The Duke of York is to stay away from the royal family’s traditional Christmas gathering at Sandringham this year amid the controversy surrounding his links to an alleged Chinese spy. Andrew, 64, will miss the festivities at the private Norfolk estate of his brother, King Charles, where 45 members of their family had been expected to spend Christmas Day. Last week, a high court hearing revealed that the [alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/16/alleged-chinese-spy-linked-to-prince-andrew-named-as-yang-tengbo), who was banned from the UK, was said to have been a “close” confidant of Andrew. Yang, a businessman whose identity was previously protected by an anonymity order, was named after a judge lifted the ban on Monday. [ How did Yang Tengbo become close confidant of Prince Andrew? ](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/16/how-did-yang-tengbo-become-close-confidant-of-prince-andrew) In a statement, Yang denied suggestions he was involved in espionage and said he had “done nothing wrong or unlawful and the concerns raised by the Home Office against me are ill-founded”. The businessman had visited the UK regularly, attending events at a series of royal residences, including Andrew’s birthday party at his home. According to court documents, Yang was so close to the duke that he was authorised to act on his behalf in an international financial initiative with potential partners and investors in China. Andrew’s office said last week he had stopped all contact with the man, whom he had met through “official channels” with “nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed”. The prince’s ex-wife, Sarah, Duchess of York, will also miss Christmas at Sandringham, in what will be seen as a show of solidarity for her former husband. The pair are said to be preparing to spend the day together at Royal Lodge, the home they share in Windsor Great Park, Berkshire. It is not yet known whether Andrew will attend Charles’s traditional pre-Christmas lunch for the extended family at Buckingham Palace on Thursday. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, who have young families, had already planned to spend Christmas with their respective in-laws this year for the first time, sources said.

The Duke of York will not attend the royal family’s traditional pre-Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace on Thursday amid controversy over his links with an alleged Chinese spy. Prince Andrew is said to have decided to pull out of the occasion after speaking to his ex-wife and close friend, Sarah, Duchess of York. He had already [withdrawn from joining senior royals at Sandringham](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/16/prince-andrew-to-miss-royal-family-christmas-after-links-to-alleged-chinese-spy-emerge) for the festive period. The Buckingham Palace lunch is a private event for senior royals and their wider family who will not be attending Christmas celebrations at King Charles’s Sandringham home. It was alleged at a high court hearing last week that the [businessman Yang Tengbo,](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/17/the-rise-of-yang-tengbo-what-were-his-uk-businesses) who has been banned from entering the UK, was said to have been a close confidant of Andrew. Yang has insisted it is “entirely untrue” to claim he was involved in espionage and that he has “done nothing wrong or unlawful”. The businessman was the founder-partner of the Chinese arm of the duke’s Pitch@Palace initiative, and visited Buckingham Palace twice in 2018 to meet him. He is also said to have entered St James’s Palace and Windsor Castle at Andrew’s invitation. Andrew ceased all contact with Yang when concerns were first raised about him, according to a statement from his office last week. It said the prince met Yang through official channels with “nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed”. Andrew and the Duchess of York were reportedly on the guest list for Thursday’s lunch for about 70 members of the extended royal family, which is seen as a family rather than official occasion. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/18/prince-andrew-to-miss-royal-familys-traditional-pre-christmas-lunch#EmailSignup-skip-link-7) Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion Sources told the Daily Mail that Buckingham Palace was unsure if the couple would attend until Wednesday. Senior royal aides are said to have been optimistically operating on the working assumption the duke would “see sense” and decide to “keep his head down”.

Princess Beatrice will be joining the royal family at Sandringham this Christmas after changing her travel plans due to medical advice, it is understood. Beatrice and her husband, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, are expecting their second child in early spring and were planning on spending the festive period overseas with his parents. But Beatrice, 36, has been advised not to travel long distances, the PA news agency reported. The royal baby will be a little brother or sister for the couple’s three-year-old daughter, Sienna, and Mapelli Mozzi’s son and Beatrice’s stepson, eight-year-old Wolfie. A large number of the royal family will be guests of King Charles and Queen Camilla at Sandringham on Christmas Day. The Prince of Wales revealed recently that 45 people will be “all in one room” at the private Norfolk estate. However, Beatrice’s father, the Duke of York, is staying away amid the controversy surrounding [his links to an alleged Chinese spy](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/16/prince-andrew-to-miss-royal-family-christmas-after-links-to-alleged-chinese-spy-emerge). Last week, a high court hearing revealed that the [alleged spy, Yang Tengbo](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/16/alleged-chinese-spy-linked-to-prince-andrew-named-as-yang-tengbo), who was banned from the UK, was said to have been a “close” confidant of Prince Andrew. Yang, a businessman whose identity was previously protected by an anonymity order, was named after a judge lifted the ban on Monday. In a statement, Yang denied suggestions he was involved in espionage and said he had “done nothing wrong or unlawful and the concerns raised by the Home Office against me are ill-founded”. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/21/princess-beatrice-to-spend-christmas-with-royal-family-due-to-pregnancy#EmailSignup-skip-link-10) Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion Last week, Andrew’s office said he had stopped all contact with the man, whom he had met through “official channels” and with whom “nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed”. The prince’s ex-wife, Sarah, Duchess of York, will also miss Christmas at Sandringham, in what will be considered as a show of solidarity for her former husband. The pair are said to be preparing to spend the day together at Royal Lodge, the home they share in Windsor Great Park, Berkshire. Beatrice’s sister, Princess Eugenie, and her family are planning on spending Christmas with her in-laws.

Rachel Reeves will fly with a delegation of City grandees to China this week as Labour seeks closer economic links with Beijing as part of its quest for growth. With the [outlook increasingly rocky at home](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/07/uk-long-term-borrowing-costs-at-highest-since-1998-amid-fears-over-weak-growth) after a run of soft economic data, the chancellor is sorely in need of a positive story to tell. She appears determined to normalise the UK’s relationship with the communist superpower, despite mounting security concerns and a backdrop of growing geopolitical tension. In the past few weeks alone, the UK [has expelled an alleged Chinese spy](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/16/alleged-chinese-spy-linked-to-prince-andrew-named-as-yang-tengbo) and friend of Prince Andrew, Yang Tengbo, while the US Treasury has accused Beijing of [hacking into staff computers](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/30/china-treasury-cyberattack). Meanwhile, a lawyer for Shein – the online retailer founded in China and which is [lobbying over a potential £50bn London float](https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/03/shein-fashion-group-london-listing-ipo) – was [accused of “wilful ignorance”](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/07/shein-lawyer-accused-of-wilful-ignorance-over-cotton-linked-to-forced-uyghur-labour) over its supply chain practices by British MPs. At the same time, Beijing is expected to be at the sharp end of Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policy, which could result in tariffs of up to 60% being slapped on all Chinese goods. Policymakers are already contending with a [rapidly declining yuan](https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2025/jan/08/bond-market-selloff-government-borrowing-costs-yields-china-currency-falls-us-jobs-business-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-677e28238f0821528891029f#block-677e28238f0821528891029f) and a stock market selloff. Notwithstanding this inauspicious backdrop – and Beijing’s deeply problematic human rights record – Labour is making a concerted effort to build bridges with [China](https://www.theguardian.com/world/china). The foreign secretary, David Lammy, visited the country in October, and Keir [Starmer had a face-to-face meeting with the Chinese president](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/18/keir-starmer-discusses-human-rights-concerns-with-xi-jinping-at-g20), Xi Jinping, on the sidelines of November’s G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro. In its manifesto, Labour promised to reverse what it called “14 years of damaging Conservative inconsistency over China”, with a new approach: “We will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must.” Speaking last month, Reeves said she sought a “pragmatic” relationship with China, which is the UK’s fifth-largest trading partner, [worth £32bn in exports](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6762c99bcdb5e64b69e30769/china-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2024-12-20.pdf) last year. She acknowledged security concerns, but insisted “we should trade and seek investment when it is in our national interest to do so”. City businesses have urged Reeves to help ensure China is not placed on the higher, more stringent, tier of a new “foreign influence registration scheme” – a decision ultimately to be made by the Home Office. Lobbyists for overseas governments will have to declare their role under this new regime, but the “enhanced” tier will force companies carrying out any activity on behalf of another state to make themselves known – something business groups fear could prevent closer ties. The chancellor will take the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, with her on the visit to Beijing and Shanghai, as well as the FCA chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, and a string of senior banking figures, including HSBC’s chair, Mark Tucker. Reeves will meet China’s vice-premier, He Lifeng, in Beijing before flying to Shanghai for discussions with UK firms operating in China. Enhanced cooperation on financial services is at the heart of the Treasury’s hopes for the trip. Reeves lavished praise on the sector in her Mansion House speech last year, calling it [the “crown jewel” of the UK economy](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/14/rules-imposed-after-financial-crisis-have-gone-too-far-reeves-tells-city-bankers). The economist Gerard Lyons, who is on the board of the state-owned Bank of China, says: “From the Chinese perspective, they’re moving up the value curve in terms of the economy and the UK, given its expertise in services and financial services, would be able to provide some assistance there. “And naturally, from the UK perspective, we want to see more inward investment from China and more trade with China – so it suits both sides.” Reeves has been clear that the UK hopes to fly the flag for “free and open trade” in the face of Trump’s “America first” protectionism. