. US carmakers also want to sell their cars in other countries, many of which have their own climate regulations and mandates for electric vehicles. If they pump the brakes in their drive toward greater efficiency and electrification, they become less competitive.
Similarly, power companies have to design plants that require billions of dollars in upfront investment that will be paid back over decades. Constantly changing the rules makes it harder for them to make a business case — and can end up increasing power bills for all of us.
The EPA says that the endangerment finding repeal is part of a strategy to save money for Americans, since stricter pollution standards can raise the price of vehicles and electricity production. But tougher emissions limits on cars improve their efficiency, so drivers would spend less on fuel. Gasoline is already the single-biggest energy expense for most US households.
The Trump administration has also been trying to resuscitate the US coal industry, but coal-fired power plants have been shutting down across the country because they were more expensive than competitors like natural gas and renewable power.
All these stops, starts, and reversals are frustrating for everyone, but particularly for the effort to limit climate change. “Of course, none of this is desirable,” Burger said. “You would want this to be a steady state of reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with what science demands in order to avert scenarios of high impact, but this is where we are.”
Durable action on climate change will likely demand dedicated legislation, but Congress is unlikely to pass any such measure anytime soon. Until then, advocates for action on climate change will have to use the imperfect tools they have to build the world they want.
2026-02-12 20:15:00
2026年1月30日，科罗拉多州丹佛市发生了一场反对美国移民与海关执法局（ICE）的抗议活动。| Mark Makela 通过 Getty 图片提供。我们以公共服务的方式让所有读者都能阅读到这个故事。支持我们的新闻报道，今天就成为会员。许多美国人对5岁男孩利亚姆·拉莫斯（Liam Ramos）被ICE人员带走的画面感到震惊和不安。这位来自明尼苏达州的幼儿园儿童被拘留，提醒人们，在特朗普政府的大规模驱逐行动中，美国最年幼的孩子们也受到了最深刻的影响。去年，至少有3800名儿童，包括20名婴儿，被移民当局拘留。还有更多儿童因担心亲人被驱逐或拘留而感到恐惧——约有440万名在美国出生的儿童与无证移民父母共同生活。与此同时，所有移民背景的儿童都经历了朋友从教室消失、在课间留在教室里、因催泪瓦斯威胁而感到不安，他们看到戴面罩的人在社区巡逻，也听说有三位母亲在街头被枪杀。