Instagram Story Save

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” isn’t just “a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm”; a growing number of its leaders are sincere in their misogynistic beliefs, and would want to enact policy based on those beliefs if given the chance, Helen Lewis argues.

“Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys,” Lewis writes.

At the link in our bio, Lewis shares what she learned in conversations with people at the forefront of “masculnism”—and she explores how a movement aimed at limiting women’s participation in public life became the cornerstone of Trumpism.

🎨: The Atlantic. Sources: Lindsey Wasson / AP; Jacquelyn Martin / AP; Courtesy of New Culture Forum; Heritage Foundation)

“Masculinism” is uniting an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys who are pushing back against the advances of feminism, Helen Lewis reports in our June cover story.⁠
⁠
“In the past decade, one of the New Right’s major challenges has been to retrofit a consistent ideology onto the electoral power of Donald Trump,” Lewis writes. “Masculinism has been a great gift, because factions with different views on, say, protectionism or Israel or Big Tech can all agree on the overreach of feminism and the need for a return to traditional gender roles. Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right.”⁠
⁠
“This is a movement with real policy goals,” Lewis writes. “The rollback of no-fault divorce. Tax breaks to reward male breadwinners and female homemakers. An end to anything with a whiff of DEI, even leadership programs for women in the military,” like one cut by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “A return to the workplace culture of the 1970s, where sexual harassment was normalized. An open preference for male employees in hiring, promotion, and pay awards—in other words, affirmative action for men.”⁠
⁠
“A growing number of powerful allies are sincere in these beliefs, and would want to enact them if given the chance,” Lewis continues. “Masculinism is both serious and silly, sometimes camp and sometimes chilling, an attention-grabbing performance and a genuine proposition.”⁠
⁠
Read The Atlantic’s June cover story at the link in our bio.⁠

🎨: @lizziehrt

“Masculinism” is uniting an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys who are pushing back against the advances of feminism, Helen Lewis reports in our June cover story.⁠
⁠
“In the past decade, one of the New Right’s major challenges has been to retrofit a consistent ideology onto the electoral power of Donald Trump,” Lewis writes. “Masculinism has been a great gift, because factions with different views on, say, protectionism or Israel or Big Tech can all agree on the overreach of feminism and the need for a return to traditional gender roles. Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right.”⁠
⁠
“This is a movement with real policy goals,” Lewis writes. “The rollback of no-fault divorce. Tax breaks to reward male breadwinners and female homemakers. An end to anything with a whiff of DEI, even leadership programs for women in the military,” like one cut by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “A return to the workplace culture of the 1970s, where sexual harassment was normalized. An open preference for male employees in hiring, promotion, and pay awards—in other words, affirmative action for men.”⁠
⁠
“A growing number of powerful allies are sincere in these beliefs, and would want to enact them if given the chance,” Lewis continues. “Masculinism is both serious and silly, sometimes camp and sometimes chilling, an attention-grabbing performance and a genuine proposition.”⁠
⁠
Read The Atlantic’s June cover story at the link in our bio.⁠

🎨: @lizziehrt

On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, received a connection request on Signal, an encrypted messaging service, from a user identified as “Michael Waltz” (Michael Waltz is the name of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser). Goldberg did not assume it was the real Michael Waltz—it is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

Still, Goldberg accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about some important or newsworthy matter. Two days later, Goldberg was added to a Signal chat group called the “Houthi PC small group.”

In all, the group had 18 members, including “MAR” (the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio), “JD Vance,” “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence), “Scott B” (apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent), and “Pete Hegseth.”

On March 14, Goldberg witnessed a detailed policy debate (screenshots of which are shared above). The next morning, explicit operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing, were shared by the account labeled “Pete Hegseth.”

After receiving the first messages, Goldberg still couldn’t believe that the text chain could be legitimate. But once bombs dropped in Yemen and members of the group celebrated in the chat, Goldberg concluded that the chat was almost certainly real. Today, a spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the Signal group was, in fact, authentic.