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/09/rachel-reeves-heads-to-china-to-build-bridges-but-a-new-golden-era-of-relations-is-impossible#EmailSignup-skip-link-18) Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion The chancellor’s trip is expected to mark the resumption of the UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD), a formal arrangement between the two countries. This structure of regular meetings was introduced under Tony Blair’s government, but the last one was held in London in 2019. After that, relations soured as the draconian security law was passed in Hong Kong, prompting Boris Johnson’s government to [open a visa scheme](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/britain-could-change-immigration-rules-for-hong-kong-citizens) for British passport holders in the territory that has since brought more than 150,000 people to the UK. Over recent years, China and the US have been locked in an increasingly fractious battle for economic supremacy, and hopes have long faded that Beijing’s induction into the global trading system a quarter of a century ago would lead it in a more liberal direction. While Trump’s anti-China rhetoric has been vehement, Joe Biden retained the swingeing tariffs imposed in Trump’s first term. Biden has also used export restrictions to try to restrict China’s access to key technologies, on security grounds. Neil Shearing, chief economist at consultancy Capital [Economics](https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics), who is writing a book about the US-China clash and its influence on the rest of the world, says the UK is unlikely to be able to resist taking sides, whatever Reeves’s intentions. “Given the UK is trying to find a place for itself in the world post-Brexit, trying to build some bridges is not necessarily a bad idea,” he says. But, he adds: “This post-Covid era is about the geopolitical rivalry between the US and China – they are the pre-eminent global superpowers, and increasingly other countries will be forced to pick a side. And in that instance it’s pretty clear which way the UK will break, Trump or no Trump: they’re going to break for the US. We saw this with [Huawei](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/huawei).” Huawei, the Chinese telecoms operator, [was banned from the UK’s 5G network in 2020](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/30/huawei-uk-bans-new-5g-network-equipment-from-september) by Johnson. The UK government had initially sought to take a different line from the Trump administration, but eventually caved in to intense US pressure. Shearing says: “Countries don’t get to decide where they align: the US and China get to decide the contours of this fracturing.” Because of this darker geopolitical backdrop, there will be no resumption of the [“golden era” for UK-China relations](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/20/osborne-china-visit-beijing-best-partner) touted by George Osborne in 2015 – the same year that, improbably, saw President Xi [sipping a pint of IPA in David Cameron’s local pub](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/22/david-cameron-xi-jinping-village-pub-drink-pint) during a state visit. But with GDP at home stagnating, Reeves clearly hopes to underline the distance she is willing to go to seek out willing business partners for the UK.

Abraham Rios, a 76-year-old army veteran and retiree, regularly meets friends at a coffee shop around the corner from his home in Brooklyn, and that is about all he does, he says. The Puerto Rico native who served in the Vietnam war is satisfied with the money he gets from social security and enjoys life, but he would like to see more police in his Clinton Hill neighborhood, where he has lived since 1964. Rios thinks [Andrew Cuomo](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/andrew-cuomo), who on 1 March entered the New York City mayoral race in an attempt to resurrect a seemingly dead political career, can make that happen. “He is a very good leader,” Rios said of Cuomo, who resigned as [New York](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/new-york) governor in 2021 after facing sexual harassment allegations, which he denied. “He made his mistakes, like all of us have,” but “the governor built bridges. He helped the poor. He helped everybody.” Cuomo’s long history in New York politics and name recognition has helped him storm to a lead in a candidate field featuring an incumbent – [Eric Adams](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/eric-adams) – whom many see as corrupt, and a large number of lesser-known candidates who are struggling to get much traction. The scandal that brought Cuomo down and his controversial handling of the Covid-19 pandemic probably won’t have a significant impact on his chances of winning, New York political analysts say, but some voters don’t like what they viewed as his heavy-handed approach as governor and don’t think he is progressive enough. “The judging of the mayor is going to be determined not on incidents in their past but who we feel has got the best chance of leading the city when things that are not predictable happen,” like the pandemic and the September 11 terrorist attacks, said Mitchell Moss, New York University professor of urban policy and planning. “He is the only candidate” with experience “at the federal level, the state level and who understands how to make the tough decisions”. The Democratic mayoral primary, which will probably determine who wins the general election in the blue city, is scheduled for 24 June. The city will again use a [ranked-choice system](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/26/new-york-city-ranked-choice-voting-how-it-works) in which voters pick their preferred candidates from one to five, though they do not need to select more than one. If someone captures more than half the votes, they win; if not, the candidate with the fewest first-round votes is eliminated, and their supporters’ votes go to their second choice. That process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. Cuomo, who for months was rumored to be considering running, had a wide lead in [February](https://www.honanstrategy.com/blog/the-rotten-apple-new-poll-shows-75-of-dems-say-nyc-in-crisis-with-nearly-half-ready-to-leave-if-things-get-worse/) [polls](https://emersoncollegepolling.com/new-york-city-mayoral-poll-cuomo-leads-primary-adams-faces-low-support-amid-high-unfavorability/), with about a third of voters in two surveys saying he was their favorite candidate among nine Democrats, while the runner-up in each only received 10%. Other candidates include Adams, who faced a federal indictment until the US justice department dropped the charges against him, it appears, in exchange for his help implementing Donald Trump’s immigration policy; the current and former city comptrollers, Brad Lander and Scott Stringer; the New York state assembly member Zohran Mamdani; and the state senator Jessica Ramos, among others. In announcing his candidacy, Cuomo said the city was in crisis. “You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person or when the anxiety rises up in your chest as you’re walking down into the subway,” Cuomo said in [a video](https://x.com/andrewcuomo/status/1895891752864924012). “These conditions exist not as an act of God, but rather as an act of our political leaders, or, more precisely, the lack of intelligent action by many of our political leaders.” [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/08/andrew-cuomo-new-york-mayor-election#img-2) Demonstrators, including Lindsey Boylan, second from right, a former aide who accused Andrew Cuomo of an unwanted kiss, stand outside a fundraiser on Tuesday. Photograph: Richard Drew/AP As governor, Cuomo allegedly [bullied](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/gretchen-whitmer-andrew-cuomo-sexual-harassment-allegations) those who disagreed with him. While that made it hard for him to [find allies](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cuomo-fall-sexual-harassment/2021/08/10/69094b8a-f9fd-11eb-b8dd-0e376fba55f2_story.html) when he faced calls to resign, it also contributed to the perception that he is a strong leader, said Doug Muzzio, a retired political science professor who worked at Baruch College. Meanwhile, “the incumbent is seen to be a weak person who is in the pocket of a president who the voters despise”, Muzzio said. Cuomo can also point to his infrastructure accomplishments, Moss said, which include rebuilding a bridge that connects [Brooklyn and Queens](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/nyregion/kosciuszko-bridge-span-new-york.html), an overhaul of [La Guardia airport](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/jul/27/cuomo-and-biden-unveil-plan-for-new-laguardia-airport-new-york-video?CMP=gu_com) and construction of the [Moynihan Train Hall](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/arts/design/moynihan-train-hall-review.html). Kim Grover, a graphic designer who lives in the East Village, said she was concerned about the allegations that Cuomo [sexually harassed](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/10/andrew-cuomo-resigns-sexual-harassment-intimidation) 11 women and that his [administration