这种压力正在影响孩子们。明尼阿波利斯的学区报告称，在ICE活动激增后，学生出勤率下降高达40%。在芝加哥和洛杉矶等城市，也有较小幅度的下降。即使孩子们来上学，阿列亚德琳娜·瓦斯克斯·巴乌尔（Alejandra Vázquez Baur）——国家新移民网络（National Newcomer Network）的联合创始人，也表示：“学生们很难集中注意力。”她说，“他们可能害怕自己，或者害怕父母或兄弟姐妹随时会被带走，再也见不到他们。”儿童医学中心的儿科医生拉赞·布兰（Razaan Bryne）表示，初级保健医生们看到越来越多焦虑症状，如胃痛、如厕训练倒退、害怕离开父母，甚至只是去隔壁房间做视力检查。布兰指出，不仅移民家庭的孩子会感到焦虑，所有背景的儿童都会出现这种情况。她说：“我看到所有我的病人都有这种焦虑，无论他们的背景如何。”目前，许多家庭面临的风险不容忽视。然而，专家表示，父母、教育者和其他成年人可以通过一些方式支持孩子，帮助他们恢复自主感。首先，就是与孩子坦诚交流，不要回避问题。“忽视并不意味着孩子没有经历这些，”瓦斯克斯·巴乌尔说，“这不是仅限于移民家庭的问题，而是所有家庭的问题。”
目前，儿童专家最担心的是那些直接受到移民执法影响的孩子——那些被拘留过、家人被拘留或驱逐过，或者因移民身份而面临拘留或家庭分离风险的孩子。在这些情况下，孩子们不仅会经历短期的恐惧，还可能遭受有毒压力的长期影响，影响大脑发育，导致行为和依恋问题。弗吉尼亚大学公共政策实践教授露西·贝塞特（Lucy Bassett）研究了美国与墨西哥边境儿童的处理方式，她表示：“这些孩子可能经历严重的创伤，研究人员发现，他们曾被与父母分离，导致持续的心理和情感伤害，如创伤后应激障碍。”同时，担心被驱逐的父母自己也可能经历焦虑和抑郁，这会影响他们维持稳定日常和安全感的能力。贝塞特说，当处理孩子的焦虑时，父母“不应承诺无法兑现的事情”。告诉孩子“一切都会好”或“你不用担心”不仅可能不现实，还可能让孩子觉得被忽视。然而，即使在这些极端困难的情况下，父母和其他照顾者仍可以为孩子建立韧性。关键在于了解孩子如何处理自己的处境，使用开放式问题，如“你今天感觉怎么样？”或“和上周相比，感觉有变化吗？”布兰补充说，仅仅知道孩子在想什么、经历什么，并让他们知道可以向你提问，就非常有帮助。
儿童医院洛杉矶分院的临床心理学家娜泰莉·克鲁兹（Natalie Cruz）建议采用一种称为“乐观现实主义”（optimistic realism）的方法：诚实面对现实，同时保持希望。这可能意味着帮助孩子制定一个安全计划，以应对父母或其他家庭成员被拘留的情况。例如，可以指定一位值得信赖的成年人在父母被拘留时照顾孩子，或者了解家庭在移民官员到访时的权利。贝塞特表示，父母可以像为火灾等紧急情况做准备一样，为与移民执法的接触制定计划。目标是让孩子知道：“如果发生不好的事，我不会完全崩溃。”
ICE的活动已经打乱了像明尼阿波利斯这样的城市中许多儿童的日常生活。然而，家庭仍可以在可能的情况下维持一定的规律性，例如在用餐前表达感恩之情。贝塞特说，孩子的睡前习惯也可以成为建立深呼吸或其他放松技巧的机会。布兰建议，父母可以通过在一天中安排“放松时刻”，比如写日记、画画或与亲人视频通话来缓解自己的焦虑。这些平静的活动可以为孩子树立应对压力的榜样。瓦斯克斯·巴乌尔表示，教师也可以通过建立“积极支持的班级文化”来帮助孩子。例如，确保所有学生的作业和作品都展示在墙上，可以提醒他们“他们有值得骄傲的东西”。在一些情况下，父母也会联合起来，一起送孩子上学，以让他们感到安全和支持。
即使是非移民家庭的孩子也受到了移民执法激增的影响。布兰表示，许多有色人种家庭，无论移民身份如何，都表示他们感觉被直接针对。作为有色人种的一员，她自己在“双城”地区“总是高度警觉”，担心“我的肤色是否会引发某人来和我交谈？”与此同时，拥有美国公民身份的白人孩子则与那些家人被驱逐或拘留的孩子一起上课和参加课后活动。布兰说：“他们知道有些事情已经改变了。”关于ICE人员的杀人事件或幼儿园儿童被拘留的消息，对仍在学习理解世界的小孩来说可能非常不稳定。贝塞特表示，他们可能会担心朋友的安全，或对自己的安全感到内疚。父母和其他成年人可以通过将这些感受转化为“赋权与支持”的方式来帮助孩子。例如，孩子可以和同学一起讨论如何成为更好的朋友和支持者。孩子们也可以写信给当地的官员，表达他们对移民执法的看法。此外，通过其他方式帮助社区，也能让孩子们缓解内疚和焦虑。贝塞特说：“有时候，即使不直接相关，只要在世界上做一些善事，就会让人感觉好一些。”
尽管专家们担心持续压力对儿童发育大脑的长期影响，但他们也强调孩子具有很强的恢复能力。贝塞特表示，如果孩子有“一个非常关心他们的成年人，以及一个让他们感到安全的人”，他们就能开始愈合。“这并不意味着一旦发生这样的事，他们就永远无法正常生活。”
We’re making this story accessible to all readers as a public service. Support our journalism by becoming a member today.