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg writes. By coordinating national-security-related action over Signal, Waltz may have violated the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris for this story. Waltz may have also violated federal records law by setting some of the messages to automatically delete after a certain amount of time. Read more at the link in our bio.

On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, received a connection request on Signal, an encrypted messaging service, from a user identified as “Michael Waltz” (Michael Waltz is the name of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser). Goldberg did not assume it was the real Michael Waltz—it is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

Still, Goldberg accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about some important or newsworthy matter. Two days later, Goldberg was added to a Signal chat group called the “Houthi PC small group.”

In all, the group had 18 members, including “MAR” (the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio), “JD Vance,” “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence), “Scott B” (apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent), and “Pete Hegseth.”

On March 14, Goldberg witnessed a detailed policy debate (screenshots of which are shared above). The next morning, explicit operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing, were shared by the account labeled “Pete Hegseth.”

After receiving the first messages, Goldberg still couldn’t believe that the text chain could be legitimate. But once bombs dropped in Yemen and members of the group celebrated in the chat, Goldberg concluded that the chat was almost certainly real. Today, a spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the Signal group was, in fact, authentic.

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg writes. By coordinating national-security-related action over Signal, Waltz may have violated the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris for this story. Waltz may have also violated federal records law by setting some of the messages to automatically delete after a certain amount of time. Read more at the link in our bio.

On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, received a connection request on Signal, an encrypted messaging service, from a user identified as “Michael Waltz” (Michael Waltz is the name of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser). Goldberg did not assume it was the real Michael Waltz—it is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

Still, Goldberg accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about some important or newsworthy matter. Two days later, Goldberg was added to a Signal chat group called the “Houthi PC small group.”

In all, the group had 18 members, including “MAR” (the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio), “JD Vance,” “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence), “Scott B” (apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent), and “Pete Hegseth.”

On March 14, Goldberg witnessed a detailed policy debate (screenshots of which are shared above). The next morning, explicit operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing, were shared by the account labeled “Pete Hegseth.”

After receiving the first messages, Goldberg still couldn’t believe that the text chain could be legitimate. But once bombs dropped in Yemen and members of the group celebrated in the chat, Goldberg concluded that the chat was almost certainly real. Today, a spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the Signal group was, in fact, authentic.

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg writes. By coordinating national-security-related action over Signal, Waltz may have violated the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris for this story. Waltz may have also violated federal records law by setting some of the messages to automatically delete after a certain amount of time. Read more at the link in our bio.

On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, received a connection request on Signal, an encrypted messaging service, from a user identified as “Michael Waltz” (Michael Waltz is the name of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser). Goldberg did not assume it was the real Michael Waltz—it is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

Still, Goldberg accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about some important or newsworthy matter. Two days later, Goldberg was added to a Signal chat group called the “Houthi PC small group.”

In all, the group had 18 members, including “MAR” (the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio), “JD Vance,” “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence), “Scott B” (apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent), and “Pete Hegseth.”

On March 14, Goldberg witnessed a detailed policy debate (screenshots of which are shared above). The next morning, explicit operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing, were shared by the account labeled “Pete Hegseth.”

After receiving the first messages, Goldberg still couldn’t believe that the text chain could be legitimate. But once bombs dropped in Yemen and members of the group celebrated in the chat, Goldberg concluded that the chat was almost certainly real. Today, a spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the Signal group was, in fact, authentic.

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg writes. By coordinating national-security-related action over Signal, Waltz may have violated the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris for this story. Waltz may have also violated federal records law by setting some of the messages to automatically delete after a certain amount of time. Read more at the link in our bio.

On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, received a connection request on Signal, an encrypted messaging service, from a user identified as “Michael Waltz” (Michael Waltz is the name of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser). Goldberg did not assume it was the real Michael Waltz—it is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

Still, Goldberg accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about some important or newsworthy matter. Two days later, Goldberg was added to a Signal chat group called the “Houthi PC small group.”

