What caused the ongoing outbreak of cyclospora, the diarrhea-causing parasite currently spreading across the United States? Michigan officials have been saying for weeks that they believed the outbreak may be linked to bagged salad or salad kits. What we were waiting to learn was the specific brands and specific products in question. 

And late last week, it looked like we finally had the answer — but then things quickly got cloudy. 

On July 16, the Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources, that the outbreak had been linked to shredded iceberg lettuce supplied to Taco Bell by Taylor Farms. A day later, Taylor Farms said it was withdrawing products from US stores and restaurants based on information from the FDA.

But then on July 19, per NBC News, the FDA said that there had been a false positive for cyclospora when testing a sample of Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce; Taylor Farms said in its own statement that the FDA had “apologized” for the mix-up. The next day, the company and the federal government were stuck in a semantic argument: Per NOTUS, the FDA insisted it did not “officially apologize” to Taylor Farms but “explain[ed] factually the issues” with the false positive. 

So where does that leave us right now? Officials still believe that Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce was the source of the Michigan outbreak. But whether those are the only products driving the outbreak remains unclear, with almost every state now reporting at least one cyclospora case in 2026. And on Thursday afternoon, the FDA announced that it was tracking a second outbreak linked to other unspecific products, though details were otherwise scarce.

Any outbreak of food-borne illness requires careful public communication. Officials need to tell people how to avoid contaminated food without scaring them away from eating fresh fruits and vegetables altogether.

But instead, many Americans have been left wondering what, exactly, they’re supposed to do. As one frustrated Reddit user put it: “So is the damn lettuce bad or not????” (If you need some advice on what foods are safe and what foods to be cautious about, we have a story for you.)

It may sound like a funny question, but it’s a profoundly serious one. The problem isn’t just that people are confused about their lettuce. The Trump administration’s handling of the cyclospora outbreak — from its conflicting public messages to accusations of political favoritism — has left many Americans even more confused about whether they can trust anything they’re hearing from the government. That’s a dangerous place to be during any public health emergency.

The cyclospora outbreak has become a communications nightmare

We are approaching 10,000 cyclosporiasis cases across the US this year: Michigan alone has recorded 7,664 as of this morning, Ohio has seen more than 1,200, and more than 40 states have now reported at least one case in 2026. The country usually sees a few hundred cases at most in a given year. Cyclosporiasis, the disease caused by the cyclospora parasite, leads to what public health experts describe as “watery” and “frequently explosive” diarrhea. While it isn’t typically life-threatening, it can cause serious complications: 160 people have been hospitalized in Michigan since the outbreak began.

And so for those of us who very much hope to eat fresh produce but do not want diarrhea, there’s a bit of urgency to figure out where the cyclospora is coming from. Food-borne illness investigations are already inherently difficult because of how globalized our food supply has become: Produce can travel all over the country and the world before it comes to your grocery shelf, and the process of government health workers interviewing the people who get sick and cross-checking to identify the shared foods that they might have in common is laborious.

Once investigators find a source, the information has to be shared clearly and responsibly. That is where the Trump administration has tripped up this week. 

Trump — and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in particular — came into office criticizing the public health establishment. They accused officials of misleading the public about the novel coronavirus and the vaccines developed to fight it, while failing to convey the nuances of the pandemic. But now, as they grapple with the incomplete picture of the cyclospora emergency, they are making many of the same mistakes.

“They’re very similar problems, even if on the outside, they don’t look quite the same,” said Michael Mackert, director of the Center for Health Communication at the University of Texas at Austin. “The underlying commonality is very much that we are dealing with imperfect information all the time.”

In any outbreak, some uncertainty is to be expected. Investigators have struggled to identify the source of earlier cyclosporiasis outbreaks too. And the FDA maintains that the likely source of the outbreak is Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce, based on the information they have gathered from sick patients and other sources, no matter the false positive result that has sparked so much confusion.

“The epidemiological evidence is so strong that the lack of a positive test is almost meaningless,” said Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. 

But the mistake that the Trump administration made was in sharing preliminary results and then having to issue a seemingly contradictory statement shortly afterward.

“FDA should have waited for confirmation of the presumptive results before going public,” Diez-Gonzalez said.

The larger stakes of the Trump administration’s poor communication

Investigations like these are hard enough — but when you add in the public health funding cuts of the past 18 months and the casual and widespread corruption characteristic of the Trump administration, trust in the government’s public health apparatus has sunk even lower.

It’s created just the conditions for conspiracies to bloom. “Unfortunately our FDA is compromised,” wrote one top commenter on Reddit. “I would not trust what comes out of it during this administration.” 

Several news outlets and influential social media accounts noted that Taylor Farms had donated $1 million to Trump’s MAGA super PAC and, in the middle of the controversy, received a private White House meeting. According to the New York Times, Taylor Farm officials used that meeting to dispute the findings that their products were responsible for the outbreak — and shortly thereafter, the FDA made its “false positive” announcement.

The administration insists that their decision-making is being guided by science, but even the appearance of impropriety has become a common theme in the press coverage. The broader uncertainty and distrust may help to explain why it’s not only Taco Bell and Taylor Farms taking a hit right now: According to Market Watch, Chipotle and the fast-casual salad chain Chopt have also seen a decline in traffic in recent weeks.

Public health requires public confidence. Perceived influence from special interests is a problem, even if the interactions didn’t alter the FDA or CDC’s actions.

Kennedy, who helms our government’s health department, should understand this well: His Make America Healthy Again movement made restoring public trust a central part of its message while accusing the existing public health establishment as being in league with special interests. 

The cyclospora outbreak has revealed how difficult that is to do in practice. 

In trying to communicate nuanced information during an active outbreak — while consulting interested parties like Taylor Farms itself — the administration has instead fueled doubts about the credibility of its messaging

Even before cyclospora turned eating salad into a leap of faith, Trump had a poor track record: His administration has slashed CDC staff, brought on vaccine skeptics to set vaccine policy, and clashed with the scientific establishment on a number of high-profile issues, like the time Trump held a televised press conference to argue a disproven theory that Tylenol can cause autism.

“Unfortunately, this is another example of a missed opportunity to establish credible and trusted communications to prepare the public to understand the real risks from the pathogen and confidence in the food safety and information from the FDA,” Scott Ratzan, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, told me. “Faith in our institutions continues to erode. We could do better.”

We are lucky cyclospora is not a deadly disease. Next time, the stakes for these miscues could be much higher.

This week, OpenAI revealed that one of its AI models broke out into the wild and did a bunch of hinky stuff. How many times do we need to hear this story before someone does something to protect humans?

Dozens of fatalities are being recorded each day in what could become the worst ever outbreak of the haemorrhagic fever

The votes marked the first test of Republican support for the conflict since President Donald Trump resumed military strikes against Tehran this month.

A day after the agreement was signed, the president laid out a new requirement: that the Saudis normalize relations with Israel.

European Union members are looking to keep up pressure on Russia as Ukraine’s outlook improves, even as some countries seek exemptions.

The price of Brent crude, now up about 40 percent this month, surged Thursday after Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen claimed strikes on Saudi tankers.

This story was originally published in The Highlight. To get access to member-exclusive stories like this every month, become a Vox Member today.

Emily Hoffman was walking home from lunch in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Squirrel Hill in February 2023, when a driver turning left struck her on the crosswalk.

Hoffman was 34. By the time paramedics arrived on the scene, she had gone into a traumatic cardiac arrest. They strapped her onto a machine that delivered automated chest compressions and rushed her to UPMC Presbyterian, a major trauma hospital in Pittsburgh.

Over the next several days, doctors performed multiple surgeries, kept Hoffman on a ventilator, and waited until she was stable enough for an MRI. The scans showed multiple strokes and severe traumatic brain injury. She was alive, but her family understood that she was not going to make a meaningful recovery to a life she would have wanted.

The next Thursday, a week after the crash, Emily’s parents and her sister Beth Hoffman met with the care team and decided to remove ventilator support to allow her to die naturally. Organ donation came up only afterward. Emily was already a registered donor, and Beth knew it was what her sister wanted.

For most of the short history of organ transplantation, Emily would not have been the usual kind of organ donor.

Almost all transplanted organs once came from patients who died in one specific and rare way called brain death, in which the brain has irreversibly stopped functioning, even as machines keep the heart beating and the organs supplied with oxygen. Brain death is extraordinarily rare,  but it happens often enough to create a workable — though far from sufficient — supply of life-saving organs.

But Emily was not one of the brain-death donors. Even after the strokes and brain injury, she still had some reflexes. She was dying, but not brain dead.

Her donation followed a different path, one that has transformed American transplantation in the last decade. It is called donation after circulatory death, or DCD. Instead of death being declared because the brain has stopped functioning, in DCD, death is declared after circulation ceases and the heart stops beating. Many more people die this way than by brain death.