Many Americans were shocked and disturbed by the image of 5-year-old Liam Ramos, with his bright blue hat and Spider-Man backpack, being led away by ICE agents. The detention of the Minnesota preschooler was a reminder that, amid the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, the youngest Americans have felt some of the most profound effects.
At least 3,800 children, including 20 infants, were detained by immigration authorities last year. Many more live in fear that their loved ones could be deported or detained — about 4.4 million children born in the United States live with an undocumented immigrant parent.
Meanwhile, children of all immigration statuses have had friends disappear from their classrooms or have stayed inside at recess because of the threat of tear gas; they’ve seen masked men patrolling their neighborhoods and heard about a mother of three gunned down in the street.
The stress is taking its toll on kids. School districts in Minneapolis have reported drops in attendance as high as 40 percent after surges in ICE activity, with smaller reported declines in places like Chicago and Los Angeles during immigration operations. Even when they do come to school, “students are having a really hard time paying attention,” said Alejandra Vázquez Baur, co-founder of the National Newcomer Network, a coalition that works on behalf of immigrant students. “They’re afraid for themselves, or maybe they’re afraid for a parent or a sibling who could at any moment be picked up and they will never see them again.”
Primary care doctors are seeing more symptoms of anxiety, from stomachaches, to potty-training regressions, to fear of leaving a parent, even just to go to the next room for a vision test, said Razaan Bryne, a pediatrician at Children’s Minnesota health system.
It’s not just kids from immigrant families who are experiencing anxiety, Byrne said. “I am seeing it across the board with all of my patients of all backgrounds,” Byrne said.
There’s no sugarcoating the risk that many families around the country are facing right now. Still, experts say there are ways for parents, educators, and other adults to support kids and give them back a sense of autonomy during frightening, unpredictable times. It starts with talking to them about what’s going on and not trying to sweep it under the rug.
“Ignoring it doesn’t mean that the child is not experiencing it,” Vázquez Baur said. “This is not just an issue for immigrant families, it’s an issue for all families.”
The children experts worry most about right now are those directly affected by immigration enforcement — those who have been detained, who have had family members detained or deported, or who are at real risk of experiencing detention or family separation due to their immigration status.
In these situations, children can suffer not only from short-term fear but from the lasting effects of toxic stress, which can affect brain development and cause behavioral and attachment issues, said Lucy Bassett, a professor of practice in public policy at the University of Virginia who has studied the treatment of children at the US-Mexico border.
Indeed, children who were separated from their parents under the first Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy experienced severe trauma, researchers have found, leading to lingering psychological and emotional harms like post-traumatic stress disorder.
Meanwhile, parents who are worried about deportation may themselves experience anxiety and depression, which affects their ability to maintain consistent routines and a feeling of safety for their kids, Bassett said.
When it comes to responding to a child’s anxiety, parents “should never promise something that can’t be promised,” Byrne said. Telling kids “everything’s going to be okay” or “you have nothing to worry about” isn’t just potentially unrealistic, it can also feel dismissive to a child.
Even in these extremely difficult circumstances, however, parents and other caregivers can set their kids up for resilience. It starts with finding out how a child is processing their situation, using open-ended questions like “how are you feeling today?” and “has that changed since last week?” Byrne said. Just knowing what your kid is thinking and experiencing, and making clear that they can come to you with questions, is incredibly helpful, Byrne added.
Natalie Cruz, a clinical psychologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, recommends an approach called “optimistic realism”: being honest while maintaining a sense of hope. That could mean focusing on ways a child can get a little more control over the situation, such as by helping create a safety plan for what would happen if a parent or other family member is detained.
Organizations like the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and United We Dream offer resources for making a safety plan (in English and Spanish), which can include designating a trusted adult to care for children if a parent is detained, as well as information about families’ rights if immigration officials come to their home.