In all, the group had 18 members, including “MAR” (the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio), “JD Vance,” “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence), “Scott B” (apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent), and “Pete Hegseth.”

On March 14, Goldberg witnessed a detailed policy debate (screenshots of which are shared above). The next morning, explicit operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing, were shared by the account labeled “Pete Hegseth.”

After receiving the first messages, Goldberg still couldn’t believe that the text chain could be legitimate. But once bombs dropped in Yemen and members of the group celebrated in the chat, Goldberg concluded that the chat was almost certainly real. Today, a spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the Signal group was, in fact, authentic.

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg writes. By coordinating national-security-related action over Signal, Waltz may have violated the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris for this story. Waltz may have also violated federal records law by setting some of the messages to automatically delete after a certain amount of time. Read more at the link in our bio.

One of the most underrated yet effective ways to combat crime prevention may also be one of the most affordable, Elizabeth Glazer argues.⁠
⁠
In 2014, Glazer worked for then–New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as a criminal-justice adviser. Each week, they would meet with the police commissioner to discuss measures to address a surge in violence across the city’s public-housing developments—without aggressively detaining people.⁠
⁠
One solution they landed on: streetlamps. That summer, de Blasio launched a $210 million initiative that delivered brighter exterior lighting and more than 150 temporary light towers across 15 high-crime public-housing developments. A follow up study found that serious nighttime outdoor crime had consistently dropped in those areas the years since.⁠
⁠
At the link in our bio, Glazer examines how improvements to urban environments can help reduce crime and shape neighborhood life.⁠
⁠
📸: Anastasia Miseyko / Connected Archives

One of the most underrated yet effective ways to combat crime prevention may also be one of the most affordable, Elizabeth Glazer argues.⁠
⁠
In 2014, Glazer worked for then–New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as a criminal-justice adviser. Each week, they would meet with the police commissioner to discuss measures to address a surge in violence across the city’s public-housing developments—without aggressively detaining people.⁠
⁠
One solution they landed on: streetlamps. That summer, de Blasio launched a $210 million initiative that delivered brighter exterior lighting and more than 150 temporary light towers across 15 high-crime public-housing developments. A follow up study found that serious nighttime outdoor crime had consistently dropped in those areas the years since.⁠
⁠
At the link in our bio, Glazer examines how improvements to urban environments can help reduce crime and shape neighborhood life.⁠
⁠
📸: Anastasia Miseyko / Connected Archives

One of the most underrated yet effective ways to combat crime prevention may also be one of the most affordable, Elizabeth Glazer argues.⁠
⁠
In 2014, Glazer worked for then–New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as a criminal-justice adviser. Each week, they would meet with the police commissioner to discuss measures to address a surge in violence across the city’s public-housing developments—without aggressively detaining people.⁠
⁠
One solution they landed on: streetlamps. That summer, de Blasio launched a $210 million initiative that delivered brighter exterior lighting and more than 150 temporary light towers across 15 high-crime public-housing developments. A follow up study found that serious nighttime outdoor crime had consistently dropped in those areas the years since.⁠
⁠
At the link in our bio, Glazer examines how improvements to urban environments can help reduce crime and shape neighborhood life.⁠
⁠
📸: Anastasia Miseyko / Connected Archives