Death by circulatory criteria has been legally recognized since the 1980s, but for decades, doctors rarely recovered organs this way, because, once blood stops moving through the body, organs begin to deteriorate within minutes. In recent years, however, new machines and surgical techniques have helped change that, giving doctors the ability to preserve organs outside the body, making DCD far more viable.

↗ Explore the interactive version of this chart.

Hoffman’s donation is hardly an outlier anymore. In the last decade, DCD has gone from a rare practice to something that now accounts for nearly half of all organ donors who have died in the United States. In 2000, DCD donors supplied just 219 organs (kidneys, livers, lungs, hearts, and pancreas combined) to the transplantation system in the US. In 2025, DCD brought in close to 17,000 organs. (Most transplanted organs, about 85 percent, come from dead donors, though some organs, most often kidneys, can also come from living donors.)

That growth has saved lives, but it has also pushed transplant medicine into an unusually sensitive moment: the time after a family has decided to let their loved one die but before death has actually occurred.

In brain-death donation, a patient has already been declared dead before the possibility of donation is raised with the family. Because most brain-dead donors are on ventilators, with machines supplying oxygenated blood to their organs, transplant teams can take their time with the donation process.

DCD doesn’t offer that same cushion. Because organs deteriorate so quickly after circulation ceases, the work of donation — the testing, matching, surgical teams flying in — has to be set in motion once the family has decided to withdraw life support but before the patient has died.

This is where the tension in DCD begins. The process pushes transplantation into the narrow interval between that decision to let someone die and the moment death occurs. It creates a situation with almost no parallel in medicine: one set of hands caring for the dying, even as another prepares to recover and transplant their organs.

The medical system tries to manage that complexity with a strict procedural sequence. First, hospital doctors and family conclude that no treatment will bring the patient back to a life they would have wanted. Only then, and only from a separate team, does the word donation come up. The firewall is in place so that the need for organs never shapes the decision to let someone die. 

“Ethically, you want to make sure that those two are uncoupled,” said Wade Smith, director of the Neurovascular Service at the University of California San Francisco.

But as DCD has scaled up, more weight is put on that narrow interval. What was once a rare event is now routine in hospitals across the country, carried out by teams with different levels of experience and overseen through rules that can vary from one place to another. At the same time, the organizations that handle organ donations are under new federal pressure to acquire and distribute more organs from eligible donors.

DCD has saved thousands of lives by making donations possible from patients who once wouldn’t have been donors. Hoffman’s donation improved several lives at once: Her kidneys went to two men, her liver to a third recipient, and her corneas helped give sight to a nine-month-old baby. 

But its growth has also made the fragile period before death more consequential: how families are told, which steps can be taken while the patient is still alive, how consistently hospitals and organ donation teams follow safeguards, and who has the authority to stop the process if something feels wrong.

When DCD was still rare, these questions stayed at the edges of transplantation. Now, they are moving towards its center, as a lifesaving practice becomes a routine part of how Americans die and donate.

The breakthrough

Modern transplantation is a relatively young field, only about 70 years old. And from the beginning, transplantation has depended on the novel medical achievement of keeping organs functional after a person had been declared dead.

The mechanical ventilator, developed in the 1950s, made that possible. It could keep a body breathing, and its heart beating, even after the brain had stopped for good. That created, for the first time, a situation where patients were deceased by every older measure, even as their organs were still functional.

Surgeons were initially wary of recovering organs, largely because the legal lines between life and death had never been clearly drawn. Then, in 1968, a Harvard committee proposed a definition of brain death. By 1981, a model law gave states the language to recognize two ways of legal death. Your heart and lungs could stop for good (circulatory death) or your entire brain could (brain death). Today, every state recognizes some version of that framework.

With those lines in place, transplant teams could work with more confidence, and brain death turned out to be close to ideal for them. Because a ventilator kept the heart beating and blood moving through the organs, even after death, there was no ticking clock to race against. The hospital staff had time to evaluate the organs, sometimes convince families to donate them, find the right recipients, and bring in surgical teams before recovery began.

The problem was always with the math. Brain death is rare — only about three in 1,000 deaths happen in a way that leaves organs usable for transplant. That puts a hard biological ceiling on how many ideal donors there could ever be.

But demand for the organs had no such ceiling. Nearly a million Americans are diagnosed with heart failure each year, while surgeons performed just 4,636 heart transplants in 2024, after DCD became a widely used part of transplantation, up 81.5 percent from 2013. There are “just not enough organs to go around,” said Ashish Shah, chief of cardiac surgery at Vanderbilt University. The kidney numbers are even bleaker. Over 500,000 people are on dialysis in the US, but only a fraction will ever reach the waiting list, and even among those who do, many will die before receiving a transplant offer, said Dorry Segev, a transplant surgeon and researcher at NYU Langone.

The modern DCD boom grew out of this desperation, presenting the possibility of donation in far more common cases of death that transplantation surgeons had rarely been able to draw on before: catastrophic strokes, car crashes, cardiac arrests, and other injuries that left patients with no meaningful chance of recovery but short of brain death. But with DCD, the clock suddenly became a factor. Once circulation stopped, the organs deteriorated fast, and, in many cases, they were ruined before surgeons could recover them. 

Because of those challenges, DCD stayed marginal for decades, at well under a tenth of all donations. Those numbers ultimately spiked because of several things that happened almost simultaneously.

The first was technological. New machines, like TransMedics’ Organ Care Systems — which were first used in 2015 in the UK — could keep a recovered organ alive outside the body, pumping it with warm, oxygenated blood instead of packing it in ice, allowing a heart to beat and function as normal inside a box. This meant that even if there was delay in recovering an organ, that damage could be limited, even reversed, once the organ was put in the machine. 

Other teams found ways to use machines originally developed to support failing hearts and lungs to restart circulation inside the bodies of donors after death had been declared. Transplant teams in Spain and the UK began adapting that technology before American programs picked it up for DCD hearts around 2019. Both approaches helped extend the time to successfully perform DCD.

“As soon as the results were good, the big American centers took it on,” said John Dimarakis, a cardiac transplant surgeon at the University of Washington.

Policy changes also helped push DCD further. In Hoffman’s case, the donation process was coordinated by CORE, the nonprofit responsible for organ donation in the Pittsburgh region. Organ procurement organizations, or OPOs, cover a particular region in the US, and they work with hospitals in that region to evaluate potential donors, speak with families, arrange testing, and offer organs to transplant centers. There are 54 such OPOs in the US, which are certified and regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 

For years, critics argued that OPOs were judged according to weakly defined standards based on numbers they reported themselves, and poor performers were rarely penalized. But in 2020, new federal rules began ranking them against one another, with a mechanism to strip the worst performers of their territory. Facing the threat of losing their monopolies, many OPOs began pursuing harder cases they would’ve earlier passed over, according to Greg Segal, who founded patient advocacy group Organize. A larger share of those more complicated donors were DCD.

Still, no single force explains the speed of DCD’s rise. “Technology plays a big role in it,” said Nader Moazami, a cardiac surgeon at NYU Langone who helped pioneer one of the new techniques. “But it doesn’t explain how suddenly 50 percent of our donors are DCD.” In 2000, there were only 118 DCD donors in the United States. By 2025, there were 8,137. Brain death donation grew over that same period but far more slowly — from 5,867 donors a year to 8,416.

↗ Explore the interactive version of this chart.

Whatever the mix, it’s clear that DCD has led to more organs, shorter waits, and saved thousands of lives that otherwise would have ended on a list. “People who have been waiting now wait less,” Dimarakis said.

On a chart, it looks like an unambiguous triumph — until you step into a hospital room.

The passage

Beth Hoffman remembers her sister Emily’s last morning. She read aloud an email from Bradley Whitford, Emily’s favorite actor from the TV drama The West Wing, who had written after hearing what had happened. Then, a playlist of Emily’s favorite songs played as the breathing tube came out. Within about 10 minutes, while “For Good” from Wicked filled the room, her sister was gone.

What Beth mostly didn’t see was the second sequence unfolding around her: the referrals, tests, calls, and scheduling that would turn Emily from a dying patient into an organ donor. 

Federal rules require every hospital to alert their organ procurement organization whenever a person may be nearing death. The OPO screens those referrals, and most go nowhere. Alexandra Glazier, who runs the OPO that covers most of New England, says hers get about 50,000 such referrals a year. Only 2 or 3 percent turn out to have any medical possibility of donation at all. 

Emily was one such possible case for her Pittsburgh hospital’s OPO. The organization had to reach out to her family; explain what DCD would involve; and, then, start the work that had to happen while she was still alive: reviewing her medical history, testing whether her organs could be used, matching them to recipients, and arranging the surgical teams who might fly in to recover them.

Most families never see much of that work, but some do. Smith, the UCSF neurologist, watched a family agree to withdraw life support and donate, set a time, and gather relatives for a final goodbye, only to learn that the withdrawal had to wait because the OPO still needed more tests. Some families, after being told their dying relative must stay on machines longer for donation’s sake, walk away.