Parents can make a plan with children for encounters with immigration enforcement just as they’d plan for other emergencies, like a fire, Bassett said. The goal is for children to know that “if something bad happens, I’m not going to go into complete overwhelm.”
ICE activity has upended the routines of daily life for many children in cities like Minneapolis. But families can still maintain a sense of predictability where possible by enjoying rituals like expressing gratitude before mealtime, Bassett said. A child’s bedtime routine can also be a time to build in deep breathing or other relaxation techniques.
Parents can cope with their own anxiety by carving out “areas of respite in your day,” perhaps journaling, drawing, or FaceTiming loved ones, Byrne said. Engaging in calming activities can help model for kids what coping with stress looks like.
Teachers can also help by creating a “class culture that is affirming and supportive,” Vázquez Baur said. Making sure everyone’s work is displayed on the walls, for example, can help remind students “that they have something to be proud of.”
In some cases, parents have also banded together for joint walks to and from school to make children affected by immigration crackdowns feel safe and supported.
Even kids from non-immigrant families have been affected by surges in immigration enforcement. “Families of color have expressed to me, regardless of status, that they feel like they’re directly targeted,” Byrne said. As a person of color herself, she’s been “walking around in the Twin Cities feeling hyperaware,” wondering, “could the color of my skin trigger someone to come talk to me?”
White kids with citizenship, meanwhile, are “in the same classrooms and after-school programs” as kids whose family members have been deported or detained, Byrne said. “They know something has changed.”
News of killings by ICE agents or preschoolers held in detention facilities can be destabilizing for young people who are still trying to understand the world, Bassett said. They may worry about their friends or feel guilty about their own relative safety.
Parents and other adults can help by reframing these feelings into an “empowerment and support approach,” Bassett said. Maybe a child could brainstorm ways to be a good friend and ally to classmates who are more directly affected. Kids can also write to their local elected officials to share their views on immigration enforcement.
Volunteering to help their community in other ways can also help young people with feelings of guilt and anxiety, Bassett said. “Sometimes just doing good in the world in some way, even if it’s not directly related, can feel good.”
As much as experts worry about the long-term effects of ongoing stress on children’s developing brains, they also emphasize that kids are resilient.