Some of Donald Trump’s favorite world leaders have been bullies and dictators—and the China summit showed again that such men can intimidate and flatter the president into taking their side, even against U.S. interests, Tom Nichols argues.⁠
⁠
When asked whether he had discussed China’s recent cyberattacks and influence operations against U.S. institutions with Xi Jinping, Trump “not only waved the question away but seemed almost eager to absolve China as a nation no better or worse than America,” Nichols writes.⁠
⁠
“This isn’t the first time that Trump has cowered rather than admit a dictatorship is trying to harm the United States,” Nichols notes. During his first term, Trump took Vladimir Putin’s word over the conclusions presented to him by Americans that Russia had tried to meddle in the 2016 election, “a well-substantiated charge that Trump has always hated because it implies that he won the presidency only with foreign help.”⁠
⁠
His remarks about Putin happened after Trump met with the Russian president privately, a risky move that he repeated later in his presidency when he met with Xi in Beijing. “Likewise, when Putin came to Alaska at Trump’s invitation last summer, the presidents again met privately, and Trump again emerged parroting the Russian leader’s talking points,” Nichols continues.⁠
⁠
“Almost any time Trump talks to a foreign strongman, he seems both charmed and intimidated, and ends up defending his autocratic friend rather than his country,” Nichols writes.⁠
⁠
“The president’s supporters defend this sort of fawning over dictators from time to time, saying that Trump is just making deals and playing multidimensional chess,” Nichols continues at the link in our bio. “But nearly a decade of this kind of embarrassing behavior suggests that Trump’s constant equivocations do not reflect strategy or realism. They are instead evidence of his lack of a moral compass—and his meekness in the presence of powerful autocrats.”⁠
⁠
📸: Brendan Smialowski / Getty

Some of Donald Trump’s favorite world leaders have been bullies and dictators—and the China summit showed again that such men can intimidate and flatter the president into taking their side, even against U.S. interests, Tom Nichols argues.⁠
⁠
When asked whether he had discussed China’s recent cyberattacks and influence operations against U.S. institutions with Xi Jinping, Trump “not only waved the question away but seemed almost eager to absolve China as a nation no better or worse than America,” Nichols writes.⁠
⁠
“This isn’t the first time that Trump has cowered rather than admit a dictatorship is trying to harm the United States,” Nichols notes. During his first term, Trump took Vladimir Putin’s word over the conclusions presented to him by Americans that Russia had tried to meddle in the 2016 election, “a well-substantiated charge that Trump has always hated because it implies that he won the presidency only with foreign help.”⁠
⁠
His remarks about Putin happened after Trump met with the Russian president privately, a risky move that he repeated later in his presidency when he met with Xi in Beijing. “Likewise, when Putin came to Alaska at Trump’s invitation last summer, the presidents again met privately, and Trump again emerged parroting the Russian leader’s talking points,” Nichols continues.⁠
⁠
“Almost any time Trump talks to a foreign strongman, he seems both charmed and intimidated, and ends up defending his autocratic friend rather than his country,” Nichols writes.⁠
⁠
“The president’s supporters defend this sort of fawning over dictators from time to time, saying that Trump is just making deals and playing multidimensional chess,” Nichols continues at the link in our bio. “But nearly a decade of this kind of embarrassing behavior suggests that Trump’s constant equivocations do not reflect strategy or realism. They are instead evidence of his lack of a moral compass—and his meekness in the presence of powerful autocrats.”⁠
⁠
📸: Brendan Smialowski / Getty

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told travel executives that he’s serious about curbing international flights to U.S. airports in cities with “sanctuary” policies, which could force airlines to reroute and inflict economic pain, Nick Miroff reports.⁠
⁠
“Last Wednesday, Mullin convened a small group of airline and travel-industry executives at DHS headquarters in Washington and told them he may reduce Customs and Border Protection staffing at major airports that serve sanctuary jurisdictions. Mullin told the executives the locations could include Portland International Airport, in Oregon; New York City–area airports such as John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport; and Washington Dulles International Airport, according to two people with knowledge of the discussion who were not authorized to speak publicly,” Miroff continues. Mullin did not indicate when DHS would begin the pullback, but it would likely occur sometime after the United States finishes hosting the World Cup in July, the two people told Miroff.⁠
⁠
Travel executives are alarmed, and have told DHS that international travelers and cargo cannot be easily routed elsewhere, these people said. The disruption would cause chaos in major U.S. airports and inflict significant economic damage beyond the cities Mullin is seeking to pressure, executives have told the department. Read more at the link in our bio. ⁠
⁠
📷: Jacquelyn Martin / AP⁠