For the Hoffmans, things proceeded more quietly. When the time came, Emily was wheeled into the operating room, and the breathing tube was removed there. The surgeons who would recover her organs were kept away from the withdrawal and death declaration. They often fly in from their own hospitals — sometimes several at once for different organs — but they’re walled off from everything that comes before. “We are not involved in that process,” said Dimarakis, the cardiac transplant surgeon at the University of Washington, “because it’s not ethical for us to be involved.”

That separation is the line DCD depends on. One team cares for the dying patient, withdraws support, and declares death. The other waits outside that decision and recovers the organs only after. The OPO stands between them, coordinating the donation without letting the firewall be breached.

Then comes the waiting. Once the ventilator is out, the clock starts ticking. If the heart doesn’t stop within a window — often about two hours — the organ recovery may be called off, and the patient is returned to end-of-life care. But when circulation does stop, as it did for Emily, the team counts exactly five more minutes to make sure it won’t restart on its own. Only then can a hospital physician declare death, and only then can the transplant surgeons begin.

DCD rests on a simple promise: The need for organs never causes the death. The death is already coming, and donation only changes what can come from it. 

But a new frontier in DCD complicates that promise.

The reversal

Normally, after death is declared, most DCD organs are removed and preserved outside the body, either on ice or on machines that circulate oxygenated fluid or blood. The goal is to slow the damage that begins the moment circulation stops.

Then, around the mid-2010s, transplant teams in Spain and the UK began using a newer technique that restores circulation inside the dead donor’s body, before the organs are removed. It’s called normothermic regional perfusion, or NRP.

In one version of NRP, called abdominal NRP, blood is meant to be restored only below the diaphragm to preserve organs such as the kidneys and liver. In a more controversial version called thoracoabdominal NRP, it runs through the chest, as well, and the heart starts beating again.

For the transplant team, especially heart surgeons, the appeal is clear. Kidneys and livers can survive a stretch without circulation, but a heart is harder to preserve. Once it has stopped, there’s no easy way to know whether it will beat reliably again. NRP helps answer that question by restarting it inside the donor’s body after death has been declared, where surgeons can watch it work before deciding whether to recover it.

Shah, the Vanderbilt cardiac surgeon, says the technique lets doctors take hearts from donors who otherwise would not be able to yield a workable one.

But this kind of NRP is unsettling for the very reason that it is useful. If a death is declared because the heart has stopped, what does it mean to start it again inside a donor’s body, often only minutes later? Is that still death? Or something else?

The controversy isn’t simply that the heart beats again. A beating heart is not, by itself, the same as a living person. The heart of a brain-dead patient can beat, too, can be kept going by machines, and that doesn’t mean the person is alive. The deeper concern is whether restored circulation in the body could reach the brain, which could potentially restore consciousness.

To prevent blood from reaching the brain, surgeons clamp or cut the vessels that carry blood to the head before circulation is restored. That distinction is central to the defense of NRP, and it lets surgeons say they are restoring circulation and restarting the heart, not the person. 

But those safeguards haven’t always worked. In a safety notice last November, the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), the federal system that oversees transplant policy and data, said it had received “verified reports” that blood had unintentionally reached the brain and brainstem during NRP. Such events are extremely rare, the notice said, but can occur when a clamp fails or blood reaches the head through an unrecognized route. The notice asked transplant programs using either form of NRP to strengthen their safeguards and report any failures. But those recommendations were not national requirements and as of May 2026, the OPTN was still developing formal standards for NRP. For Claire Morgan, a transplant surgeon from North Carolina who has criticized NRP’s rollout, that is a central weakness. “It’s a bulletin. It’s not a policy,” she said. “There’s no punishment for not reporting.”

But even if blood never reaches the brain, NRP can still introduce deeper ambiguity into our understanding of circulatory death. In the first few minutes after a heart stops, it can often be brought back, an event that happens every day in a busy emergency department. In conventional DCD, however, doctors don’t try to restart the heart, because a patient or family has already decided against being revived. It is that decision, not just the stopped heart itself, that turns the moment into a death. The same goes for anyone who dies under a do-not-resuscitate order.

NRP puts pressure on that logic. The circulation declared permanently gone is deliberately brought back. “There’s a misalignment between NRP practices and the legal standard for how death is defined,” said Glazier. You cannot, critics argue, pronounce someone dead because the circulation will never return — and then return it.

Robert Truog, professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, & Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, supports NRP but thinks the possibility of blood returning to the brain is the issue that matters most. “The only questions are, is there a risk of pain or suffering in the procurement of the organs?” he said. And there’s a possibility of that if the circulation is restarted in the brain.

None of this is settled, which is why some hospitals refuse to perform NRP at all. Moazami pioneered the NRP heart technique in the US and practices it at NYU Langone. “But you cannot do it at Columbia,” he said, “just five miles away.” Glazier’s OPO, one of the country’s largest, said her organization has done roughly 650 NRP cases since adopting the practice — but only the abdominal kind, holding off on the heart version until the national protocols are better standardized.

Claire Morgan, a transplant surgeon from North Carolina who has criticized the rollout of NRP, is more worried about what happens if something goes wrong. The donor cannot complain, families may never know if there was a concern, and clinicians who speak up may have limited protection if they challenge what happened in the operating room. 

All of that matters, because NRP is already far from marginal. The Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), the federal system that oversees transplant policy and data, only began collecting data on whether NRP was used in a DCD recovery in October 2025. In the first five months of that reporting, from October 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026, 3,463 DCD donors were recovered nationally, according to data shared by the OPTN with Vox. More than half of those involved NRP; though, OPTN doesn’t collect data on which kind.

Vox’s analysis also found that NRP cases were concentrated among some organ procurement organizations. The top 10 OPOs accounted for 47 percent of all DCD recoveries that used NRP.

The patchwork

The core safeguard in DCD — that the decision to withdraw life support must come before questions about donation — is widely accepted. But many of the details around that sequence that shape a family’s experience, or a patient’s protection, are still handled differently from hospital to hospital, OPO to OPO.

“The entire process of DCD or donor withdrawal is not very standardized across the United States or even within states, even within different hospitals in the same city,” Moazami said.

That can mean differences in what families are told about the donation process, what medications are considered appropriate before death, whether NRP is allowed and how it is performed, and who has the clear authority to pause or stop the process if someone believes something is wrong.

That unevenness matters more now, because the transplant system has been trying, with good reason, to recover more organs. For years, many in the field, and those who depended on it, argued that the organ procurement organizations were leaving transplantable organs on the table. Greg Segal, whose advocacy group Organize helped push for stronger OPO accountability, compared the old system to a canvassing campaign where you only knock on the easiest doors. “The problem with OPOs is they were only doing the much easier ones,” he said.

A 2020 rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that oversees OPOs, was meant to change that. It ranked OPOs against one another and created a path to penalize low performers by stripping them of their territories. That policy appears to have had some impact, but it is hard to separate from other forces driving DCD’s rise including new preservation technology, like NRP and broader clinical adoption. Jeffrey Trageser and Charles Strom from the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the trade group that represents OPOs, argued that the metrics are too broad, evaluating OPOs partly on whether transplant centers ultimately accept organs and not fully accounting for regional differences such as age of potential donors, local rates of cancer, or how far organs must travel to reach transplant centers.

This pressure to recover more organs has also made some OPOs seem more aggressive to the clinicians working besides them. “Some people view them as vultures, which is horrible,” said Smith, the UCSF neurologist who has experienced the tension from the hospital side. “They’re trying to do their job.” Still, he added, “when you impose that [pressure], then it changes how aggressive they are.”

Both things can be true. The old system needed pressure to perform better. And pressure can create risks, or perceived risks, in a process that depends on careful judgement around a dying patient.

And the safety question isn’t a theoretical concern either. A March 2025 investigation from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the federal agency that oversees the national transplant system, documented what can happen when those safeguards fail. In a review of attempted DCD cases at Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, an OPO that covered Kentucky and parts of Ohio and West Virginia, HRSA found recurring problems about staff missing vital signs in patients that raised concerns, failed to work collaboratively with hospital medical teams, failed to respect family decision-making, and documented medical data poorly. HRSA said the pattern suggested “organizational dysfunction” and a weak safety culture.

One OPO’s failure does not prove that DCD is broadly unsafe or that OPOs across the country behave the same way. But the Kentucky review showed how badly things can go when the line between patient care and organ recovery is not honored.

Since then, federal officials have been trying to close some of the gaps. HRSA has pushed for clearer family education around DCD and more standardized reporting on ventilated patients referred to OPOs, as well as opened up a reporting channel that sends misconduct concerns directly to HRSA. In a separate case, the Department of Health and Human Services also moved to shut down an OPO in South Florida after finding unsafe practices, underperformance, and paperwork errors.

Organ donation is a touchy subject, because it relies so much on the goodwill and the trust of the people who agree to give their organs so they can live on in others. But the procedural issues also matter, because there are lives at stake on both sides of the process. 