Children who have had a traumatic experience with immigration enforcement can begin to heal if they have “a really caring adult in their life and someone with whom they can feel safe,” Bassett said. “It isn’t like once this happens, they’re lost, they’ll never be functioning well again.”
2026-02-12 20:00:00
2月11日，交易员在纽约证券交易所交易大厅工作。| Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
这则故事出自《Today, Explained》每日新闻简报，旨在帮助你理解当天最值得关注的新闻和故事。点击此处订阅。
昨日发布的最新美国就业报告显示，情况喜忧参半。在Vox员工的Slack频道中，高级编辑Benjy Sarlin将其描述为一种“既/又”的局面：最新数据表明，上个月的就业人数高于经济学家的预期，但过去一年的就业增长却非常低迷。这种矛盾的现实凸显了我们当前经济状况的奇特之处。虽然整体经济在增长，但大多数普通民众并未感受到这种繁荣。就业市场依然疲软，最新就业报告也反映了这一点。经济收益主要流向企业及股东，而非普通劳动者。与此同时，就业成本问题已成为大多数美国人最关心的政策议题之一。
周二，一项新的盖洛普民调显示，美国成年人对未来的乐观情绪降至历史最低点：目前有四成美国人认为，五年后他们的生活会比现在更糟糕。这种分歧的叙述——一方面劳动者感到悲观和焦虑，另一方面整体经济却在扩张——揭示了唐纳德·特朗普总统执政下美国经济的真实状况。顺便一提，他的政府正将最新的就业报告称为“突破性的、打破预期的胜利”。（我们稍后会探讨这种夸张的说法。）
其他新闻方面，我的Vox同事正在关注埃尔帕索机场的突然关闭和重新开放，这一事件短暂而无必要地引发了人们对于美国可能对墨西哥发动袭击的担忧。我们也在关注加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省发生的枪击案，造成九人死亡，以及亚利桑那州仍在寻找失踪的南希·古思里。但今天早上，让我们聚焦于最新就业报告，以及它所揭示的当前经济状况的矛盾性。
“不是衰退，但已接近衰退”
美国劳工部每月都会发布新的就业数据，但2月的报告是今年最大的一次。在此次报告中，该机构不仅提供了月度的就业增长、平均工资和失业率等数据，还更新了过去一年的数据，使其更加全面和准确。因此，昨日发布的就业报告具有重要意义。
经济学家们几个月来一直抱怨美国就业市场的低迷。然而，1月份美国经济新增了13万个就业岗位——虽然按历史标准来看不算“突破性”数字，但高于经济学家（尽管预期较低）的预测。与此同时，对去年数据的调整表明，2025年就业情况比经济学家预想的还要糟糕。正如经济学家贾斯汀·沃尔弗斯周三所言，这“不是真正的衰退，但已经非常接近了”。
全年来看，美国经济仅新增了18.1万个就业岗位，这是自2003年以来，除衰退年份外最糟糕的一年。去年1月、6月、8月和10月，美国实际上失去的就业岗位多于新增的。这很奇怪，因为根据其他指标，美国经济表现良好：股市创历史新高，上一季度经济增长强劲。然而，即便在这样的繁荣背景下，大多数行业仍未积极招聘。事实上，如果不是医疗保健及相关行业持续招聘，美国在2025年本会失去更多就业岗位。（毕竟，我们国家的人口正在老龄化！）
即使在1月，情况有所稳定，超过60%的新增就业岗位也来自医疗保健及相关行业。与此同时，经济在金融服务业和政府部门失去了数万个就业岗位，因为上个月一些联邦雇员的延期离职导致这些岗位减少。
正如我的同事希瑟·朗（Heather Long）本月早些时候在Vox上所写的，有三个因素可以解释所谓的“无失业增长繁荣”。理解这些因素对于了解过去一年的经济状况以及未来经济走向至关重要。
首先，缓慢招聘是2022年和2023年过度招聘的修正
在新冠疫情后，消费者活动迅速恢复，企业对劳动力的需求非常旺盛，因此在疫情初期企业过度招聘。然而，正如“物极必反”，企业领导者现在正在“调整规模”，招聘速度放缓。
特朗普激进且不稳定的政策举措导致一些雇主暂停招聘
特朗普对进口商品实施了自1930年代以来最高的关税，引发了广泛的不确定性，促使一些企业暂停招聘或裁员。此外，他减少了合法移民，并启动了大规模驱逐计划，这在某些行业限制了劳动力供应。他的努力大幅削减了联邦雇员数量，成效显著。
一些公司投资人工智能而非人力
尽管目前尚无确凿证据表明人工智能正在取代工作岗位，但它确实影响了企业的招聘决策。去年，企业大量投入资金用于人工智能和机器人技术，这表明他们减少了对招聘真实员工的投资。这一因素可能在2026年变得更加重要。
如我的同事埃里克·利维茨（Eric Levitz）今天早上所指出的，许多技术专家预计，随着像Anthropic的Claude Code和OpenAI的Codex这样的自主AI工具的出现，与人工智能相关的岗位流失将加剧。他写道：“几乎没有疑问，自主AI将重塑白领经济。”换句话说，尽管上个月招聘情况趋于稳定，但这种稳定可能不会持续太久。这又是一个“既/又”的局面。
This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.
The latest US jobs report came out yesterday, and it paints a mixed picture. In the Vox employee Slack, senior editor Benjy Sarlin explained it to us as a bit of a “both/and” situation: The very latest numbers, for last month, came in higher than economists expected — and job growth over the past year was dismal.
Those simultaneous realities help underscore the strangeness of our current economic moment. While the economy is growing overall, that prosperity isn’t felt by most ordinary people. Hiring remains lackluster-to-fine, as this latest jobs report shows. Economic gains flow overwhelmingly to businesses and shareholders, not workers. Affordability, meanwhile, ranks among most Americans’ biggest policy concerns.
