Pfizer and BioNTech report that their updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for the 2025–2026 season produced strong immune responses, boosting neutralizing antibody levels by at least fourfold in older people and those with underlying medical conditions.

The positive results come as Americans face a confusing, state-by-state patchwork of access to the shots under the health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an ardent anti-vaccine activist who has unilaterally restricted access. Prior to the second Trump administration, all Americans ages 6 months and older had access to the vaccines. But under Kennedy, the Food and Drug Administration limited COVID-19 vaccine approvals to people 65 and older, and people under 64 years only if they have an underlying medical condition.

In Pfizer and BioNTech's latest trial, the companies limited enrollment to these groups. The phase 3 trial included 100 people total, 50 people aged 65 or older and 50 people aged 18 to 64 with an underlying condition. Those conditions included asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, HIV, mental health conditions, Parkinson's disease, obesity, or smoking. All participants had gotten last season's COVID shot at least six months prior to the trial and had not gotten any other COVID-19 vaccines or a COVID-19 infection since then.

This year's Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine targets the SARS-CoV-2 strain LP.8.1, a variant in the JN.1 family. In both age groups in the trial, the LP.8.1 vaccines boosted LP.8.1-neutralizing antibody levels by at least fourfold, on average. There were no new safety concerns relative to previous versions of the shot.

While LP.8.1 was the leading variant at the time regulators had to make a call on target strain for this year's shot, the current leading strain is XFG, another JN.1 family member. Pfizer did testing in mice previously to show that an LP.8.1-targeting vaccine would remain effective against XFG (and other emerging variants) and beat out last year's vaccine at providing protection.

While the trial data bodes well for the vaccine's effectiveness this year, it may offer little comfort to Americans struggling to gain access to the shot. According to a public health coalition funded by Kaiser Permanente, people eligible for the vaccine based on the new FDA criteria still need a prescription to get one in 10 states as of September 8. Off-label use (healthy children and adults) remains highly restricted in all states. That said, the situation is still evolving, and some states have already taken various actions (the states with diagonal lines in the map above) to clarify and ease access to COVID-19 vaccines this season.

Read full article

Comments

It’s less noticeable than a thinner profile or trick camera lenses, but Apple is pointing out another upgrade in the iPhone 17 family of phones that it says is part of “the most significant upgrade to memory safety in the history of consumer operating systems.” Explicitly targeting the spyware industry that produces exploits for tools like Pegasus to hack on targeted devices, a series of changes in Apple’s chips, OS, and development tools are part of what it calls Memory Integrity Enforcement (MIE).

With the introduction of the iPhone 17 lineup and iPhone Air, we’re excited to deliver Memory Integrity Enforcement: the industry’s first ever, comprehensive, always-on memory-safety protection covering key attack surfaces — including the kernel and over 70 userland processes — built on the Enhanced Memory Tagging Extension (EMTE) and supported by secure typed allocators and tag confidentiality protections.

The approach is similar to what we’ve seen from Microsoft’s introduction of memory integrity security features for Windows 11, as well as a series of changes that have arrived to prevent speculative-execution vulnerabilities like Spectre. Apple’s blog post also mentions efforts by ARM with the Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to fight memory bugs, which is supported on Google’s Pixel phones starting with the Pixel 8 series and enabled for supported apps if you turn on Advanced Protection. 

Apple says its implementation goes a step further, with the ability to protect all users by default and by designing its A19 and A19 Pro chips for enhanced security, while still adding memory safety changes for older hardware that doesn’t support the new memory tagging features. The company also says its new mitigation for Spectre V1 leaks works with “virtually zero CPU cost” — as performance hits have been an issue for memory integrity and other security features — with all of the changes making “mercenary spyware” even more expensive to develop. 

The folks behind the security-focused GrapheneOS project acknowledged the “major security improvements” that will help iPhone security in a post on X, but also said they had issues with the presentation and how it portrayed iOS security versus features like MTE, already released for Android. We’ll learn more about how much has changed once these updates reach devices and attackers take their turn trying to crack open the iPhone 17 and iPhone Air’s security.

When driving 5 mph over the 65mph speed limit on Orange County freeways, I notice many motorists passing me. This occurs so often I’ve concluded that most people are “speeders”, that is, in technical violation of the traffic laws. Not surprisingly, society has felt it necessary to create a separate term for people going far over the speed limit—say 125mph. Those are often labeled “reckless drivers”. You might say that speeding 5mph over the limit is less wrong that going 60mph over the limit. The financial penalty is certainly much lower.