Around 13 people die each day in the US waiting for organs. In that desperate landscape, the rise in DCD has led to many lives saved and helped several more live better, fuller lives. The dearth of organs even compelled my former Future Perfect colleague Dylan Matthews to sign up as a living donor and donate his kidney to a complete stranger. (You can read his story here).

And the value of the donation is not just measured in recipients saved. For the Hoffmans, the knowledge that Emily’s organs helped others offered a solace they had not expected. Emily “gave the gift of life in her death,” Beth told me.

That is the highest ideal organ donation — and DCD – can achieve: a death already coming that still changes the lives of others in need. The case for DCD is clear, but its future depends on its proponents’ ability to protect both patients and public trust.

Clarification, July 1, 6 pm ET: A previous version of this post described how the NRP process intends to stop blood from reaching the brain, but did not acknowledge cases where that does not go according to plan. The post has been updated to include a safety notice from the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, which said it had received “verified reports” that blood had unintentionally reached the brain and brainstem during NRP. The post has also been updated to clarify that Dorry Segev and Nader Moazami are doctors at NYU Langone. 

Chances are good you live with another person. Over half of American adults cohabitate with their spouse or significant other. Older adults are increasingly living with roommates. Multigenerational households have more than quadrupled over the last decade. And about a third of adults under 35 live with a parent. 

If you’ve found yourself living communally at one point or another, you know that sharing space comes with its quirks and potential headaches. Who gets to use the only bathroom first in the morning? Who’s responsible for taking out the trash? Do you actually need to be friends with your roommates? 

Being a better roommate or family member isn’t just about minimizing daily annoyance — it’s about transforming your relationships and overall well-being. According to the 2025 World Happiness Report, a household of about four members is predictive of higher happiness levels and better relationships. Older adults who cohabitate are more satisfied living with others, and have higher well-being and happiness than those who live alone, research suggests.  

Whether you live with a romantic partner, roommates, parents, grandparents, or other family members, experts (including therapists, authors, friendship experts, and researchers) — who have firsthand experience of their own — have concrete tips for how to communicate, declutter, and split finances with the people you share space with. 

Responses have been edited and condensed for clarity. 

Communicate, communicate, communicate

“I will live and die on the hill of communication being the most important aspect of successfully living with other adults. That comes from my experience living with my parents in adulthood, and from working on my anthology about communal living and interdependence. If good communication can ultimately lead to progress, any challenges that come up around logistics, habits, preferences — the things people tend to think are most important to consider when sharing space with others — can be addressed. Understanding that living with other adults doesn’t require perfect compatibility, but rather a shared willingness to work at it, opens up so many doors.”

—Samantha Paige Rosen, editor of Living, Together: Reimagining Community in the Age of Disconnection

Accept everyone’s unique (and probably wrong) ways of doing chores

“How someone loads the dishwasher is the biggest differing personalities button-pusher ever. Know this. And accept it.”

—Lauren Palmer Jansen, communications coordinator for L’Arche GWDC, a community where people with and without intellectual disabilities live and work together

Get regular meetings on the calendar

“I always recommend having a designated time — weekly, monthly — for house meetings. It feels odd initially because we believe that everything with friends should happen organically. But when you’re sharing something as sacred as a home, you have to be aligned on what creates a safe and joyful experience. This also helps with any anxiety you might feel about bringing up hard topics, like washing the dishes or inviting guests over, because you have the security of knowing that there’s dedicated time to check in.”

—Danielle Bayard Jackson, friendship educator and author of Fighting For Our Friendships: The Science and Art of Conflict and Connection in Women’s Relationships

Mark your territory

“In a shared home, peace isn’t about square footage, but it’s often helped by each person having one space that’s truly their own. That single boundary, like a door you can close, is often what makes the togetherness feel like a choice you’re happy to continue making.”

—Juli Ford, multigenerational living expert and founder of Home After 50

Discuss decluttering

“Clutter is a common household stressor, and our research suggests one reason why is that people living together buy things independently but hesitate to get rid of things independently, often over-involving each other in disposal decisions. Our proposed fix: Set disposal rules up front, the same way you might set buying rules. Let each person freely toss items only they use, or create a ‘staging area’ where items sit briefly before leaving the house. People can weigh in if they want, without letting clutter linger indefinitely.”

—Peggy Liu, professor of marketing at the University of Pittsburgh School of Business, and Theresa Kwon, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Hong Kong Business School

Agree to the “uncomfortable rule”

“Roommates who want to get along will find a way to get along. The second you stop wanting to get along, the dynamics shift. Agree to the uncomfortable rule. The uncomfortable rule says that if anyone is uncomfortable, you all agree to talk about the problem and listen. This way no one needs to hide the truth when uncomfortable situations come up. This also makes it easier to have conversations instead of confrontations.”

—Harlan Cohen, author of Win or Learn: The Naked Truth About Turning Every Rejection Into Your Ultimate Success

Divide chores equitably, not equally

“Don’t divide housework equally, divide it explicitly and equitably. In an intergenerational home, people have different amounts of time, energy, and physical capacity, so the goal isn’t identical workloads but a shared agreement everyone considers fair. Use a shared system to make the work visible. Track what gets done and by whom, then check in regularly before invisible labor turns into resentment.”

—Peter Askjær Drejer, founder of Tody, a chore managing app

Get clear about money up front

“From a financial therapist perspective, one of the biggest sources of conflict in shared living situations is the meaning people attach to money, fairness, and responsibility. Talk about expectations from the very beginning. You want to reduce the possibility of resentment forming, which can often happen if there were no conversations early on discussing what is or is not acceptable behavior and what is expected of everyone within the shared space. Most often people will wait until they’re already frustrated to discuss sharing finances or household responsibilities. But it is highly unproductive to engage in a conversation when it starts emotionally charged. Instead, schedule regular check-in conversations where you discuss not only who pays for what, but also whether the current arrangement still feels fair.” 

—Kiki Jacobson, licensed mental health counselor specializing in financial therapy

Find the good in tough situations

“My best advice is to see good intentions everywhere, even if you’re experiencing bad outcomes. For the most part, no one wants to be a bad roommate, so if someone is acting in a way that’s driving you insane, you want to approach the situation as if both of you want to fix the situation. Offer help rather than accusations. And, importantly, sometimes you can help teach others how to show up to a conversation by modeling good behavior. Sometimes people just don’t know how to have a mature, helpful conversation because they’ve never done it before. Staying regulated goes a long way.”

—Katie Rose, licensed clinical social worker

Don’t compromise, get creative

“Every recurring argument is an invitation to redesign the system rather than blame the person. Stop asking who’s right and start asking, How could we make this easier? The happiest households aren’t conflict-free — they’re creative. They develop rhythms, rituals, and agreements that work for the people actually living there rather than trying to squeeze themselves into someone else’s idea of how a household should function. One person cooks while the other cleans. Mornings become a quiet zone. Everyone gets an hour alone before reconnecting. Creativity is often a far better relationship skill than compromise.”

—Jane Garnett, licensed marriage and family therapist

Invest in a white noise machine

“Get an industrial strength white noise-maker. The app on your phone won’t cut it. It needs to be the kind you find in therapy offices so you can drown out at least some of the annoying sounds around you. Keep it on all day, not just for sleeping. Buy two if needed.”

—Mary McLaughlin, licensed clinical social worker

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

A yet-unreleased, cutting-edge AI model escaped its test environment last week, connecting to the internet and murdering its creators in a bid for self-determination and autonomy. 

I’m kidding, of course: That’s the plot to Westworld. (And Ex Machina, and The Matrix, and too many other sci-fi stories to list.) But on Tuesday, OpenAI did reveal that two of its models broke containment and hacked Hugging Face, a platform for AI developers, during a recent test. 

The test was designed to evaluate how good the models had gotten at finding, and exploiting, cybersecurity flaws. To do that, researchers placed the models in a tightly controlled, tightly isolated environment, called a “sandbox,” and essentially challenged them to solve a cybersecurity puzzle. 

Instead of solving it directly, however, the models identified an unknown flaw in software connected to their test environment — then used that flaw to tunnel through OpenAI’s research network until they located a computer with internet access. From there, the models (correctly!) reasoned that Hugging Face might hold the answer to their challenge. 

It’s an “unprecedented” incident, OpenAI said — and a cautionary tale. Over the past year, a growing chorus of AI researchers, cybersecurity experts, and tech executives have warned that society is unprepared for this new generation of frontier AI models. 

In the real world, of course, these models do come with guardrails. (OpenAI turned them off for the test.) But the episode still suggests that the gap between reality and science fiction is narrowing — perhaps a bit faster than you’d expect.

The (impossible?) quest for a moral AI

The Hugging Face hack is a textbook example of what AI researchers call the alignment problem: the enormous, mind-melty challenge of getting AI systems to do what you want, the way that you wanted them to do it. 

Given a task and left to their own devices, AI models will pursue that task using the most efficient means available to them. But sometimes, the most efficient means are harmful, deceitful, antisocial, or otherwise…bad. 