underreported](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/12/andrew-cuomo-new-york-nursing-home-covid-deaths-leaked-recording) how many people died in nursing homes during the pandemic. Still, Grover thinks Cuomo [stood up](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/oct/07/be-afraid-of-covid-new-york-governor-cuomo-blasts-trump-over-coronavirus-denial-video) to Trump during the pandemic – and in doing so, to many, [became a hero](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/10/andrew-cuomo-resigns-covid-hero-fall-from-grace). She now worries about maintaining New Yorkers’ civil rights and [sanctuary city](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/05/mayors-sanctuary-city-immigration) policy, which keeps local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officers, something Trump and [Republicans have attacked](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/05/mayors-sanctuary-city-immigration). “In terms of his excellent delivery and communication skills, my first thought would be that \[Cuomo\] would be a good person to stand his ground against President Trump,” said Grover, 67, who has not decided whom she will support. Gabe Russell, a petitioner for a Democrat in the comptroller race – whom he declined to name – did not like Cuomo even before the Covid and sexual harassment scandals, and Cuomo is not on his list of five candidates. His top two choices are Mamdani and Lander. Cuomo “was [very cozy](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/nyregion/cuomo-fundraiser-donors-lobbyists.html) with the real estate lobby … and that is always a bad sign”, said Russell, 33, who wants the government to use [mathematics](https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/30/can-math-make-redistricting-more-fair) to prevent gerrymandering. “New York is one of the bluest states. We should have been doing far more lefty stuff than we ever do.” Russell also thinks Cuomo could lose support, citing the 2021 mayoral election, when [Andrew Yang](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/23/andrew-yang-new-york-mayoral-race-eric-adams) was the frontrunner and then fell to fourth place. Elena Siyanko, a longtime leader of arts organizations who moved to New York in 1996, said the city was once a “generative place in terms of culture, where artists could afford to live” but had become a place “for hi-tech and financial services”. An East Village resident, Siyanko blames Cuomo for the safety issues he now decries because of how he cut funding for social services. For example, to address a budget shortfall, he discontinued $65m in annual payments for a [rental assistance program](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/04/andrew-cuomo-fix-new-york-00209892), while also [refusing to raise taxes](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/nyregion/wealth-tax-budget-billionaires.html) on the state’s wealthiest residents. “He is in this neoliberal camp of removing any safety net and economic support from public life,” said Siyanko, 53, who immigrated from Kyiv, Ukraine, and is undecided in the mayoral race. “We just need to try to get to a corruption-free candidate in this chapter of our life in New York City.”

It was a shocking scandal involving the betrayal of one of the most sacred bonds in medicine, as one of [New York](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/new-york)’s top doctors abused hundreds of women under his care. Now, after a fresh settlement agreement last week from [Columbia University](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/columbia-university) and NewYork-Presbyterian hospital, the compensation for the crimes of Robert Hadden has approached almost a billion dollars and raised further questions as to how he was able to carry out his crimes for so long. The latest $750m deal covered [sexual assaults](https://www.theguardian.com/society/rape) by the gynecologist for more than two decades at New York hospitals. His victims had [already received more than $200m](https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/columbia-university-and-newyork-presbyterian-reach-164-million-agreement-146-past-patients-former-gynecologist-robert-hadden) from his former employers, who were accused of knowing about his behavior and allowing him to continue practicing medicine. “It’s a clear message that we’re going to hold institutions accountable,” Laurie Maldonado, who spent about 10 years as one of Hadden’s patients and was sexually assaulted by him, said of the settlement. “Don’t protect a serial predator; protect your patients.” In 2023, Hadden [was convicted](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/25/robert-hadden-gynecologist-sentenced-sexual-abuse) and sentenced to 20 years in prison for luring patients to travel across state lines so that he could sexually abuse them. From 1987 until 2012, Hadden sexually assaulted and abused female patients during appointments and deliveries at Columbia University Irving medical center and NewYork-Presbyterian hospital, according to federal prosecutors. His victims even included some of New York City’s most prominent women, including [Evelyn Yang](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/andrew-evelyn-yang-dr-robert-hadden.html), wife of former presidential candidate and New York mayoral hopeful Andrew Yang. Hadden conducted an emergency delivery for Eva Santos Veloz in 2008 and checked her without gloves, using significant force and almost his entire fist, she said. “It was a really traumatic experience,” said Santos Veloz, who was then 18 years old and scared to disclose the sexual assault because of her immigration status. Maldonado, who teaches and studies single-parent families and policy, said she saw Hadden from 2003 until 2012, during which time he engaged in grooming behavior by finding ways to get her to undress and asking inappropriate questions about her sex life. “He really used his knowledge to make it seem like he was the only doctor for you,” said Maldonado, who had a miscarriage. In 2011, two days before she gave birth to her son, Hadden did a dilation check during which he examined her cervix with enough force to make her cry out in pain. “It’s supposed to be the happiest, joyful time of being a mother, and you feel like that moment was taken away from you,” Maldonado said. “I feel like the harm and the trauma is still in my body.” In 2012, New York police arrested Hadden after receiving a call from a patient who said he licked her during an exam. Despite that allegation, a Columbia administrator allowed him to continue practicing medicine as long as he had a chaperone with him while examining patients and complied with university and hospital policies, [ProPublica reported](https://www.propublica.org/article/columbia-obgyn-sexually-assaulted-patients-for-20-years). He continued to sexually assault patients for five weeks before Columbia suspended him, and he later retired. In 2013, the university informed Hadden’s patients that he had closed his practice but did not provide a reason, [according to a letter](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23944954-dear-valued-patient-letter-april-2013/) in the ProPublica report. In 2016, prosecutors [agreed to a deal](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/09/new-york-gynecologist-robert-hadden-federal-charges) in which Hadden would plead guilty to a felony and misdemeanor, register as a sex offender and surrender his medical license but not serve time in prison. After more women abused by Hadden [came forward](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/16/evelyn-yang-andrew-wife-sexual-assault-pregnant) in 2020, federal prosecutors [filed new charges](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-obstetriciangynecologist-robert-hadden-charged-manhattan-federal-court-sexually), which resulted in the conviction and 20-year-prison sentence. Columbia University [did not apologize](https://www.propublica.org/article/columbia-obgyn-abuse-university-students-response) until ProPublica published its report in 2023, according to the news organization. Before the settlement this week, the hospitals [agreed to pay](https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/hadden-agreement) $71m to 79 patients in 2021 and [$165m](https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/columbia-university-and-newyork-presbyterian-reach-164-million-agreement-146-past-patients-former-gynecologist-robert-hadden) to 147 patients in 2022. The new deal provides $750m to 576 patients. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/10/robert-hadden-sexual-assault-columbia-university-gynecologist#EmailSignup-skip-link-18) Sign up to First Thing Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion “This has been 13 years in the making, and I’m grateful for all my clients who have come forward to hold not just Hadden accountable, but more importantly, his enablers at [Columbia University](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/columbia-university) and NewYork-Presbyterian hospital,” said Anthony T DiPietro, an attorney for the plaintiffs. A Columbia spokesperson responded to an interview request with a statement that the university was “implementing a multi-pronged plan, including an external investigation, a survivors’ settlement fund” and new “patient safety policies and programs to address the abuses of Robert Hadden”. “We deeply regret the pain that his patients suffered, and this settlement is another step forward in our ongoing work and commitment to repair harm and support survivors. We commend the survivors for their bravery in coming forward,” the statement continued. A NewYork-Presbyterian spokesperson responded to the request by stating that Columbia would be “issuing all statements on this issue”. Santos Veloz, who now has three children, called the most recent huge settlement “a big win”. “No matter how much they wanted to cover it up, we were able to work together to hold \[Columbia\] accountable in some way,” said Santos Veloz, who hopes to become an immigration attorney. Still, Santos Veloz said, she was waiting to see whether Columbia would follow through with its plan to better protect patients. “We could get all the money in the world, but if this continues to happen, it means nothing,” she said. Meanwhile, DiPietro, the plaintiffs’ attorney, now represents hundreds of women in lawsuits against [Dr Barry Brock](https://www.atdlaw.com/lawsuits/barry-brock), a gynecologist at Cedars-Sinai medical center in Los Angeles, [who allegedly sexually abused](https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/107-women-lawsuit-alleging-sexual-misconduct-former-cedars-sinai-obgyn/) patients, and against NewYork-Presbyterian, Weill Cornell medical center and Northwell Health, which employed Darius Paduch, a urologist sentenced to life in prison for sexually abusing patients, including minors. “The Haddens of the world are not the problem; they are just a symptom,” DiPietro. “The problem is the toxic culture at these medical institutions that lie, cover up and expose more patients to known serial sexual predators.” _Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organizations. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html_