There are many areas, however, where society has decided to extend the same pejorative term over a wider set of infractions. This is usually done to impress upon the public that the relatively milder infraction is also really, really bad. At the end, I’ll consider an example of the opposite—creating a softer term for something that seems (objectively) just as bad. I’ll also focus on society’s view of the situation, not my own. Please try to keep that focus in the comment section.

Here are some terms that have been extended over an increasingly wide range of situations:

Genocide: Most people believe that genocide in the sense of destroying a culture is less wrong than genocide in the sense of mass murder.

Segregation: Most people believe that de facto segregation is less wrong than de jure segregation.

Slave Labor: Most people believe that slave labor in the sense of exploitation of migrant workers is less wrong than chattel slavery.

Pedophilia: Most people regard sex with a teenagers as being less wrong than sex with a young child.

Rape: For a given age, most people believe that statutory rape is less wrong than forceable rape.

Homelessness: Most of America’s homeless live in shelters such as motel rooms. But most people regard living on the street as being worse than living in a motel.

Drunk driving: Most people believe (at least implicitly) that driving a with a blood alcohol level of 0.10% is less wrong than driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.20%. (BTW, the legal limit was 0.15% when I was young, now it’s 0.08%.)

Child labor: Most people view having 14-year old children working is less wrong than having 8-year old children work.

Child abuse: Most people believe that spanking a child is less wrong than intentionally injuring a child.

Racism: Most people believe that unequal outcomes, aka “structural racism” is less wrong than intentional discrimination against minorities.

In the comment sections, I noticed that many people struggle with nuance. If you say X is less wrong than Y, you are seen as saying X is “perfectly OK”, or “not a problem at all”. Thus, people seemed surprised by my claim that even after the recent crackdown, the situation in Hong Kong is still much better than on the mainland.

In fact, that claim should not have been even slightly controversial. And yet people conflate the true claim that “bad things have recently been done to Hong Kong”, with the false claim that “things in HK are just as repressive as on the mainland.”

A recent FT story about Hong Kong University illustrated both the negative:

Academic freedom has shrunk, many say. Several of its academics have been attacked by Chinese state-backed media outlets in Hong Kong. US human rights law academic Ryan Thoreson, who was hired by HKU, was denied a visa in 2022.

and the positive:

The total number of students at HKU, meanwhile, has increased from 29,099 in 2018 to 42,330 in 2025, with the proportion of mainland Chinese students studying under government-funded programmes rising from about 15 per cent to 24 per cent during the period.

Many mainland Chinese people who studied abroad come “to HKU for [its] western education,” said a HKU social sciences lecturer. “They don’t want us to tell them [the] Chinese party line or propaganda . . . [in that sense HKU] maintains a competitive edge.”

The world is complex. It can be true that Hong Kong has gotten worse in several important ways, while also being true that Hong Kong is still freer than the mainland in many other important ways.

Scott Alexander directed me to an interesting tweet by Richard Hanania:

According to Wikipedia, the age of consent is roughly two years higher in the US (16-18) than in Europe (where it is 14-16):

More surprising to me is the fact that the differences seem sort of random, not correlated with cultural differences in the way that I would have expected. Norway aligns with Spain, Germany aligns with Portugal, Sweden aligns with Greece, etc. And the same sort of seemingly random pattern occurs throughout the US.

Alexander comments on Hanania’s tweet:

I think there’s a boring answer, where the law is more complex than just a single number and whatever kind of weird trafficking Epstein was doing is worse than whatever normal relationships these European laws are permitting. But assuming that there’s a substantive difference even after taking that into account, I think my answer is something like - we’ve got to divide kids from adults at some age, there’s a range of reasonable possible ages, we shouldn’t be too mad at other societies that choose different dividing lines within that range - but having decided upon the age, we’ve got to stick with it and take it seriously (in the sense of penalizing/shaming people who break it). This is more culturally relativist than I expected to find myself being, so good job to Richard for highlighting the apparent paradox.