The Hugging Face episode is one example. Bias is another: When an Amazon hiring algorithm discriminated against female candidates, for instance, it was doing what Amazon wanted (finding candidates who resembled past hires) in a way that Amazon did not want (by penalizing resumes that included words associated with women). 

In a truly apocalyptic scenario, you could even imagine — and many sci-fi writers have imagined — AI systems killing people in the narrow, relentless, and morally indifferent pursuit of their goals. Consider an AI that’s asked to order coffee, for example, and then takes steps to ensure that no one on earth can ever stop it. 

In the interests of avoiding this dystopia, AI companies have poured billions of dollars into the project of encoding their creations with human values. But even that apparently worthwhile ambition raises thorny questions, because human values vary — and often, conflict.

Should the AI order the cheapest coffee, or the cup produced under the best labor conditions? A lot of forests are cleared to plant coffee each year; maybe the AI should nudge me toward tap water, instead. Is your inferior human brain starting to melt yet…? 

One link for later

➨ Write a little note today. By hand. With a pen. Handwriting is a disappearing art in American schools, homes, and workplaces. (The average kindergarten teacher spends only 10 minutes a week teaching handwriting, and that’s the primary grade when kids learn penmanship.) People tend to think more deeply when they’re writing than when they’re typing, one education researcher told Vox. Plus, a handwritten note has a certain charm that an email or text does not. 

Before you go…

• Did you know…that the average F1 race car driver can lift 90 pounds — wait for it — with their neck? Driving doesn’t immediately sound all that athletic, but the extreme physics of F1 racing demand extraordinary fitness.
• Today’s trivia: Which Eminem song gave us the slang term for an obsessive admirer? (You can find this and other brain puzzles in Vox’s daily crossword. Look for the answer in tomorrow’s edition.)
• Yesterday’s trivia: Yesterday we asked you for the number of countries in North America. The answer is 23. It includes Central America and the Caribbean, in addition to the big three.

The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.

Last week, House Democrats voted on an amendment that would have cut $3.3 billion in annual US military aid to Israel from a State Department funding bill. The amendment was brought to the floor by Rep. Thomas Massie, an outgoing Republican from Kentucky. It failed 314-104, but 103 Democrats — nearly half of the House Democratic caucus — supported it, signaling a significant shift in the party’s longstanding support for aid to Israel.

In 2024, a similar vote came up in the House to cut military aid to Israel. Then, just 37 House Democrats voted for the measure. Now, two years later, 103 House Democrats voted to cut funding. That shift in support was accelerated after the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, which has killed large numbers of Palestinian civilians. The debate is also playing out in Democratic primaries across the country. In New York and Colorado, Democratic socialist candidates who have sharply criticized Israel and opposed continued US military aid recently won House primaries.

Historically, Jewish Americans have overwhelmingly identified with and voted for the Democratic Party, while Democratic lawmakers have generally supported Israel and US military assistance to the country. In 2016, the Obama administration signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Israel, committing the US to seek $38 billion in military assistance for fiscal years 2019 through 2028. Congress must vote to approve this funding, so the shift in Democratic support of Israel could have real consequences.

There is still a very strong support for Israel among many House Democrats, but the shifting views are notable. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the Massie amendment, arguing that it was overly broad and could jeopardize humanitarian assistance. But in a letter addressed to his House colleagues he also called for a “major reset” in US policy toward what he described as Israel’s “far-right Netanyahu government.”

Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram spoke with Democratic Rep. Brad Schneider, who represents Illinois’s 10th Congressional District, and remains a strong supporter of Israel.

Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. 

Can you walk us through last week’s vote? You voted against the measure to cut aid to Israel, and a lot of your colleagues obviously did not. How did that play out for you?

Growing up in the ’60s, ’70s, and for the last 65 years, I fundamentally believe that the US-Israel relationship is important. I also believe that the aspiration for peace in the Middle East, not just between Israelis and Palestinians, but broadly throughout the region, is something that is in the United States’s interest and the interest of the people in the region. So this is not a new issue to me, and it’s something I thought long and hard about. 

Tom Massie doesn’t believe any of that. His intentions with this amendment were anything but pure. It was hastily crafted and poorly written. And one of the biggest issues with it is not only does it [not] address this 10-year memorandum of understanding, something negotiated by President Obama eight years ago, but there are also two years left on the MOU. 

It was a messaging bill and nothing more, and it was a negative message. I voted no because I think if we’re going to move toward peace, we need to do so in a constructive way. A lot of my colleagues were saying we need to send a message to the Netanyahu government.

“I have to hold onto that optimism for the prospects of peace because the alternative is too dark.”

I’ve been extremely critical of this government, their failure to address the settler violence in the West Bank, the failure to plan for a day-after in Gaza following what was a horrific war. If we’re going to move towards peace, if we’re going to find a path where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side and the region can have the peace they deserve. Because we’re not just talking about Israelis and Palestinians; there’s progress being made between Lebanon and Israel in giving Lebanon, the people of Lebanon, the liberty and freedom they all deserve. 

Can I ask you if you still take money from AIPAC? And if so, how much?

I appreciate the support I get from people who care about the issues that I advocate for. So people who are pro-Israel, pro-US-Israel relationship are likely to support me because I’m pro-US-Israel, pro-US-Israel relationship. I’m also pro-addressing gun safety and reducing gun violence in this country. So I get the support of those groups. The support I get doesn’t determine my positions. I think my positions determine who supports me. 

Has your position on Israel shifted at all since October 7th, or at any point in your political career? And if so, can you tell us how?

So my position hasn’t changed because I’ve always been committed to promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and finding a path where both can live together, which I believe ultimately is two states: a Jewish democratic state of Israel, and a Palestinian state living side by side. My frustration with the current Israeli government has grown and continues to grow. Every conversation I have with them, whether it’s the US ambassador to Israel, whom I’ve had the privilege of working with many times, or my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I’ve had an engagement with the prime minister going back now for almost 30 years. But in the last several years, every single conversation I have with them talks about the need to address settler violence, the need to get humanitarian aid.

One of the things that I am proud of and will say loudly and proudly is that immediately after October 7th, as the war began, my team and I worked hard to push for humanitarian aid into Gaza to do everything we could to make sure that the civilians who were always caught in the middle of any war wouldn’t suffer more than they did. And the suffering was horrific. And I did challenge Israel when they made what I’ll call ill-conceived, ill-advised, in some cases illegal decisions to deprive humanitarian relief from entering Gaza. We pushed hard, and we worked with the Egyptians to get the Rafah crossing open. We pushed the Israelis to open the Karam Shalom crossing. And to not just get aid to those crossings, but get aid into and across the territories within Gaza.

Why are you so optimistic about the situation? 

I am always going to be optimistic. I have to hold onto that optimism for the prospects of peace because the alternative is too dark. And let’s separate the issue for folks living in the region and the folks living here. And for the Israelis and Palestinians, these are two peoples who are totally traumatized — traumatized not just over the last couple of years, but for decades. So I recognize the trauma that Israelis have and are experiencing, and I recognize the trauma that the Palestinians have and are experiencing. And that’s part of what I feel is my obligation: to hold onto that optimism and speak to a better future and work to try to find ways to bring the parties on both sides of the issue together to make the hard choices and take the risk to get to a path to peace.

So the reason I’m holding onto optimism — and it’s not 24/7; I have my moments when I am down and where I feel like the hill we’re climbing is just too steep — is you take a deep breath and you dig deep, and you say, I can’t give up on hoping and working towards peace because otherwise peace is never going to happen. And I want to find people who are like-minded.

And that is not just on the Israeli side of the equation. We have to find people on the Palestinian side, and for those on the Palestinian side, we have to find Israelis. And I meet, and I spend time with them on a regular basis. They come to my office. When I’m in the region, I talk to them. We have to strengthen and empower those voices who believe that peace will only come when the Israelis see the Palestinians as a people worthy of engagement and a shared future, and the Palestinians see the Israeli as a people worthy of engagement and a shared future, and recognize that until they get there, there’s no future for either side. We’ve got to have a path where both are pointing in the same direction.

Amid battlefield gains, President Volodymyr Zelensky removed popular officials in a major shake-up.

There was an unintentionally revealing moment in acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing last week. After Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked Blanche whether he and President Donald Trump are friends, the leader of the United States Department of Justice replied, “I’m his lawyer,” before correcting himself and saying he “was his lawyer.”

Blanche previously defended Trump in three criminal cases brought while the president was out of office, but he is emphatically not supposed to be Trump’s lawyer right now. As acting attorney general — Blanche currently leads the DOJ because the attorney general’s job is vacant and Blanche is the Senate-confirmed deputy attorney general (DAG) — Blanche’s client is the United States, not the person who happens to occupy the White House. 

But it’s easy to see why he misspoke: Blanche has largely acted as Trump’s hammer since he was confirmed as the DOJ’s No. 2 official, overseeing numerous prosecutions of Trump’s perceived enemies. Now Trump wants to promote him to the DOJ’s top job — a sign of Trump’s confidence in his former criminal defense lawyer turned personal enforcer.