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told travel executives that he’s serious about curbing international flights to U.S. airports in cities with “sanctuary” policies, which could force airlines to reroute and inflict economic pain, Nick Miroff reports.⁠
⁠
“Last Wednesday, Mullin convened a small group of airline and travel-industry executives at DHS headquarters in Washington and told them he may reduce Customs and Border Protection staffing at major airports that serve sanctuary jurisdictions. Mullin told the executives the locations could include Portland International Airport, in Oregon; New York City–area airports such as John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport; and Washington Dulles International Airport, according to two people with knowledge of the discussion who were not authorized to speak publicly,” Miroff continues. Mullin did not indicate when DHS would begin the pullback, but it would likely occur sometime after the United States finishes hosting the World Cup in July, the two people told Miroff.⁠
⁠
Travel executives are alarmed, and have told DHS that international travelers and cargo cannot be easily routed elsewhere, these people said. The disruption would cause chaos in major U.S. airports and inflict significant economic damage beyond the cities Mullin is seeking to pressure, executives have told the department. Read more at the link in our bio. ⁠
⁠
📷: Jacquelyn Martin / AP⁠

“Last month, the Supreme Court set fire to the remnants of the Voting Rights Act, the law that made America a true democracy,” Adam Serwer argues. “Now southern Republicans are annihilating Black political power.”⁠
⁠
In last month’s Louisiana vs. Callais decision, Justice Samuel Alito argued that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in a state whose population is one-third Black was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” while eliminating that district was not. The fact that “black voters have been aligned with the Democratic party,” Alito wrote, actually “undercut” any “showing of intentional racial discrimination because race and politics are so intertwined.” ⁠
⁠
“Thanks to this Supreme Court,” Serwer writes, “so long as Republicans take care not to explicitly announce their intention to discriminate, they may discriminate as much as they like.”⁠
⁠
“Since Barack Obama’s election, conservatives have argued that the VRA’s protections are no longer needed—indeed, that they are themselves racist,” Serwer writes. During a discussion about Section 5 of the law more than a decade ago, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the VRA as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Serwer was in the courtroom, “and heard gasps from the gallery … Until 1965, democracy itself was a ‘racial entitlement’ in America. Much of the Republican Party is trying to make that true once again.”⁠
⁠
“A return to the petty apartheid of Jim Crow segregation is unlikely—modern conservatism seeks the illusion of meritocracy in a rigged system, and de jure segregation would ruin the illusion,” Serwer continues. “What we are unquestionably seeing, however, is an evolution of Jim Crow–era disenfranchisement, the purpose of which is to shape the electorate into one where inequalities of wealth, race, and gender can be maintained with a veneer of democratic consent.”⁠
⁠
📸: Bettman / Getty

“Last month, the Supreme Court set fire to the remnants of the Voting Rights Act, the law that made America a true democracy,” Adam Serwer argues. “Now southern Republicans are annihilating Black political power.”⁠
⁠
In last month’s Louisiana vs. Callais decision, Justice Samuel Alito argued that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in a state whose population is one-third Black was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” while eliminating that district was not. The fact that “black voters have been aligned with the Democratic party,” Alito wrote, actually “undercut” any “showing of intentional racial discrimination because race and politics are so intertwined.” ⁠
⁠
“Thanks to this Supreme Court,” Serwer writes, “so long as Republicans take care not to explicitly announce their intention to discriminate, they may discriminate as much as they like.”⁠
⁠
“Since Barack Obama’s election, conservatives have argued that the VRA’s protections are no longer needed—indeed, that they are themselves racist,” Serwer writes. During a discussion about Section 5 of the law more than a decade ago, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the VRA as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Serwer was in the courtroom, “and heard gasps from the gallery … Until 1965, democracy itself was a ‘racial entitlement’ in America. Much of the Republican Party is trying to make that true once again.”⁠
⁠
“A return to the petty apartheid of Jim Crow segregation is unlikely—modern conservatism seeks the illusion of meritocracy in a rigged system, and de jure segregation would ruin the illusion,” Serwer continues. “What we are unquestionably seeing, however, is an evolution of Jim Crow–era disenfranchisement, the purpose of which is to shape the electorate into one where inequalities of wealth, race, and gender can be maintained with a veneer of democratic consent.”⁠
⁠
📸: Bettman / Getty