That’s a reasonable take, but I suspect there’s more that could be said on the subject. For instance, spanking is allowed in the US but banned in many European countries. So there does seem to be a real cultural difference regarding the question of how best to “protect kids”. Put simply, Europeans seem more horrified by violence and Americans seem more horrified by underage sex. And yet the difference is not absolute—it’s a matter of degree. Europe does have age of consent rules, and America does ban excessive violence against children.

When questionable behavior occurs along a sort of continuum, there will naturally be differences as to where to draw the line. And those differences are not just regional, they also occur over time. During my lifetime, I’ve seen many of the terms listed above extended over a wider range of situations. At the same times, terms like adultery, sodomy and promiscuity have lost a bit of their sting.

When a pejorative is extended over a wider range of situations, there is generally a policy agenda hovering the background. Proponents of the extension would argue that there is increasing awareness of the harm done by various types of behavior, and the use of a pejorative term for even milder forms of wrong behavior has real social utility. It’s a sort of wake-up call. “You may think there’s nothing wrong with driving home from a bar while slightly inebriated, but people die almost every day because of that sort of behavior. That’s why we need to categorize a blood alcohol reading of 0.10% as drunk driving.”

Unlike with drunk driving, I’m not aware of any major changes in America’s age of consent laws during my lifetime. Nonetheless, I would argue that the extension of the term “pedophile” from those having sex with young children to also include those having sex with teenagers has effectively changed the public policy, making it at least slightly more restrictive due to what Alexander calls “shaming.”

Indeed, most of the terms that I listed above have been extended to a considerably wider range of activities than when I was young. In at least one case (racism), a backlash has recently begun, and there’s now some pushback against the concept of “structural racism”.

Why is word choice so effective in public policy debates? I think it goes back to the lack of nuance that I noticed in response to my China post. Many people have trouble understanding that if X is really bad, and Y is a little bit like X, that does not imply that Y is really bad. It might still be wrong, but considerably less wrong. Or it might not even be wrong at all.

Very few people would wish to defend things like genocide, slave labor, racism, and pedophiles preying on children. Thus, if you can successfully extend the definition of these terms to a wider range of activity, you can discourage people from pushing back against your policy agenda.

Defenders of the definitional change would argue that it provides a sort of wake-up call. Go back to this comment by Alexander:

whatever kind of weird trafficking Epstein was doing is worse than whatever normal relationships these European laws are permitting.

I suspect that Alexander is alluding to the fact that people tend to have a more accepting view of “Romeo and Juliet” situations than they do of older men preying on younger girls. Those who defend broadening the definition of pedophile presumably see this as a sort of wake-up call to society—stop romanticizing young love.

[Note: The term pedophile has an ambiguous meaning in one other respect. At times it refers to behavior, while at other times it refers to a psychological profile. In this post I am referring to behavior.]

Thus far we’ve considered using the same term for situations that are quite different, at least as a matter of degree. But the opposite situation can occur when society is trying to create distinctions regarding seemingly equivalent activities. The connotation of escort is less negative than prostitute, and not just regarding sex. You can “escort” someone to the party, but you “prostitute yourself” by being paid to advocate policy views that you do not actually hold.

Both escorts and prostitutes provide paid sexual services for money. But escorts are generally seen as being more discreet. The use of a different term may relate to the fact that much of society worries more about prostitution as a social blight on our streets, than about the abstract concept of sex for money. Is it prostitution if a billionaire gives a woman a diamond neckless at dinner, and she later sleeps with him? In many cases, our ethical intuitions are difficult to codify into law.

The prostitution taboo might also help us to better understand laws regarding underage sex. Drunk drivers often go to prison, while less severe driving infractions result in a fine. But (AFAIK) there are no fines imposed on borderline cases of underage sex. It’s either “that’s perfectly OK” or “prison for you”. I suspect that’s because having a man pay a fine for slightly underage sex would remind people too much of prostitution.

This post is subtitled “using words as weapons”. Is a weapon a bad thing? I’d say it is a good thing if in the hands of a Ukrainian soldier and a bad thing if in the hands of a Russian soldier. Some definitional changes probably have positive effects while others have negative effects.

But I also see some value in precision, having more terms rather than fewer terms. Thus, I often see people refer to China’s activities in Xinjiang as “genocide”. Presumably they are using the “cultural genocide” definition. But then I see people claim that today’s China is like Nazi Germany, which seems kind of ridiculous. Is the more expansive use of terms like genocide impacting the way that we view the world?