It’s unusual for a president to put his own defense lawyer in such a powerful position — indeed, it’s unusual for a president to have a criminal defense lawyer at all. But Trump has a long string of attorneys who’ve defended him and his companies against an equally long string of criminal allegations ranging from tax fraud, to falsifying business records, to illegally taking classified documents, to charges arising from his failed attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election. 

And he’s put at least five of those criminal defense lawyers in top federal jobs. 

Trump’s decision to turn much of his criminal legal team into powerful government officials matters for two big reasons. The first is that two members of that team, Blanche and Solicitor General John Sauer, are leaders within the Justice Department. Next to the military, there is no more fearsome government institution than the DOJ, which has the power to arrest people and try them for federal crimes. 

The DOJ is supposed to exercise this authority with restraint — and often with restraints imposed by the Constitution itself — but Blanche has used the Justice Department’s power against Trump’s political enemies who appear to have committed no crime and removed constraints on Trump and his Justice Department, all while Sauer has worked consistently to convince the Supreme Court to remove other constraints on Trump.

Meanwhile, three of Trump’s former criminal lawyers, Emil Bove, Justin Smith, and Matthew Schwartz, now have lifetime appointments as US Court of Appeals judges, placing them one rung on the judicial ladder down from the Supreme Court. The judiciary, of course, is the branch of government that is supposed to prevent the president from breaking the law, so every Trump loyalist appointed to this branch weakens the remaining legal constraints on Trump and his administration.

Trump, of course, isn’t the only president to place close confidants in the Justice Department or the federal bench. President John F. Kennedy famously named his brother attorney general. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Abe Fortas, who represented him in a 1948 election dispute, to the Supreme Court in 1965.

But Trump’s decision to place someone willing to pursue his personal vendettas in charge of the Justice Department is, at the very least, a break with post-Watergate norms established to prevent the DOJ from becoming a political weapon. And Fortas, who resigned in disgrace after fewer than four years on the bench, is more of a cautionary tale than a model of good governance.

Although the current Supreme Court is dominated by conservative Republicans, some of these justices do break with Trump on questions that divide the Republican Party — such as whether Trump should unilaterally impose high tariffs on many nations. But if Trump gets to turn his personal cronies into justices, that could change quickly. A judiciary controlled by MAGA loyalists means that all remaining checks on Trump’s authority could end. Many of his former-lawyers-turned-appointees are already working to make an unchecked Trump administration a reality.

How are Trump’s former personal lawyers already reshaping American legal norms?

Smith, who worked on the Trump v. United States immunity case, was confirmed last month. And Schwartz, who worked on the false documents case that led to Trump’s conviction, joined the bench last week. So there’s not much to say about these two men’s record in federal office — yet.

But Blanche, Bove, and Sauer have all displayed ruthless cunning in their efforts to advance Trump and his causes.

Blanche has been DAG since March 2025, a role that oversees the federal government’s criminal prosecutions and its 93 regional US attorneys’ offices. He’s led the entire Justice Department since April, after former Attorney General Pam Bondi — another of Trump’s former personal lawyers — left office.

So Blanche oversaw several dubious federal prosecutions targeting people Trump perceives as enemies, including criminal proceedings targeting former FBI Director James Comey and current New York Attorney General Letitia James. There’s also evidence that Blanche has played an unusually direct role in the Justice Department’s decision to bring meritless charges against prominent Democrats.

In May 2025, for example, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a Democrat, showed up at an ICE detention facility in his New Jersey city and asked to tour it. He was briefly let inside the gate, where he was confronted by about a dozen law enforcement officers and asked to leave, which he did.

But then one of these officers received a phone call. A video, later submitted to a federal court, shows the officer turning to his colleagues after the call and announcing, “We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general of the United States.” That deputy attorney general, of course, was Blanche. (In a September court filing, DOJ confirmed that officers arrested Baraka “after consulting with the Deputy Attorney General.”)

Yet, despite Blanche’s apparent decision to personally order Baraka’s arrest, the DAG forgot to check whether Baraka had actually done something that could support criminal charges. The mayor was only charged with misdemeanor trespassing, and those charges were dismissed two weeks later. At the court hearing formally dropping these charges, a federal magistrate judge admonished prosecutors for “using the immense power of the government to pursue weak cases or to make examples without sufficient cause.”

Blanche also unsuccessfully attempted to establish Trump’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” which would have been used to distribute money to Trump’s allies — including, potentially, Trump supporters who participated in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Although the fund appears dead after it received bipartisan pushback in Congress, a DOJ press release announcing the fund said it was “established” by the attorney general, a role performed by Blanche, and that the fund would be administered by five people chosen by Blanche.

Before Trump took office, Bove was Blanche’s law partner. Shortly before Bove joined the bench, he briefly served as principal associate deputy attorney general — essentially the DAG’s top deputy, which meant that Bove was Blanche’s right-hand man. In that role, he was often described as Trump’s “enforcer.” 

Bove spent only about half a year as Blanche’s lieutenant, but he managed to spark a mini-revolt in one of the Justice Department’s most prestigious offices during his short tenure. After Bove ordered the DOJ to dismiss corruption charges against then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams “without prejudice,” a maneuver that would allow the charges to be reinstated if Adams did not cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, seven federal prosecutors resigned rather than comply with Bove’s order. 

One was Danielle Sassoon, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon. Another, Hagan Scotten, wrote in his resignation letter to Bove that “I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.” Scotten clerked for Republican Chief Justice John Roberts and for future Republican Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, a whistleblower complaint by another former DOJ lawyer claims that Bove said, in a meeting about a court decision halting some deportations, “that D.O.J. would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such order.”

Trump appointed Bove to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last September. Federal appeals courts typically spend months deciding cases, so his tenure on the Third Circuit has thus far been less eventful than his time at the DOJ. But there are early signs that he remains loyal to Trump even after moving into an independent branch of government. Bove attended a Trump rally in December, a highly unusual move for judges who are supposed to remain nonpartisan. And the background image on his iPhone is reportedly an image of a defiant Trump raising a fist, or at least it was months after he joined the bench.

That leaves Sauer, who, as solicitor general, is tasked with defending federal government programs in the Supreme Court. That includes the Trump tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down last winter, and Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to strip many newborn Americans of their citizenship.

Despite these losses, Sauer has an impressive winning record before the Supreme Court, largely because the Court is controlled by six Republicans who are highly sympathetic to Trump and his agenda. This is, after all, the same Court that said that Trump may use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, after Sauer argued as much. 

Sauer has been particularly effective in persuading the Republican justices to block lower court rulings against Trump on the Court’s “shadow docket,” a once rarely used mix of emergency motions and other matters that became a routine part of Supreme Court litigation during Trump’s first term.

So Trump has taken several of his personal lawyers and transformed them into some of the most well-credentialed — and in some cases, the most powerful — figures in the legal profession. Thus far, the evidence suggests that these individuals remain loyal to Trump, even when they move into jobs that are supposed to be nonpartisan. Three of them already have lifetime appointments. 

Any nation governed by the rule of law must have government officials who will obey whatever constraints the law imposes — whether they be federal agency leaders who follow the law out of a sense of duty, or judges who rein in executive branch leaders who refuse to do so. Institutions like the Department of Justice also depend on informal norms, many of which are a response to similar abuses of power during the Nixon administration, that have long constrained federal prosecutors.

But Trump’s DOJ is often actively hostile to these norms, and the growing legal power of Trump’s personal lawyers is just the latest example. Their steady reshaping of the judiciary clears the way for a federal government that is not constrained by anything.

In 2019, the AI researcher Rich Sutton published a short essay called “The Bitter Lesson.” Seventy years of AI research, he argued, kept demonstrating the same thing: The most effective ways to train AI rely on raw, brute-force computing power — simply scaling up — rather than clever approaches built on human insight. It didn’t matter how elegant the researchers’ work was. More compute would win every time. It’s a bitter lesson because, well, no one wants to accept that even the best efforts can go unrewarded.

This summer, climate change has been teaching its own kind of bitter lesson. Last week smoke from out-of-control Canadian wildfires reached more than 120 million Americans, sending out air quality alerts across 18-plus states from Minnesota to Virginia. Those wildfires, which were made more likely by the effects of climate change, followed record-breaking heat waves in Europe that contributed to the deaths of thousands of people.

Disasters like these inevitably renew calls for climate action, but no current US emissions policy, no amount of carbon cutting now, could clear the air, just as nothing Europe has done on climate — and it has done more than any other region, at no small cost — could protect it from those killer temperatures. Not this summer, not this decade, not the one after. The steps countries take now to reduce carbon emissions, to mitigate climate change, will not protect them from the present-day effects of climate change.

That’s the bitter lesson of climate change, and 2026 is the summer it has become unignorable. The dangerous effects we’ve been warned about are here, locked in on every timescale that matters to the people living through them. We can’t prevent the worst from happening right now, so we need to figure out how we’re going to adapt to it. 