On Tuesday, a striking new Gallup poll found that optimism has cratered to record lows among US adults: Today, four in 10 people believe their life will be worse in five years than it is now.
Those diverging narratives — the pessimism and anxiety workers feel, on one hand, and the top-line expansion on the other — say a lot about the true state of the economy under President Donald Trump. Incidentally, his administration is trumpeting the latest jobs report as a “blockbuster, expectation-shattering” triumph. (We’ll get to that hyperbole in a moment.)
In other news, my Vox colleagues are following the abrupt closure and reopening of the El Paso airport, which briefly and needlessly stoked fears that the US could initiate strikes in Mexico. We’re also watching the news out of British Columbia, where nine people were killed in a mass shooting on Tuesday, and out of Arizona, where the search for Nancy Guthrie continues.
But this morning, let’s focus on the latest jobs report and what it tells us about the current, paradoxical economic moment.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics drops new jobs numbers each month, but the February report is the biggest of the year.
In that release, the agency not only provides monthly estimates for things like job gains, average earnings, and unemployment, but also updates all of the past year’s numbers with more comprehensive, year-end data.
On both of those fronts, the jobs report released yesterday was a pretty big deal. Economists have for months bemoaned the sorry state of hiring in the US.
In January, however, the US economy added 130,000 jobs — not a “blockbuster” number, by historical standards, but above economists’ (admittedly low) expectations.
At the same time, the adjustments to last year’s numbers made it clear that 2025 was an even worse year for jobs than economists anticipated. It’s “not quite a recession,” the economist Justin Wolfers said on Wednesday, “but not far above it.”
Over the course of the entire year, the economy added just 181,000 positions — making it the worst year for hiring, outside a recession, since 2003. In January, June, August, and October of last year, the US actually lost more jobs than it gained.
That’s pretty wild, given that — according to other measures — the economy is doing well: The stock market is at record highs, and growth was very strong last quarter. Even amid that boom, however, most industries haven’t been hiring. In fact, the US would have lost jobs in 2025 if it weren’t for gains in health care and related fields, where companies are always and forever hiring. (We’re not getting any younger, as a nation!)
Even in January, when things appeared to stabilize a bit, over 60 percent of the job growth came from those sectors. Meanwhile, the economy lost tens of thousands of jobs in financial services and government, as federal workers who took deferred resignations came off the payroll last month.
As the economist Heather Long wrote for Vox earlier this month, three factors help explain the so-called “jobless boom.” Understanding those factors is key to understanding not only the past year, but where the economy is headed next.
1. First, slow hiring was a correction from 2022 and 2023. Companies went a bit overboard with hiring in the immediate aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, when consumer activity surged back to life and demand for workers was intense. But what goes up has to come down, and business leaders are “right-sizing” their staff by hiring more slowly.
2. Trump’s dramatic (and erratic) policy moves caused some employers to pump the brakes. Trump slapped incoming goods with the highest tariffs since the 1930s, creating widespread uncertainty that encouraged some businesses to stop hiring or lay off employees. The president also cut down on legal immigration and launched a mass deportation program, which has constrained the supply of available workers in some fields. And his efforts to slash the size of the federal workforce have been enormously successful.
3. Some companies invested in AI over human employees. There isn’t much proof that AI is actually replacing jobs yet, but it definitely plays into firms’ hiring decisions. Companies poured a ton of cash into AI and robots last year, which suggests they invested less money in hiring actual humans.
This last factor might prove especially pertinent in 2026. As my colleague Eric Levitz observed this morning, many technologists expect AI-related job displacement to intensify and accelerate with the advent of agentic AI tools like Anthropic’s Claude Code and OpenAI’s Codex. “There’s little question that agentic AI is going to reshape the white-collar economy,” he wrote.
In other words, hiring may very well have stabilized last month… and that stability may not last terribly long. Consider it another “both/and” situation.