While I won’t deny that the wake-up call aspect of an expansive definition may have value in selected cases, I believe we are generally better off in the long run with a more precise use of language.

If we lived in a world full of people like Richard Hanania and Scott Alexander, then things would be much simpler. “You say the bombing of Hiroshima was an act of terrorism? That’s obvious. We were trying to terrorize the Japanese public into doing what we wanted—surrender. Now let’s discuss whether it was justified terrorism or unjustified terrorism.” Or “You say taxation is theft? Fine, now let’s discuss whether it is OK for the government to steal by taxation.” Or “Indentured servitude is slavery? The military draft is slavery? You say that like it’s a bad thing.” (I use quotation marks because I don’t agree with all of those imaginary claims.)

But we don’t live in a world of rational people. We live in a world where words have an almost mystical power. To the average person, successfully labelling something “terrorism” or “theft” or “slavery” is enough to shut down debate. To the average person, these things are wrong by definition. In our world, those who define words get to determine public policy.

PS. I was thinking of entitling this post “Defining Deviancy Up”, but then I thought about how few of my readers would even be old enough to remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

There’s a tech industry habit of second-guessing “what would Steve Jobs have done" ever since he passed away, and most of the things people attribute to him seem like guesses about a guy who was very hard to predict and often inconsistent. But recently, we have one of those very rare cases where we know exactly what Steve Jobs would not have done. Tim Cook and Apple’s leadership team have sold out the very American opportunity that made Steve Jobs’ life and accomplishments possible, while betraying his famously contemptuous attitude towards bullshit institutions.

Steve Jobs was, amongst many other things, the biological son of an unmarried Syrian immigrant who was in the United States on a student visa, and he grew up to be a person who had a really good sense of when to say “fuck you" to the man. Both of those aspects of Jobs were plainly disrespected by the pathetic display of fealty that Tim Cook put on display on behalf of Apple in the Oval Office a few weeks ago. Cook made a mealy-mouthed entreaty to Donald Trump, slathering him with compliments that were as numerous as they were false, and then used his sweaty palms to assemble a ghastly glass-and-gold trophy for a room full of press cameras. It is, quite literally, the most grim and embarrassing thing that's ever been done in Apple's name, and I was watching live when Tim Cook and Bono awkwardly butted index fingers while inflicting U2's worst album on everyone's iPods.

I’m not an uncritical Steve Jobs fan. I know, from having worked closely with people who worked directly for Jobs for many years, that he could be a mercurial, and brutish, boss. Too many of his greatest accomplishments came at significant personal cost to those who worked for him. But it’s inarguable that Jobs could see a future that many others could not, and virtually every single one of the people I know who had the chance to work for him directly have said that, even at their most critical, they inarguably felt that Jobs brought out the best of their talents and helped inspire them to do some of their best work.

But everybody knows that part of the Steve Jobs lore. What’s far less well-known is where Steve Jobs came from. As I noted fourteen years ago, “the anchor baby of an activist Arab muslim who came to the U.S. on a student visa and had a child out of wedlock". Jobs’ adoptive parents were able to take him in because he was born into that relatively unstable environment, with an uncertain future ahead of him. His upbringing and social context were all the things that the current authoritarian administration have violently targeted for attacks.

Steve Jobs was able to achieve many of the signature accomplishments in the history of American business because of the fundamental human rights and civil liberties that we extend to many of the most vulnerable and least-privileged people who come to our country.

Steve Jobs was also, plainly, a member of the 60s and 70s counterculture that defined the community and context where his work was born. The early personal computer scene was rife with psychedelic drug use (which was then criminalized, as was recreational marijuana use), and even some of Jobs’ ordinary cultural tastes such as being a fan of “hippie music” was considered so anti-social that artists were commonly monitored by federal agencies of the time.

This is the social context in which early personal computers were created, just one generation after IBM had sold its mainframe computers to the Nazis, when that company provided the numbers that would be inked onto the wrists of the prisoners held in concentration camps. And the anti-institutional, anti-war, anti-surveillance, and yes, often anti-government sentiment of those early hackers informed the ethos of everyone in that scene. That's why it was no surprise, when Jobs had the chance to make the first and most definitive global statement from Apple — the launch of the original Macintosh — that it would have a nod to Orwell’s 1984, and a shot at IBM’s PC, with what’s widely been regarded as the greatest advertisement of all time.