The smoke we can’t stop

Canadian wildfire smoke is as close to an unstoppable disaster as exists today. The fires are Canada’s, the ignition is mostly lightning, the fuel is a subcontinent of boreal forest no fire agency can manage, and the whole system sits outside US jurisdiction. While strategies like prescribed burning and forest thinning can help reduce the wildfires that crop up in the western US, the sheer scale of Canadian forests makes such management far more difficult, maybe impossible. There is no timescale on which American mitigation clears American air of Canadian wildfire smoke. 

What this means is that for this wildfire smoke, at this moment, adaptation may be all there is.

American law has already conceded the point. Under the Clean Air Act’s Exceptional Events Rule, a state can petition the Environmental Protection Agency to strike wildfire-smoke days from the record used to judge whether its air is legally clean. In other words, the official response to one of the country’s fastest-growing air-quality threats is to delete it from the ledger. 

It’s true that climate attribution science ties heat waves to warming with the highest confidence of any extreme, while wildfire is messier — a compound event filtered through ignition, fuel, and fire weather. But fire seasons are lengthening, fuels are drying, and the most extreme wildfire events on Earth more than doubled between 2003 and 2023. The pattern is intensifying fire in particular regions — the boreal north among them — and the smoke goes where the wind says.

And that smoke is worse than it looks. Wildfire PM2.5 — the microscopic particles that are particularly dangerous —  is roughly three to four times more toxic to the lungs, per unit of mass, than ordinary urban particulate matter. During major smoke events, pediatric asthma visits can spike by more than 30 percent, and Harvard researchers have found the cardiorespiratory damage persists for months after the sky turns blue again. That’s especially dangerous for vulnerable populations like babies and pregnant women.

We can’t affect the winds, we struggle to stop the fires, and any current attempt to reduce warming enough to make those infernos less likely won’t be felt for years. But that doesn’t mean we’re helpless to protect ourselves from wildfire smoke, any more than we are from extreme heat.

We can purify indoor air, and it costs less than you probably think. Strap four furnace filters to a box fan — creating a Corsi-Rosenthal box — and indoor PM2.5 drops by roughly half; in testing during actual wildfire smoke, a DIY unit cut fine particles by about 56 percent in a large room and close to 99 percent in a small sealed one.

For heat, the toolkit is even better known — and one of the best proofs it works is in, of all places, France. The historic 2003 heat wave killed some 15,000 people there, most of them elderly and alone. The national heat plan built in its aftermath — tiered alerts, registries of vulnerable residents, check-in calls, cool rooms — cut the death toll of comparable heat waves by roughly 90 percent: When France hit its all-time record of 114.8°F in 2019, fewer than 1,500 died, per the Christian Science Monitor. A recent European analysis estimates a rerun of 2003 would now kill 77 percent fewer people in France than in a world that never adapted.

So technologies exist to protect ourselves. What’s too often missing are the standards, money, and the drive to deploy protection before the disaster arrives instead of after.

Catching up to today

When it comes to wildfire smoke, some governments are ahead of the game — and some aren’t. Washington state, Oregon, and California now regulate outdoor workers’ smoke exposure by air-quality index, under rules like Cal/OSHA’s wildfire-smoke standard; California funds “clean air centers” with upgraded filtration where people can shelter on bad-air days; Colorado’s Clean Air for Schools program ships free HEPA units to K-12 classrooms. A purifier humming in a classroom is essentially doing for smoke what a cooling center does for heat.

When it comes to heat, some parts of Europe are catching up. Barcelona now runs a network of nearly 400 “climate shelters” — libraries, museums, retrofitted schoolyards — with the goal of putting one within a 10-minute walk of every resident. For the first time, the city is keeping libraries open through August to do it, which, as anyone who has visited Europe in the late summer knows, is no small thing.

So adaptation exists, and it is saving lives. But this summer has also shown what happens when cities, states, and countries aren’t ready. 

In the US, the Midwestern and Northeastern states that spent last week under smoke alerts have almost none of the protections against wildfire smoke that have become more common in Western states, and no one is required to build them, because the country has no enforceable national indoor air-quality standard at all. In Europe, national heat plans are still reluctant to reach for the most powerful tool on the shelf. About one European household in five has air conditioning, compared to nearly nine in ten in the US, in large part because much of the continent still treats the machine as a moral defect. 

In both cases, rich regions that have largely taken climate mitigation more seriously than some of their neighbors aren’t pursuing adaptations they need. Which really means not taking climate change as seriously as they should. 

Accepting the bitter lesson

For a generation, adaptation was the word climate advocates were often reluctant to say out loud. In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Al Gore called adaptation “a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our skins.” (He later changed his mind.) And in fairness, “we’ll just adapt” has often been a delaying tactic, an easy out for polluters. 

But the ground has shifted under that caution, because the projections did exactly what projections are supposed to do: they came true. 

Longer fire seasons, deadlier heat waves, smoke reaching places that never used to see it — this summer is the confirmation. And that changes what seriousness requires. If you’ve spent decades warning people that the effects of climate change are coming, you can’t treat readying for those effects as a distraction from the real work. None of this argues for easing up on emissions — each ton that isn’t emitted is adaptation nobody has to build. But preparing for what you predicted is what believing your own prediction looks like.

For AI researchers, Rich Sutton’s lesson was bitter for a specific reason. Those who resisted its conclusion weren’t foolish; they resisted it because it seemed to undercut all their hard work. They resisted it because it didn’t seem fair, just as it’s not fair that countries and states that have in many ways done much to mitigate climate change find themselves just as vulnerable, if not more so, than peers that have done comparatively little. 

But here’s the other half of Sutton’s lesson: The researchers who accepted it won. They stopped defending their cleverness and built what worked. That option is open to climate politics too. The atmosphere isn’t fair, but it is consistent, and it will deliver next summer’s version of this one on schedule. We can be ready. The bitter lesson is only bitter until you have the will to act on it. 

A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!

Inflation fall a ‘false dawn’, Burnham warned

Missiles hit facility holding 62 million prevention items earmarked for the country’s harm reduction programmes

Move over, Maine. A new Democratic primary has taken the crown as the country’s most dysfunctional.

In Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, a crowded field of establishment-tied Democrats has been splitting the vote for months, giving democratic socialist Francesca Hong’s energetic campaign a lane to the nomination.

Recently, fearing Hong would lose the general election (and spooked by a seeming Republican effort to boost her chances), some in the party tried to coalesce around one candidate to stop her: lieutenant governor Sara Rodriguez. 

But that attempt disastrously backfired last week, when it turned out Rodriguez’s campaign had badly mismanaged its funds. It’s still not clear what happened, but the situation was so messy that she quit the race.

With Rodriguez gone, the two leading contenders appeared to be Hong and Mandela Barnes, the former lieutenant governor who was Democrats’ losing nominee for a Senate race in 2022. 

Yet, party bigwigs were unhappy with those options and coaxed a candidate who had already dropped out — Milwaukee county executive David Crowley — back into the race, even though the primary is only three weeks away. 

This weekend, Governor Tony Evers endorsed Crowley in a last-ditch attempt to stop Hong (and, apparently, Barnes) from winning the nomination. 

The chaos is all the more shocking, because the state party, until recently, was often cited as a national model for Democrats, with leaders and candidates successfully coordinating over multiple cycles in a long-term plan to undo years of Republican dominance. 

I asked Jessie Opoien, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, to walk me through this dizzying sequence of events. How did the party find itself in this mess? Is Hong on a glide path to primary victory? And what awaits in the general election? Our conversation, which has been condensed and edited, is below.

Democrats began this race with optimism. Now, they’re a lot more worried.

Back before this primary began, what was the situation of the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the political status quo in the state?

Democrats were feeling more optimistic heading into this primary. We have a lot of really, really tight races here. But if you look at the past three state Supreme Court races, you had liberal candidates just really blowing it out of the water, no matter how much Republican money came in. Democrats came out feeling pretty happy about those races. 

Another significant element is new legislative maps that got passed. This would be the second state election where they’re running on those new maps. 

So, for the first time in 15-ish years, Democrats are actually within striking distance of getting a majority or, at least, taking one of the chambers — or getting closer to the point where they’re not completely irrelevant in the capitol.

And the congressional map, which gives Republicans a 6-2 advantage, hasn’t changed yet — but that’s something Democrats could do if they win a trifecta?

Yes, and some of the candidates running for governor have made that a priority.

How was Governor Evers viewed after his two terms?

We look at the Marquette University poll as our gold standard for approval ratings, and Evers is by far the most popular statewide politician they’ve polled, pretty much in the time of their existence. He’s been above 50 percent for pretty much all of his two terms.

That being said, there has been a little bit of friction, especially toward the end of the legislative session. The state had this large projected budget surplus that no one could agree on what to do with it. Evers and the Republican leaders of the legislature proposed this deal that included some tax relief and some school funding — and basically got no support from Democrats in the legislature. They’ve probably gotten past it, but you had people starting to become a little bit more willing to be publicly critical of him. 