June 5, 2025, 10:40 PM ET The sun rises every morning. Spring turns to summer. Water is wet. Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s [relationship](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/donald-trump-elon-musk-butler/680174/) has ended with a tweet about Jeffrey Epstein. This was inevitable. When [Elon Musk](https://www.theatlantic.com/tag/person/elon-musk/) attached himself to [Trump](https://www.theatlantic.com/tag/person/donald-trump/) during Trump’s presidential transition last fall, there was great speculation that these two massive egos would, eventually, clash and that their strategic partnership would flame out spectacularly. Many onlookers assumed that Trump would be the one to tire of Musk and that the centibillionaire would fly too close to the sun, becoming too visible in the administration or simply too annoying. During his short time in government, Musk did manage to anger [some of Trump’s staff and advisers](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/05/elon-musk-doge-opponents-dc/682866/), tank his [public reputation](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/cybertruck-washington-dc/682232/) with many American voters, and jeopardize the [financial health](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/04/tesla-earnings-elon-musk-doge/682551/) of his EV company, Tesla. Still, through all of that, Trump remained remarkably on message and supportive. Instead it was Musk who fired the first shots, specifically criticisms of the Republicans’ budget-reconciliation package (a.k.a. the One Big Beautiful Bill Act). On Tuesday, Musk called the bill a “disgusting abomination,” [threatened](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1929984535456035202) to politically retaliate against its supporters, and argued it would increase the debt. This led to Trump calling out Musk in an Oval Office meeting today with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and suggesting that the DOGE figurehead had “Trump derangement syndrome.” The [episode that followed](https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/06/elon-musk-fighting-x-truth-trump/683045/) has been playing out in reality-TV fashion, with X and Truth Social acting as confessional booths. On X, Musk argued that, “without me, Trump would have lost the election” and accused Trump of “such ingratitude.” On Truth Social, Trump [posted](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114632205177163456) that “Elon was ‘wearing thin’” and that, when the president asked Musk to leave, “he just went CRAZY!” It keeps going. At one point in the afternoon, as if sensing the feud had reached a critical mass of attention, Musk leveled a serious allegation against Trump, [posting](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1930703865801810022): “@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk had, it seems, kicked off an attentional spectacle without precedent. You have the world’s richest man, who is terminally online and whose brain has been addled by social media and, [reportedly](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html), other substances. He is one of the most prolific and erratic high-profile posters, so much so that he purchased his favorite social network to mold it in his image. He is squaring off against Trump, arguably the most consequential, off-the-cuff poster of all time and, one must note, the current president of the United States. If it weren’t for the other, both men would be peerless in their ability to troll, outrage, and command news cycles via their fragile, mercurial egos. The point being: If this public fight between Musk and Trump continues, we will witness a Super Bowl of schadenfreude unfold. It’s guaranteed to entertain and leave those of us who spectate feeling gross. It is, in other words, the logical endpoint of internet beefs. This spectacle is tempting to view as a cage match: Two men enter, one man leaves. (Musk, at least, is [familiar](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/musk-zuckerberg-rivalry-newsworthiness/675014/).) But that mentality supposes a winner and a loser, and it’s worth asking what winning even looks like here. Surely, nobody will come out of this unscathed. Musk’s “Epstein files” comment, beyond being an allegation about Trump’s relationship with the convicted sex offender and child trafficker, also is a suggestion that Musk might have other dirt on the Trump administration. And the likely loss of Musk’s donor money deprives Trump of political leverage. Similarly, Trump has [suggested](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114632206992330264) he might strip Musk’s companies of their federal funding and subsidies. Tesla’s stock has fallen [sharply](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/05/tesla-shares-musk-trump.html) today since Musk began rage-posting against Trump, which suggests there will be real consequences. (Meanwhile, people, including Steve Bannon, are already [musing](https://www.mediaite.com/politics/bannon-says-hes-advising-trump-to-deport-elon-musk-immediately/) that Musk could get himself deported.) Consider, though, that in the realm of social media, Musk and Trump both know exactly what they are doing. Musk and Trump are innately attuned to attention and how to attract and wield it. It stands to reason that their interpretation of their past decade online is that public feuding has, essentially, no downside for them. Instead, their perma-arguing, norm-stomping, and general shamelessness has allowed them to become the main characters of a media and political ecosystem that demands constant fodder. Harnessing attention in this way has proved remarkably lucrative. Many credit Trump’s initial victory in 2016 to his ability to program the news cycle 140 characters at a time. Meanwhile, some [analysts](https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/twitter-elon-musk-meme-tweet-debates/676857/) have suggested that Musk’s companies are, in their own right, memestocks whose fortunes have risen on the centibillionaire’s incessant ability to stay in the spotlight. Trump’s and Musk’s constant provocations and attention seeking have downstream effects, too. Their feuding creates content for others to draft off of. The press can cover it, influencers can react to it, politicians can fundraise off it, and all manner of online hustlers can find a way to get in. You can already see the attentional cottage industry hard at work in the Musk-Trump fight as lesser attention merchants try to involve themselves. The podcaster Lex Fridman [offered](https://x.com/lexfridman/status/1930717014420807992) to broker peace on his show while the rapper Ye [stepped](https://x.com/kanyewest/status/1930709557879439628) in to comment on the chaos. The onetime presidential candidate and third-party champion Andrew Yang [seized](https://x.com/AndrewYang/status/1930726683360833860) on Musk’s comments to drum up enthusiasm for his pet project. Even the replies became valuable real estate—the long strings of responses to Musk's posts about Trump are littered with advertisements automatically inserted by X. (I saw one for a Trump T-shirt company.) In this way, a Trump-Musk beef is an attentional Big Bang. In 2020, the blogger [Venkatesh Rao](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/) wrote a seminal post titled “The Internet of Beefs,” arguing that the structure of social media and our culture-warring has brought about “a stable, endemic, background societal condition of continuous conflict.” In it, he describes the Internet of Beefs as having “a feudal structure,” with charismatic leaders (knights), and anonymous legions of normies (mooks) who’ve devoted themselves to fight on behalf of these leaders. Rao identifies Trump as an ur-example of a knight, who is able to profit off of all of the discord he’s helped sow. “For the mook, the conflict is a means to an end, however incoherent,” Rao writes. “For the knight, the conflict is the end. Growing it, and keeping it going, is something like an entrepreneurial cultural capital business model.” I reread Rao’s post as the internet worked itself into a lather over today’s fight. Many of the dynamics Rao explained were on display: sycophants lining up to defend Musk or Trump in the hope of getting noticed, various posters (myself included) excitedly or dutifully chronicling the fallout—there is seemingly opportunity everywhere, created by this attentional spectacle. The [content](https://x.com/JoeyMannarinoUS/status/1930672338514681902) is at [once](https://bsky.app/profile/kimberleyjohnson.bsky.social/post/3lqve647zkc2e) [depressing](https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1930733214672515552) and [tremendous](https://bsky.app/profile/ericcolumbus.bsky.social/post/3lqv7lp3ark2a). At a glance, it looks like everyone’s winning. Of course, nobody is. Rao’s most salient point in his essay is that this state of forever beef is a consequence of a societal rot. It’s a stalling tactic of sorts, one that prevents us from deciding who we are, both individually and collectively. If that sounds overwrought, it’s worth remembering the genesis of Musk and Trump’s feud, a funding bill in Congress that would result in roughly [$1 trillion in cuts](https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics/medicaid-food-stamps-gop-proposed-cuts) to Medicaid and food stamps, while [offering a similar value](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-catherine-rampell.html) in tax cuts to high earners. Millions of people [could](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/upshot/obamacare-cuts-republicans.html?searchResultPosition=2) lose their current coverage through Obamacare if the bill passes. These details are vaporized by the size and scale of this particular beef. The Trump-Musk feud is not so much a distraction as it is evidence of a societal tendency toward abstraction, even obfuscation. A cage match is easier to watch than a discussion about who deserves benefits and resources. It is certainly more cathartic than an ideological stalemate about the world we want to build. Maybe Trump or Musk will find a way to win or lose their spat. The rest of us, though, will probably not be so lucky, destined instead to spectate fight after fight.