The son of an immigrant, a child of the counterculture, a man offering an unmistakable fuck-you to Big Brother, and a person who, above all, would never kiss the ass of someone who had absolutely awful taste. This was Steve Jobs.

And then Tim Cook handed a big shiny golden turd to Donald Trump, and couldn’t wait to stammer out how much he’d love to polish that turd for him, please sir — the emperor’s clothes look especially lavish today! It’s an embarrassment, a humiliation, not least because it was absolutely unnecessary. The iPhone is far, far more popular than this administration. Apple is powerful! An Apple that still held onto Steve Jobs’ spirit could have played the strong hand that it has, and bet with confidence on the enthusiasm and loyalty of the American people, and called Trump’s bluff, especially since this kind of appeasement is only going to embolden the administration to demand even more tithes from Apple in the future.

“But they can’t do that!"

Many people have the quisling impulse to insist that Apple had to kiss Trump’s ass. “They’ll be stuck with really high tariffs!" “They might lose government contracts!" This is foolishness, of cause, because all of this will still happen. The only thing that’s different is that Apple will have to navigate those headwinds while everyone in the world already knows that they’re led by a CEO who has already bent the knee, and by a board that collectively has no spine. There's no point in having fuck-you money in the bank if you never say "fuck you"!

People without imagination will ask, “well, what else could they have done?" This is only a tough question if you don’t realize the immense cultural and technical assets that Apple has at its disposal. For example, just recently, Apple deployed its formidable multi-billion-user global cloud infrastructure in service of… promoting the Brad Pitt Formula 1 movie. People were, understandably, a bit disconcerted to see their wallet payment app sending them promotional messages about a film, and Apple undoubtedly screwed up in polluting a functional messaging channel about transactions with a commercial message, but hey — this is a clear sign Apple knows it’s got the power to drop a note directly into the note of millions of people’s pockets.

There’s even precedent for how a tech company can be far more effective in this kind of battle, though it was in much lower stakes, and with a company that wasn’t actually being unfairly squeezed. Ten years ago, when New York City was making the wild demand that Uber should actually follow the laws of the city if they wanted to operate within its boundaries, Uber responded by actually calling out the city’s mayor by name within the user interface of the app. Business media of the time called the move “clever" and hailed it as a great innovation. (In reality, Uber was, of course, lying and activists’ assertion that Uber was trying to destroy competition and undermine mass transit so that they could raise their prices once they had put all the taxis out of business turned out to be exactly correct.)

Here is an idea: Apple could, rather than creating golden bribes for child sexual predators, actually send a message to its users explaining that it would like to continue providing value to its customers, and ask those customers for help making that case to their elected officials.

Talk to your users

Now obviously, I’m fairly comfortable being antagonistic, but perhaps Apple’s corporate communications team is less so. Their tone might be something closer to Steve Jobs’ famous “thoughts on Flash" at the dawn of the smartphone era, where he laid out a vision of technology and competition that changed the entire landscape of how developers created experiences on the web. Despite Jobs often personally having a hotheaded personality, his letter on this topic was very well-reasoned and logical, and even many of those who were inclined to be deeply critical of his perspective on industry debates found it fairly persuasive.

Apple’s argument today could be very simple: Americans love technology like their phones and their laptops, and are proud of the innovations and success of American tech companies like Apple, and they know that those thrive best when their markets are free and open. That means rules should be made by the rule of law, not backroom deals made behind closed doors, and definitely not by greasing the palms of those in power. (If Apple wants to play nice, they can add something polite about how they know this administration would never do anything like that. Of course that’s a bald faced lie, but clearly Apple leadership wants to do some sucking-up to Trump, and this would at least be a form that does not involve rank debasement.)

Pushing out a message along these lines to every Apple user in America, with a specific call to action directed to their local elected officials and a message that they could send encouraging them to support open innovation would be extraordinarily effective. Name it the “American Phone Freedom Movement" and nudge a few of the stars of the Apple TV shows to talk about how much they love freedom.

As people are fond of pointing out these days, courage is contagious, and it wouldn't take much for others in tech to line up behind Apple if they had merely stood up in this moment. Hell, the entire industry has made a habit of copying Apple in so many areas over the years.