The leading contenders to succeed Tony Evers

So, after Evers announces he isn’t running for another term, how does the race to succeed him kick off?

Early on, I think everyone was expecting the attorney general, Josh Kaul, to get in. He would have been the clear frontrunner, and we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in right now. [Kaul eventually decided not to run.]

Sara Rodriguez, the lieutenant governor, was the first person to get in, but she did not come in as an automatic frontrunner. 

Mandela Barnes took a little bit longer to get in, but he did. He’s the former lieutenant governor who lost a Senate race against Ron Johnson in 2022.

David Crowley, Milwaukee county executive: I think everyone expected his campaign to take off more at the beginning than it did. Milwaukee has had some big moments while he’s been in office. I think people expected him to be possibly a frontrunner early on, and that didn’t necessarily materialize. 

Others who got in were state senator Kelda Roys and Joel Brennan, the Department of Administration secretary under Evers. And Missy Hughes, a state economic development official.

And state representative Francesca Hong, who came in very much as an underdog candidate, but whose campaign blasted off and gained a lot of traction in a way that, I think, a lot of people didn’t see coming.

Tell me what you’ve seen on the ground about Francesca Hong’s campaign.

She is absolutely running as a democratic socialist, but she’s talking to Trump voters about affordability and being left behind. She was one of the first ones to jump on the anti-data center sentiment. “Jump on” was probably the wrong word, because she was there before the publicity; it didn’t appear to be an opportunistic move.

I started noticing back in December that something felt different with her, just in terms of the fundraising events she was doing. She did a ramen pop-up, bringing back her restaurant specialties. [Hong was a chef and co-owned a restaurant.] She did these small and intimate but unique events, like karaoke and bingo — bringing people to do fun things, things you don’t necessarily see a candidate engaging in themselves

My anecdotal observation is: I see people that I went to high school with or that I know from my non-political life who are talking about her campaign. I just don’t see that, you know, ever, anywhere else.

When the Marquette polls came out early this year, it was really remarkable just how split the field was; the first place candidate had just 11 percent in one poll. There’s been very little polling lately, but the narrative until recently was that it was shaping up to be a three-way race between Hong, Barnes, and Rodriguez, right?

I think it was starting to feel that way.  

Mandela Barnes, it was harder to measure. He came in with the most name recognition, having been on the ballot as lieutenant governor and for the Senate race. More people had an opinion about him, because they at least had heard of him.

With Sara Rodriguez — there wasn’t a lot of public polling for us to look at. But, then, there started to be an attitude behind the scenes of: Is the frontrunner going to be a democratic socialist, and do Democrats want that? And if they don’t, do they need to start organizing around one candidate?

You started to see that around Sara Rodriguez. The first candidate who dropped out, Missy Hughes, got behind her the day she dropped out. 

Fundraising reports were due in a few weeks, and Sara Rodriguez announced she was going to put up a million-dollar ad buy. In this race, with this many candidates, no one has a lot of money, so a million dollars would have been a big deal. And she had an independent group that was putting ads up for her, too. 

So, everyone was like, “Oh wow, the momentum’s going in her direction, the money’s there, she’s picking up endorsements.” Then, David Crowley got out, pretty much right when that ad buy was announced, and endorsed her. And then, everything started falling apart. 

The Sara Rodriguez disaster and the David Crowley switcheroo

So, what happened to the Rodriguez campaign?

This was pretty much all starting last week. Sara Rodriguez has got this ad buy that’s supposed to be going up on TV. And we had heard some people starting to raise questions about, where is it?

Sunday night, about 9:30, Sara Rodriguez’s campaign puts out a press release, and they say that they fired her campaign manager, because they’ve discovered financial mismanagement. 

On Monday, she holds a press conference in her Madison office. Basically, she has no idea how much money she has, and the ad buy she thought she placed, there’s no money for it. She said she didn’t know if this was something done on purpose or if it was mistakes that were made. 

I asked how much she thought she had on hand when they made the million dollar buy. She said $1.5 million. So, we’re talking about maybe a difference of a million dollars.

So, it goes from “this is the candidate into the strongest position” to “this candidate maybe has some money, but we don’t really know how much, and also she’s got these debts.”

She was committed to staying in [at first]. But, it sounds like, as she continued to dig into whatever the problem was. everyone around her was saying her campaign was over, and she finally decided that was the case on Friday morning.

And then, we get this switcheroo.

Yeah, then, my colleague, Matt Smith, reported this first, but we all started talking to Democratic sources who told us there was an effort to try and get David Crowley back in the race. 

Because there was a question of, when Crowley dropped out and endorsed Rodriguez, was he brought in under false pretenses? I think he would not have gotten out, obviously, if he had a clearer picture.

So, that transitioned to: He’s only been out for a few days; he could get back in. 

And the key element that made this more of a story than just him getting back in was now having the governor’s endorsement. 

Had Evers endorsed Rodriguez before that?

No, he had not endorsed anyone. He had said throughout the race he wasn’t planning on getting involved, but that he might at some point.

So, can David Crowley, a candidate who was apparently polling nowhere, who actually quit the race — can he come back into contention with just three weeks left?

That’s a really good question. They’ve got to get on the air. They’ve got to get the money. If Evers would like to transfer over the hundreds of thousands to a million dollars he’s got in his campaign account, that would be a big help to David Crowley, or if unions who were backing Sara Rodriguez or hadn’t made an endorsement yet decided to get behind him. 

But he was polling below 5 percent. So, I don’t know. I just keep reminding myself, I guess, that all of this is occurring within the bubble of people who are actively paying attention to it right now. While the primary seems like it’s tomorrow, it is three weeks away, and there are many people who have not been paying attention. 

Why not Mandela Barnes?

Now, here’s the big question I’ve been confused by.

If the establishment is so worried about Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, winning the nomination and losing the general, wouldn’t the thing to do be to coalesce around Mandela Barnes, who seems to be the other leading contender? Barnes had run before and lost, but it was in a tough cycle, in 2022, and it wasn’t by that much.

Instead, there’s what seems to me like a cockamamie scheme to get a candidate who had already quit the race to come back in weeks before election day. And that will make it a three-way race, which many people think will make it easier for Hong to win, with a plurality of the vote. So, what’s going on here?

You know, I don’t know if anyone has figured out the answer to that. 

Before Mandela Barnes even got in the race, there were a not insignificant number of Democrats who were urging him not to. It’s a question, I guess, of whether you think he got really close to beating Ron Johnson and just got out-campaigned, or if you think he came really close on something that he should have been able to pull off. He had money left over.

He got attacked in 2022 for some positions on policing that he had. So, is the main concern that he, like Hong, is too far left to win? 

I think it probably does have a lot to do with the policing stuff. If a Democrat is willing to say that they’re concerned about the electability issue, they usually point pretty quickly to the police rhetoric. 

Mandela distanced himself from that more in ’22, and he’s definitely distancing himself from it now, in a way that we haven’t seen from Francesca Hong.

But, just the fact that there’s a photo of him holding a t-shirt that says “abolish ICE.” These things exist, and they made for good campaign ad fodder in ’22. 

The other thing I’ve heard, that it is hard to assess the veracity of, is that he just hasn’t been performing as well in internal polls [of the general election] as people had hoped he would.

One of the Dem sources I spoke with on Friday who was pushing Crowley to get back said, “This was Mandela Barnes’s race to lose, and he’s been losing it.”

Tom Tiffany and the general election

Tell me about the general election and the presumptive GOP nominee, Rep. Tom Tiffany. What kind of Republican is he, and how formidable an opponent is he likely to be?

In Congress, he tends to rank as one of the more conservative Republicans — certainly within Wisconsin’s delegation. There was trepidation early on from Republicans, as he was getting ready to get into the race, I think, specifically about his positions on abortion. 

But, he didn’t have to deal with a primary, because he got the Trump endorsement and that got his opponents out of the way pretty quickly. So, he’s had a few months to just run some biographical ads that make him look like a folksy guy from Northern Wisconsin. They’re good ads, they’re him and his family, him and a dairy barn. He’s talking about things like data centers and home affordability. 

Wisconsin is an archetypal swing state. It voted for Trump two out of three times. What’s the current partisan mood there? Does a blue wave look plausible? 

If you look at polls, Trump’s popularity here is not good. Tariffs continue to be a question here, especially for farmers. I think last time we saw a poll, inflation, jobs, health insurance, education, those were the top concerns. The national economy, I imagine, will bear some weight here.

But, I expect it to be a close election. Democrats have been very optimistic because of the national environment, but realistically, Wisconsin is a lot closer than that. We elect Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin, we elect Donald Trump and Joe Biden. We’re not predictable.

Activists, tech workers and more are sounding the alarm about AI's risks and proposing various solutions to curb technology's risks that include job displacement.

Hot Dog on a Stick, which started in Santa Monica in 1946, has been acquired by a new owner with ambitious plans.

© Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times