Everlane’s reported sale to the fast-fashion giant Shein shows the limits of trusting corporations to maintain ethical standards, Elizabeth Cline argues. ⁠
⁠
Everlane was founded in the early 2010s on the premise of “radical transparency.” “It told consumers about the factory where their shirt was made and the cost to produce it, down to the labor and markup, which it said was a fraction of the markup of other retailers. It was a brand built on the belief that globalization could work for everyone, and that anybody could shop with their values,” Cline writes. ⁠
⁠
But now the company is $90 million in debt, behind on rent, and facing eviction at its headquarters. The struggling company has reportedly found a buyer that seems antithetical to the values it once said it held: Shein, Cline writes. The online fast-fashion brand is “synonymous with overconsumption and workplace abuses such as child labor,” Cline writes. ⁠
⁠
“The reported Everlane sale seems to underscore how shallow the movement for sustainable fashion was all along: A few companies, on their own, were never going to be enough for substantial change in ethical fashion,” Cline argues at the link in our bio.⁠
⁠
🎨: Smith Collection / Gado / Getty⁠

Everlane’s reported sale to the fast-fashion giant Shein shows the limits of trusting corporations to maintain ethical standards, Elizabeth Cline argues. ⁠
⁠
Everlane was founded in the early 2010s on the premise of “radical transparency.” “It told consumers about the factory where their shirt was made and the cost to produce it, down to the labor and markup, which it said was a fraction of the markup of other retailers. It was a brand built on the belief that globalization could work for everyone, and that anybody could shop with their values,” Cline writes. ⁠
⁠
But now the company is $90 million in debt, behind on rent, and facing eviction at its headquarters. The struggling company has reportedly found a buyer that seems antithetical to the values it once said it held: Shein, Cline writes. The online fast-fashion brand is “synonymous with overconsumption and workplace abuses such as child labor,” Cline writes. ⁠
⁠
“The reported Everlane sale seems to underscore how shallow the movement for sustainable fashion was all along: A few companies, on their own, were never going to be enough for substantial change in ethical fashion,” Cline argues at the link in our bio.⁠
⁠
🎨: Smith Collection / Gado / Getty⁠

The baby-doll dress was a source of moral panic long before Olivia Rodrigo’s latest outfit—and the garment is “just one case study for the way that fashion has traveled between kid and adult closets throughout the centuries,” Valerie Trapp says.

Read more at the link in our bio.

📸: Heritage Images / Contributor, Hulton Archive; Found Image Holdings Inc / Contributor, Corbis Historical; ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor, ullstein bild; London Stereoscopic Company / Stringer, Hulton Archive; Print Collector / Contributor, Hulton Archive; Kirn Vintage Stock / Contributor, Corbis Historical; NBC / Contributor, NBCUniversal; M. McKeown / Stringer, Hulton Archive; Hulton Archive, Hulton Archive; NBC / Contributor, NBCUniversal; Xavi Torrent / Stringer, Getty Images Europe.