One more thing

In short, instead of meekly capitulating to pathetic bullies, this is a moment when Apple needed go on the attack. Instead of curling up in a defensive ball on the floor and crying while you hand out gold bricks to fascist predators, this is a time when a company full of smart and talented people should stand its ground. Because down the path of acquiescence lies only pain and a long, slow pathetic spiral to irrelevance.

Why would Apple employees believe they should follow leaders who blatantly violate the ethics guidelines that every worker is asked to follow about offering bribes to government officials? Why would consumers believe that Apple is still innovating when they’re resorting to the worst behaviors of over-the-hill incumbents who rely on graft and cronyism instead of actually making cool shit? Gold trinkets are emblematic of the Apple Intelligence flop era, right when they need to be channeling peak Steve Jobs one-more-thing energy. It's not too late. And if he gets mad, tell him he's holding it wrong.

Federal and state law enforcement detained 475 people for immigration-related offenses at a $7.6 billion electric vehicle battery factory near Savannah, Georgia, on Thursday, September 4, in what immigration officials are calling the "largest single-site enforcement operation in the history of Homeland Security Investigations." The operation was a coup for President Donald Trump's mass deportation goals, but it could come at the expense of another Trump priority: boosting domestic manufacturing. 

During a press conference, Steven Schrank, the special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Georgia and Alabama, said the operation was part of a multimonth criminal investigation into the factory's alleged unlawful employment practices. A judicial search warrant was filed on September 2, naming four people to be searched in connection with the criminal investigation. But immigration authorities arrived in force, ready to question and detain hundreds of workers. Of the 475 detained for offenses ranging from crossing the border illegally to overstaying their visa, over 300 were South Korean nationals. The arrests were meant to send a message that "those who exploit our workforce, undermine our economy, and violate federal laws will be held accountable." No criminal charges have yet been filed. 

Video provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and released by WJCL News, a local ABC News affiliate, shows federal and state officers descending on the site to line up, frisk, and shackle hundreds of workers. Each individual, Schrank said, was questioned on their status, and their documents and backgrounds were reviewed before being transported to a detention facility.  

Although Schrank claims all documents were reviewed, one South Korean official told The Wall Street Journal that many of the South Korean nationals were working as instructors in Georgia and had the appropriate visas, like the B-1 Temporary Business Visitor visa, which allows someone to enter the U.S. for an eligible business purpose for between one and six months, and up to one year with an extension. Family members of detained workers interviewed by CNN following the raid said valid work permits did not stop agents from making arrests. Detained Korean nationals have since been released and are allowed to leave the country voluntarily, rather than through deportation, which would have triggered a multiyear entry ban into the United States.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump called on foreign companies to follow U.S. immigration law and encouraged them to "LEGALLY bring your very smart people" to train American workers. But while Trump is confident the immigration raid won't harm an otherwise strong allyship, South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun called the incident "a very serious matter." 

South Korea's response could have significant implications for Trump's stated goal of restoring domestic manufacturing. In July, South Korea announced that it would invest $350 billion in U.S. projects (which will be selected by the Trump administration) and purchase $100 billion worth of American energy in exchange for a reduced tariff rate (15 percent instead of 25 percent). It wouldn't be inconceivable if South Korea started to reconsider this arrangement in light of Thursday's events. In fact, it appears that it already has. During a legislative hearing on Monday, Korean politicians questioned how "companies investing in the U.S. [can] continue to invest properly in the future," reports the Associated Press. Others even called for retaliatory investigations on Americans working in South Korea. 

Meanwhile, LG Energy Solutions—which saw 47 of its employees detained last Thursday—is pausing all business trips to the U.S. and directing other employees on assignment in the U.S. to return immediately. Construction at the Georgia facility—which was part of the state's largest-ever economic development project and expected to employ 8,500 people—has been halted. Given South Korea's rich history of investing in the U.S., and a recent jobs report showing America's manufacturing shrinking, Trump can't afford for South Korea to pull back from U.S. investments.

Trump campaigned on a promise to help American workers through mass deportations of criminal aliens and rebuilding the U.S. manufacturing industry. His immigration policies have failed to capture violent criminals. Now they're jeopardizing jobs for Americans, too.

The post Hyundai Raid Shows Trump Can't Deport His Way To a Manufacturing Boom appeared first on Reason.com.