With a week left until New York’s Democratic mayoral primary, one might have thought that the former governor Andrew Cuomo would be measuring the drapes at Gracie Mansion. Real estate developers, corporations like Doordash, a smattering of billionaires and even Billy Joel [have shoveled cash](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/01/nyregion/cuomo-donors-mayor.html) into his campaign, with his Super Pac spending more money than any other outside force in the city’s political history. This is on top of his entering the race with major name recognition advantage, amounting to a [20- or 30-point lead](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/nyc-mayoral-primary-election-polls-2025.html) as recently as May. But according to a new poll, Zohran Mamdani – the insurgent state assemblyman and democratic socialist whom [the Nation recently co-endorsed](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thenation.com_article_politics_nation-2Dendorsement-2Dnyc-2Dmayor-2Dzohran-2Dmamdani-2Dbrad-2Dlander_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=QNvoQ9lpa0iG12o7tFiw0L3O218kc6fAG2Dzb-i2318&e=) along with fellow mayoral candidate and New York City comptroller Brad Lander – has pulled [ahead](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.politico.com_news_2025_06_11_zohran-2Dmamdani-2Dclimbs-2Dto-2Dtop-2Dof-2Dpoll-2Dleading-2Dandrew-2Dcuomo-2D00401594&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=--HfzpQb32af1AEBDIxEzXdgRQZId-PcsA3SP3Zq56o&e=) of Cuomo for the first time. And while Mamdani’s campaign deserves credit for offering a clear, inspiring, progressive message, the fact that he is competitive can also be partly credited to [New York](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/new-york) City’s ranked-choice voting (RCV) system. It’s a winning system for candidates who would otherwise be sidelined or would cannibalize each other’s support – and for voters who can finally cast their ballots based on policy rather than pragmatism. America’s politics have long been dominated (or diluted) by [first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting](https://www.commoncause.org/colorado/articles/first-past-the-post-voting-our-elections-explained/?source=adwords&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22610707604&gbraid=0AAAAADyMmbxYvgKQkNW1aCWcCNsqtR_3W&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmK_CBhCEARIsAMKwcD5f9WockqiPiKpuesUwXnY7ZodFi0KQFrByDznkG_o-h_uWXdf8QocaAkD_EALw_wcB). In it, citizens cast their ballot for one candidate, and whoever receives the most votes wins. Straightforward as it seems, this method forces an either/or choice, often resulting in voters deciding between the lesser of two evils. Not only does this [reinforce a two-party duopoly](https://secondratedemocracy.com/the-two-party-duopoly/) in general elections, but it also incentivizes a binary choice between the two leading candidates in primaries. For the candidates themselves, the system encourages scorched-earth campaigns that divide parties and inflame the narcissism of small differences. The progressive senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren came into the 2020 Democratic presidential primary as allies with much more in common ideologically than their centrist opponents. But there was no electoral incentive for either of them to form an alliance with the other. Instead, they fought to consolidate a minority faction within the party, and got mired in a [grisly](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_01_13_politics_bernie-2Dsanders-2Delizabeth-2Dwarren-2Dmeeting&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=t_CT5ejLgObQ7U_bFxJhBjcfHTVnq3oI3lANJLLG76M&e=) and [public](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__thehill.com_homenews_campaign_477868-2Dsanders-2Dcampaign-2Dtelling-2Dvolunteers-2Dto-2Dtell-2Dwarren-2Dsupporters-2Dshe-2Donly_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=3PpmlGy3MzH2nNwjMmC64pRlYx4N60tfKPffofhJmrc&e=) feud. The mudslinging did leave one person standing – Joe Biden. In contrast, RCV makes it possible for dark horse candidates to work together. After Mamdani’s campaign reached the fundraising limit, he [urged his supporters](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gothamist.com_news_to-2Ddefeat-2Dandrew-2Dcuomo-2Dzohran-2Dmamdani-2Durges-2Dsupporters-2Dto-2Ddonate-2Dto-2Dadrienne-2Dadams&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=v6DvbcERwrv3DuaXiww2462_wyU30Nj9owJy-PBqBWw&e=) to donate to a fellow anti-Cuomo candidate, Adrienne Adams. Adams, in turn, has maintained a focus on criticizing Cuomo, even deleting a [tweet](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nydailynews.com_2025_06_11_adrienne-2Dadams-2Ddeletes-2Dpost-2Dcritical-2Dof-2Dzohran-2Dmamdani-2Dbut-2Ddeclares-2Dno-2Dregrets_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=nOE-r16pe2MX_UdYTV-NkSgCJ7W6-VCO0MggfYjddcw&e=) that was perceived as a swipe at Mamdani. These contenders are making it clear they truly believe – as the Nation’s editorial board wrote in our endorsement – New Yorkers deserve better than Andrew Cuomo. Critics of ranked-choice voting argue it’s too confusing, but successful implementations of the system in other jurisdictions suggest otherwise. In Alaska’s 2022 congressional special election, the first statewide RCV election there, [85% of people](https://www.alaskansforbetterelections.com/polling-shows-alaskan-voters-understand-ranked-choice-voting/) who cast their ballots said they found the method to be simple. It also enabled the Democrat Mary Peltola to fend off an extremist challenge from Sarah Palin. Maine has also seen promising results from RCV, with [60% of its voters](https://fairvote.org/press/maine_voters_want_to_keep_rcv/) favoring the system. Cities like Minneapolis and Cambridge, Massachusetts, have [enjoyed higher turnout](https://fairvote.org/the_facts_of_ranked_choice_voting_voters_like_it_high_turnouts_are_trending/) after the implementation of RCV. But RCV is only as effective as its participants make it. Ahead of New York City’s mayoral primary in 2021, I wrote [a column](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/04/ranked-choice-voting-is-already-changing-politics-better/) expressing high hopes for how the debut of RCV could reshape the city’s politics. But that race became chaotic for other reasons. Scott Stringer and Dianne Morales’s campaigns [collapsed](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cityandstateny.com_politics_2024_09_four-2Dcandidates-2Drace-2Dand-2Dcounting-2Dprogressives-2Dlook-2Dranked-2Dchoice-2Ddefeat-2Deric-2Dadams_399521_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cfFL3dLPwaOYnncRIaJaVb6yzkWBiQee8cU8wm1TOso&m=KbIsIfQ6Cbs4M7Um7rVRyhou4FqmgqJi2srL1glcdBQ49JDZGCKSoO2yD81CfFbd&s=3lbm6--HZ-aCF8WFoIYInh1zSZN30mpj5Hl9h3xQSjo&e=). Advocacy groups had to un-endorse and re-endorse – in some cases, multiple times. There was a progressive effort to coalesce around Maya Wiley, including a belated [endorsement](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/nyregion/aoc-maya-wiley-endorsement-nyc-mayor.html) from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Meanwhile, pragmatists who felt Eric Adams and Andrew Yang lacked substance turned to the sanitation commissioner, Kathryn Garcia. If Wiley and Garcia had cross-endorsed, one of them might have defeated Adams. Instead, Adams won the primary in the final round by [just over 7,000 votes](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/22/us/elections/results-nyc-mayor-primary.html). This time, the mayoral candidates seem to have learned. On Friday, Mamdani and Lander [cross-endorsed each other](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/nyregion/mamdani-lander-endorsement-nyc-mayor.html), encouraging their supporters to rank the other second. Mamdani explained the decision with a refreshing mix of idealism and realism: “This is the necessary step to ensure that we’re not just serving our own campaigns – we’re serving the city at large.” This was followed by [another cross-endorsement](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/nyregion/mamdani-blake-nyc-mayors-race.html), between Mamdani and former assemblyman Michael Blake, on Monday. And the national progressive movement is much more united than it was in 2021, with both [Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/bernie-sanders-endorse-mamdani-mayor.html) endorsing Mamdani in the home stretch this time. By treating each other like allies rather than adversaries, the anti-Cuomo coalition might just prevail. If anything, it is the establishment wing of the New York Democratic party that is struggling to coalesce – as evinced by the New York Times’ [non-endorsement endorsement](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/opinion/new-york-mayor-election-advice.html) that, if you squint, could be perceived as encouraging New Yorkers to support Cuomo, Lander, hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, or flee the city. The Nation has a long history of covering New York’s mayoral races. Although no New York mayor has been elected to higher office [since 1869](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22927885) – just four years after the magazine was founded – the office has long held fascinating implications for American progressivism. Fiorello La Guardia, whom Mamdani and Lander have both named as the [greatest mayor](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/nyregion/zohran-mamdani-interview.html) in the city’s history, took office at the height of the Great Depression and led the city through the second world war. Over 12 years of cascading crises, he transformed the city with a bold vision characterized by expanding public housing and public spaces, curbing corruption, and unflinchingly supporting the reforms of the New Deal. Now, nearly a century later, New Yorkers have an opportunity to bring the city into a new era once again. And ordinarily, making that kind of change possible would require making a tough choice. But if it happens this time, it will be because of a ranked choice. * Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of the Nation, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a contributor to the [Washington Post](https://www.theguardian.com/media/washington-post), the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times