The current Ebola epidemic has already surpassed most others in size, and experts expect it to get worse, Katherine J. Wu and Hana Kiros report. At the link in our bio, they examine how a battered global health community is scrambling to respond. ⁠
⁠
📸: Jospin Mwisha / AFP / Getty

The current Ebola epidemic has already surpassed most others in size, and experts expect it to get worse, Katherine J. Wu and Hana Kiros report. At the link in our bio, they examine how a battered global health community is scrambling to respond. ⁠
⁠
📸: Jospin Mwisha / AFP / Getty

Thousands attended the Rededicate 250 rally on the National Mall this past Sunday, standing in line for up to three hours and then sitting under the sun for up to seven. Stephanie McCrummen reports on what the event revealed about where American Christianity is heading.⁠
⁠
Sunday’s rally was part of a series of events celebrating the nation’s anniversary organized by a Donald Trump–aligned nonprofit called Freedom 250, which is funded by a public-private partnership including corporate donors such as Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir, and for which Congress has allocated $150 million.⁠
⁠
“The event was a long-sought triumph for those who came and for millions more grassroots believers who helped elect Trump twice, embracing prophecies that God anointed him for the great spiritual battle against demonic forces that they understand to be animating current events,” McCrummen writes. Many of the attendees considered the event space as an “occupied territory in a cosmic spiritual war,” while others told McCrummen that their participation on Sunday was just one part of a long list of prayer sessions they’ve participated in to “shape the spiritual destiny of the country.”⁠
⁠
The idea for the rally “was the work of the apostles and prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation, a charismatic movement that began gathering momentum in the 1990s and is now the leading edge of the Christian right,” McCrummen writes. “Sunday was a clear display of the influence of the movement, whose leaders were instrumental in mobilizing voters to turn out in recent elections and to take part in the January 6 insurrection, when many people believed that they were taking the U.S. Capitol for God’s kingdom.”⁠
⁠
“Administration officials including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose own theologies do not exactly align with the movement, told stories about God deploying miracles at key moments in the nation’s history, leveraging these anecdotes to argue that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation,” McCrummen continues at the link in our bio. “Historians say this is a clear misunderstanding of the American Revolution.”⁠

Thousands attended the Rededicate 250 rally on the National Mall this past Sunday, standing in line for up to three hours and then sitting under the sun for up to seven. Stephanie McCrummen reports on what the event revealed about where American Christianity is heading.⁠
⁠
Sunday’s rally was part of a series of events celebrating the nation’s anniversary organized by a Donald Trump–aligned nonprofit called Freedom 250, which is funded by a public-private partnership including corporate donors such as Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir, and for which Congress has allocated $150 million.⁠
⁠
“The event was a long-sought triumph for those who came and for millions more grassroots believers who helped elect Trump twice, embracing prophecies that God anointed him for the great spiritual battle against demonic forces that they understand to be animating current events,” McCrummen writes. Many of the attendees considered the event space as an “occupied territory in a cosmic spiritual war,” while others told McCrummen that their participation on Sunday was just one part of a long list of prayer sessions they’ve participated in to “shape the spiritual destiny of the country.”⁠
⁠
The idea for the rally “was the work of the apostles and prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation, a charismatic movement that began gathering momentum in the 1990s and is now the leading edge of the Christian right,” McCrummen writes. “Sunday was a clear display of the influence of the movement, whose leaders were instrumental in mobilizing voters to turn out in recent elections and to take part in the January 6 insurrection, when many people believed that they were taking the U.S. Capitol for God’s kingdom.”⁠
⁠
“Administration officials including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose own theologies do not exactly align with the movement, told stories about God deploying miracles at key moments in the nation’s history, leveraging these anecdotes to argue that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation,” McCrummen continues at the link in our bio. “Historians say this is a clear misunderstanding of the American Revolution.”⁠

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty

Cubans, now under intense economic pressure from the Trump administration, are suffering through prolonged blackouts and fuel shortages that affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

See photos from the island nation at the link in our bio.

📸:1. Ramon Espinosa / AP 2. Norlys Perez / Reuters 3. Adalberto Roque / AFP / Getty 4. Ramon Espinosa / AP 5. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty 6. AFP / Getty 7. Yamil Lage / AFP / Getty