When [Zohran Mamdani](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/zohran-mamdani), a 33-year-old self-described socialist, won New York’s mayoral Democratic nomination last week over a seasoned but scandal-scarred veteran, the city’s financial elite had a meltdown. This was the start of “hot commie summer” in the city, New York hedgevfund billionaire Daniel Loeb [posted to X](https://x.com/DanielSLoeb1/status/1937800092255183096). John Catsimatidis, billionaire CEO of grocery chain Gristedes and friend of Donald Trump, warned on Fox Business: “If the city of New York is going socialist, I will definitely close, or sell, or move.” CNBC financial news channel anchor Joe Kernen compared New York to Batman’s [crime-riddled Gotham](https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/cnbcs-joe-kernen-compares-nyc-to-dystopian-gotham-from-the-batman-movies-after-zohran-mamdanis-victory/). “ They’re taking Wall Streeters and making them walk out onto the ice in the East River, And, and then they fall through. I mean there is a class warfare that’s going on.” With five months until the mayoral election proper, the 1% are revolting, led by loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit “hundreds of millions of dollars” into an opposing campaign. “The risk/reward of running for mayor over the next 132 days is extremely compelling as the cost in time and energy is small and the upside is enormous.” Ackman said he was “gravely concerned” because he believed the leftwing candidate’s policies would trigger an exodus of the wealth that would destroy the tax base and undermine New York’s public services. The city under Mamdani, he [posted](https://archive.ph/o/H0KqO/https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1938094628034506984) on Wedneday, “is about to become much more dangerous and economically unviable.” In 2021, the top 1% of New York City taxpayers paid 48% of taxes – up from 40% in 2019, according to a report from the city’s finance department. But at the same time, New York has become an increasingly unaffordable city for those outside the 1% – [especially](https://citylimits.org/tale-of-two-cities-report-finds-stark-racial-wealth-gap-among-new-yorkers/) for people of color. In a post a day later, Ackman said: “The ability for [New York](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/new-york) City to offer services for the poor and needy, let alone the average New Yorker, is entirely dependent on New York City being a business-friendly environment and a place where wealthy residents are willing to spend 183 days and assume the associated tax burden. Unfortunately, both have already started making arrangements for the exits.” “Terror is the feeling,” Kathryn Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, which represents top business leaders, told CNBC on Tuesday. Gerard Filitti, senior legal counsel at the Lawfare Project, a pro-Israel thinktank, non-profit and litigation fund, and a New Yorker with strong ties to the finance industry, said Mamdani’s nomination “marked a dangerous turning point for the city”. “There’s big concern that businesses and the economy will be hurt. There’s already a move by business leaders and entrepreneurs to consider a move outside of the city, taking jobs and tax dollars with them, at time when the front-running candidate promises to make even more change that could destroy the economy,” Filitti said. The anger was not necessarily purely economic. Wall Street’s decision makers have been shaken after seeing their preferred candidate, Andrew Cuomo, pushed aside despite the millions they poured into his campaign. Fix the City, Cuomo’s political action committee (Pac), raised a record $25m to help see off Mamdani. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg alone gave $8.3m to the Pac. “These are billionaires who are giving hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars to Andrew Cuomo precisely because they know we are going to tax them to make life a little bit more affordable here, in the most expensive city in the United States,” Mamdani told the [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/nyregion/andrew-cuomo-campaign-finance.html) before the election. “They know they can count on Cuomo because Cuomo has a track record of rewarding the political donors.” [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/28/hot-commie-summer-zohran-mamdani#img-2) A Mamdani supporter wears a sticker that says ‘I didn’t rank Cuomo.’ Photograph: Heather Khalifa/AP New York’s moneyed class argues it’s not about them but the future of the city. “When you look at what New York City is and has been historically – a bastion of trading and the center of world capitalism, the engine of economic growth and prosperity, the stock market, an the inspiration for other world economies to develop their markets and economies in line with New York – and now what were seeing is an economy and quality of life that is slowly deteriorating,” said Filitti. “Now we have a front-running Democrat candidate who is promising even more radical change and that change is a threat to the structure of New York and the way people identify with New York City,” Filitti added. It’s an argument the rich have made many times before. Many of the 1% threatened to leave after former mayor Bill de Blasio called for raising their taxes to pay for the losses the city experienced after the Covid pandemic. Wall Street [poured millions](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/14/nyc-mayor-race-wall-street-gives-millions-to-eric-adams-andrew-yang.html) into mayor Eric Adam’s 2021 campaign for office to see off more progressive candidates. They won those fights; this time, they lost. A former Wall Street CEO told Politico: “These titans of Wall Street and titans of finance are used to getting their way. They didn’t get their way. They got the opposite of their way. They got a guy who couldn’t be more disliked by them – and vice versa.” Wall Street’s vision for the city is probably far from that shared by many other residents of a sprawling metropolis that traditionally has played host to vibrant immigrant communities from all over the world, many of them poor. It is of course, host to the Statue of Liberty on whose base is written the famous lines: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Manhattan was also the birthplace of the Occupy Wall Street protests in the US back in 2011, which occupied the downtown Zucotti Square – blocks from Wall Street – and eventually saw protests spread across the rest of the country and the world. Democratic progressives were quick to celebrate Mamdani’s victory. “Your dedication to an affordable, welcoming, and safe New York City where working families can have a shot has inspired people across the city. Billionaires and lobbyists poured millions against you and our public finance system. And you won,” [wrote](https://x.com/AOC/status/1937708449661370542) representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another progressive who won out against a more establishment candidate. Another longtime critic of Wall Street and the billionaire class also saw a change in politics as usual. “The American people are beginning to stand up and fight back. We have seen that in the many [Fighting Oligarchy](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/12/bernie-sanders-rally-los-angeles) events that we’ve done around the country that have drawn huge turnouts. We have seen that in the millions of people who came out for the [No Kings rallies](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/19/no-kings-how-many-protesters-attended) that took place this month in almost every state. And yesterday, we saw that in the Democratic primary in New York City,” senator [Bernie Sanders](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/25/democrats-learn-zohran-mamdani-victory) wrote in The Guardian. Millions will now be spent attacking Mamdani. But he has seen off one well-funded attempt to derail his campaign. Whether or not his campaign has the momentum to last until November, remains to be seen. But Wall Streeters have been put on notice that New York, and the changing nature of the Democratic party, may no longer be as amenable to their interests, or their vision for New York.

“You want a new political party and you shall have it!” [Elon Musk](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/elon-musk) declared in early July. The world’s richest man is never one to shy away from grandiose statements, and he continued: “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the [America Party](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/05/elon-musk-america-party-congress) is formed to give you back your freedom.” The America party, Musk hopes, will be a viable alternative to the [Democratic](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats) and [Republican](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans) parties: a political organization that can influence the future of US politics. He has mooted running candidates for two to three Senate seats and up to 10 House districts. Given the tight divide between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, Musk believes capturing the small number of seats “would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws”. Given there is consistently strong support for an alternative to the Big Two parties, it should be a good idea, right? Wrong, said Bernard Tamas, professor of political science at Valdosta State University and author of The Demise and Rebirth of American Third Parties. “At this moment in American politics, I see no evidence that you’re going to get another party winning seats in [Congress](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-congress) and actually being able to have an impact in the government,” Tamas said. “It’s not just the money that Democrats and Republicans have. They have all the resources. They have the money. They have 150 years of structure. They have all the professional politicians, and they have all the consultants, and they have all the Madison Avenue ad [companies](https://www.businessinsider.com/madison-ave-ad-agencies-2013-2) working for them.” The whole concept of the America party seemingly came together in a matter of weeks, following the famous row between Musk and Donald Trump. And as with many ideas born out of spite and fury, certain elements appear to have not been fully thought through. [Americaparty.com](http://americaparty.com/), for example, is already registered to someone else, who now appears to be trying to sell the domain name for $6.9m. On X, which Musk owns, @AmericaParty was already taken, so the new venture had to opt for @AmericaPartyX. It’s not yet clear what the party will stand for, beyond opposition to Republicans’ ballooning of the [national debt](http://theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/29/senate-debate-trump-bill). Musk has yet to elaborate on the “contentious laws” his politicians would challenge, and there is no party platform or manifesto. In any case, third parties have rarely, if ever, been successful in the way Musk [envisages](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941125459628179641). But where they can make a difference is in highlighting issues and pressuring the main two parties to act. “In terms of the parties that really had a big impact, they didn’t win seats,” Tamas said. “The job of third parties is disruption. It’s to sting like a bee. It’s to cause pain.” Tamas pointed to the Progressive party in Wisconsin and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party, which [managed to win](https://www3.mnhs.org/mnopedia/search/index/minnesota-farmer-labor-party-1924-1944) key victories over relief for unemployed constituents and banking reform in the state, as examples of political groups that have managed to inflict such a bee sting. That doesn’t appear to be what Musk is going for, however, despite there being an opportunity for a stinging insect. “Here you have the Republican party moving farther and farther to the right, and farther and farther in this kind of Maga direction, with nobody in the Republican party in Congress willing to stand up at all to Trump or this movement,” Tamas said. “It’s a perfect opening for a third party. This is what it looks like historically. But you’re not going to replace them. What you do is you attack them for this. You’re trying to pull them back towards the center. “This is how the third parties have always succeeded. The idea is you cause them pain, and what they do, if it works, is they shift back towards something that reflects more what the public wants, or deals with the issues that the third party is bringing up.” Parties that have pursued the getting-people-elected approach have fared less well than the pain-inflictors. Forward party was founded by Andrew Yang, who had previously run for the Democratic presidential nomination, in 2022, with the slightly call-to-arms style slogan of “Not left. Not right. Forward.” These days the party barely features on the national political landscape, although it does continue to bleat out social media content – a recent 4 July post on Instagram attracted [almost 40 likes](https://www.instagram.com/p/DLsENvzOMMv/). At its inception, Forward party figures claimed both the Republican and Democratic parties had become too radical, and said their new venture “can’t be pegged to the traditional left-right spectrum because we aren’t built like the existing parties”. Somehow, a promise to not really have a firm ideological stance on anything isn’t a very sexy pitch to voters. Among the “elected affiliates” [named](https://www.forwardparty.com/electeds/) on Forward’s website are the former mayor of Newberry, Florida, a town of 7,300 people, and a man who “is responsible for sanitation and utilities” in the Connecticut borough of Stonington – population 976 people. There is widespread support for a third party. [Polls](https://news.gallup.com/poll/651278/support-third-political-party-dips.aspx) have repeatedly shown that people want a third party. But what that looks like remains to be seen. In Musk’s own survey on social media asking if people wanted him to start a new party, only 65% said yes, and 34% said no, although [a poll](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article310297985.html#storylink=cpy) in early July showed that 14% of voters said they would be very likely to support the party, with 26% somewhat likely. There are already issues with the America party becoming a viable third choice. Musk is approaching eccentric political advisers, including [Curtis Yarvin](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/09/us/politics/elon-musk-curtis-yarvin-third-party.html), a rightwing tech blogger who has argued American democracy has run its course and the country should instead be run by a dictator-esque CEO. A more fundamental problem with the America party is unique to Musk: people really don’t like him. A [poll](https://data.ddhq.io/polls/2025/07/08/YouGov/The%20Economist-National-2025-07-04-2025-07-07) last week found that 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Musk, compared with 32% in favor. America shall have a third party, Musk declared at the start of his new venture. But does America want this kind of third party, with these kind of aims, run by this kind of man?

Joe Rogan is many things — a comedian, a commentator, and a contrarian; a reality TV star and martial artist-turned-host of the [most listened to podcast](https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-top-50-podcasts-in-the-u-s-for-q1-2025-from-edison-podcast-metrics/) in America: _The Joe Rogan Experience_. His fans say he’s just asking questions, calling out liberal hypocrisy, and defending free speech. His critics use other terms: a conspiracy theorist and peddler of misinformation and anti-trans rhetoric, who platforms not just off-the-wall ideas, but [dangerous](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/joe-rogan-douglas-murray-podcast-1236192416/) narratives that cause real-world harm. There’s truth in all these labels. There’s another way to think of Rogan that may help put him in his rightful context for this decade: “Joe Rogan is the Walter Cronkite of Our Era,” declared British satirist Konstantin Kisin [for Quilette](https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/joe-rogan-is-the-walter-cronkite-of-our-era/) in 2019. “Not one established newspaper or broadcaster can now compete with a popular YouTube host conducting a conversation from his self-funded studio,” he wrote at the time, reflecting on Rogan’s [three-hour interrogation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ&t=6325s) of Twitter executives. Kisin’s declaration — before the global Covid-19 pandemic, before the 2020 election of Joe Biden or the 2024 reelection of Donald Trump — might have been a bit premature. But he effectively predicted what Rogan would yet become: not just one of the most influential voices in politics, popular culture, and social commentary, but also a harbinger for a new form of media, communications, trust, and truth in a post-pandemic world. There is no monoculture in 2025; but for a huge part of America, the realm Rogan pioneered and steers is as close as we might get. He and his show have been at the crossroads of just about every major moment and societal change that defines the 2020s, from Covid misinformation and vaccine fearmongering to the expansion of the “manosphere” universe. His show is a mirror for a country that has grown more anxious, distrustful, and paranoid in the last decade. When Kisin made his Cronkite comparison in 2019, Rogan’s mainstream crossover was just getting started. Back then, _The Joe Rogan Experience_ was well on its way to being the most popular podcast show in America — the second most downloaded Apple podcast in [2017](https://www.popsugar.com/news/apple-itunes-most-popular-apps-games-movies-podcasts-2017-44341297) and [2018](https://rainnews.com/apples-most-downloaded-podcasts-of-2018/), before topping the list the [next year](https://www.macobserver.com/news/apple-reveals-2019s-most-popular-podcasts/). His YouTube uploads regularly attracted a million views each (racking up more than 2 billion by mid-2020), and the show had become a must-stop destination for both traditional celebrities and a realm of alternative and conspiratorially minded pseudointellectuals (think: [Alex Jones](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/18289271/alex-jones-psychosis-conspiracies-sandy-hook-hoax), [Kanye West](https://www.vox.com/culture/23400851/kanye-west-antisemitism-hitler-praise), [Elon Musk](https://www.vox.com/technology/383336/trump-election-elon-musk-misinformation)). There is no monoculture in 2025; but for a huge part of America, the realm Rogan pioneered and steers is as close as we might get. He had achieved that by developing a space for curious-minded average joes and those folks Slate once described as “‘[freethinkers’ who hate the left](https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is-an-essential-platform-for-freethinkers-who-hate-the-left.html)” to listen to his two-to-three-hourlong, anarchic episodes. In trying to understand what made Rogan’s show work, the writer Devin Gordon [summarized](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my-joe-rogan-experience/594802/) his roster as being roughly divided into three categories: fellow comedians, fellow athletes and fighters, and “‘thinkers.’” The latter label, Gordon wrote in The Atlantic, “requires air quotes because it encompasses everyone from Oxford scholars…all the way across the known intellectual galaxy to conspiracy theorists like Rogan’s longtime buddy and Sandy Hook denier Alex Jones.” And gobbling up this content were millions of, primarily, American men, across every demographic. Through it all, a handful of principles anchored the show. While he wasn’t overtly political, he described himself as having essentially libertarian views with strong socially liberal leanings. Free speech, and the platforming of those who had been canceled in the mainstream, were a foundational goal of the show. Skepticism of government, big tech, and corporate media were a corollary. And a pseudo-Socratic line of curiosity and skepticism were his modus operandi. That led him to take traditionally liberal positions on social issues and civil rights, to criticize interventionist foreign policy, and to embrace the policies of political figures like Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as populist movement headed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who Rogan backed during the 2020 Democratic primaries. Yet with the dawn of the pandemic, a few things changed. While originally critical of Trump, the tone of his shows, and his guests, began to move in a rightward direction after Trump’s 2020 defeat. Rogan had been critical of pandemic shutdowns and mitigation efforts, questioned the efficacy of vaccines, and railed against what he called censorship and speech suppression on social media platforms. And once the “left,” and “woke” liberals became the establishment in the Biden administration, media, pop culture, and business, Rogan and his show had an easy foil to criticize and ask questions. This post-2020 period was a time of growth and challenge for Rogan. He inked [a reported $200 million multiyear deal](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/arts/music/spotify-joe-rogan-misinformation.html) with Spotify for the platform to exclusively host his podcast, but both he and Spotify faced intense calls by artists, [liberal activists](https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/7/22821823/joe-rogan-media-matters-hot-pod-spotify-moderation), [journalists](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-no-expert?tab=transcript), and science communicators to either censor, deplatform or moderate his show to prevent the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation. He has previously described this era between 2020 and 2022 as “terrifying” — for the threats to free speech he felt were being emboldened by the Biden administration, by popular culture, and by mainstream media. This period contextualizes his feuds during that time with Facebook and Twitter for allegedly suppressing right-wing opinions and speech, with the Biden White House for pressuring social media companies to regulate speech, and with the mainstream media. Yet he survived this controversy, and his show only grew bigger since then, aligning with his eventual drift to not only interviewing but endorsing Trump in 2024. Rogan and his show are now perfect avatars of America’s political and cultural revolution in the Trump era: _The_ _Joe Rogan_ _Experience_ is now one of the key arbiters of truth and reality for [scores of Americans](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2023/04/18/podcasts-as-a-source-of-news-and-information/) who [get informed](https://www.vox.com/politics/396998/podcast-spotify-youtube-trump-rogan-kelce-politics-news) from nontraditional and alternative media sources. His YouTube channel now boasts over 6 billion views across the episodes uploaded there; his episodes are rarely not the top shows across Apple, Spotify, and other podcast apps. He’s become _the_ mainstream, popular enough to cause strife during the 2024 election when he [declined](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/29/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/joe-rogan-kamala-harris-interview-conditions-00186008) to interview Kamala Harris but hosted Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He also interviews the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, various politicians and entrepreneurs, and many more celebrities, actors, and comedians. His format has been imitated or adapted across the internet — yielding a web of right-wing, testosterone-driven, trash-talking [shows](https://www.vox.com/trump-administration/408451/trump-tariff-manosphere-podcast-rogan-theo-von-portnoy-manosphere) collectively known as the manosphere. In this realm, pioneered by Rogan, inquiry and curiosity can easily give way to conspiratorial thinking and paranoia. There’s a sense that there are greater forces and powers trying to influence American minds, and thus requires radical skepticism. In this realm, pioneered by Rogan, inquiry and curiosity can easily give way to conspiratorial thinking and paranoia. In that way, Rogan’s show encompasses the crossroads of three defining forces of the 2020s: the anti-incumbent, change-the-status-quo energy that permeated American politics in the last years of the Biden administration; the silo-fication of news, media, and truth into echo chambers and algorithmically powered feeds; and the political awakening and radicalization of low-information, low-political engagement, and low-trust Americans. Rogan has successfully helped to yoke together a particularly reactive, ill-informed, and even paranoid group; a group that is now accustomed to having their beliefs confirmed by increasingly powerful people. Yet now that he’s the mainstream, Rogan finds his show in a potentially tenuous position: holding together a vast audience that could eventually come to question their loyalties and question him. His Trump endorsement, in particular, came with risks — opening him up to accusations of hypocrisy, flip-flopping, or misplaced trust should Trump end up walking back the policies and stance he promised. Those tensions are already playing out across the manosphere, as other hosts who endorsed Trump claim they were duped or regret their support. Still, Rogan and the manosphere have come to represent the antithesis to liberal cosmopolitanism of the 2010s; and they now embody America’s age of distrust, skepticism, and rejection of the status quo. See More: * [Culture](https://www.vox.com/culture) * [Influencers](https://www.vox.com/influencers) * [Internet Culture](https://www.vox.com/internet-culture) * [Politics](https://www.vox.com/politics)

It sometimes seems like the basic income wars will never go away. My first Vox piece on the idea of a government-provided guaranteed income came in the [summer of 2014](https://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5925041/guaranteed-income-basic-poverty-gobry-labor-supply) — a simpler time, the Obama years. I wrote a [big feature about it in 2017](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15364546/universal-basic-income-review-stern-murray-automation). Since then, we’ve had [Andrew Yang’s presidential run](https://www.vox.com/21419805/universal-basic-income-yang-gang-biden-2020-the-ezra-klein-show), Covid-era stimulus checks, and massive progress in AI, all of which have made the idea feel more plausible. We’ve also had some [research findings that throw cold water on the concept](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than), at least in the US. Three studies that gave out unrestricted cash to Americans during the pandemic [found nulls on all the outcomes they tested](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/9/23200337/cash-transfer-study-us-covid): the cash didn’t improve health or self-reported well-being or even, in one study, how well people say they’re doing financially. Sign up [here](https://www.vox.com/pages/future-perfect-newsletter-signup) to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Two more recent, even bigger studies have backed that up. The [Baby’s First Years Study](https://www.babysfirstyears.com/), which began in 2018 and gave $4,000 a year to low-income American families with young kids for over four years, found [no effects](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/359737/researchers-parenting-mom-stress) on [child development outcomes](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/28/us/politics/cash-payments-poor-families-child-development.html) at the four-year mark. No reduction in behavioral problems, no improvements in language ability — nada. Another study run by the group [OpenResearch](https://www.openresearchlab.org/) gave out $12,000 a year to families for three years. While it found some positive outcomes, like [parents spending more on their kids](https://openresearch-web.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/documents/Documentation/w34040.pdf?dm=1752888416), mostly it found [null effects](https://openresearch-web.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/documents/Documentation/w33214.pdf?dm=1733175308), [too](https://www.openresearchlab.org/findings/nber-working-paper-consumption-and-household-balance-sheets). Participants spent more because their incomes grew, but they also [worked less](https://www.openresearchlab.org/findings/nber-working-paper-employment), offsetting the income gain a bit. But as I [wrote](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15364546/universal-basic-income-review-stern-murray-automation) back in 2017, “The biggest potential for basic income isn’t in the US but in developing countries.” A [big new study](https://www.givedirectly.org/mortality2025/) from the charity GiveDirectly seems to back that up, finding that cash grants in Kenya not only reduced poverty but actually saved lives. Even here, though, it’s important to be careful. Covering basic income experiments for more than a decade has taught me that readers love to hear about ways in which cash programs work and are less eager to hear about ways they fall short. That resulted in some big expectations that, in more recent US research, at least, have been dashed. Some [coverage](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/18/health/cash-transfer-kenya-poverty.html) of the [GiveDirectly study](https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/08/18/g-s1-83197/infants-health-cash-aid-kenya) has only focused on the good news (lives saved) and not limitations, like the fact that it didn’t save lives very cost-effectively. That’s a problem. The headline finding of the GiveDirectly study from economists Michael Walker, Nick Shankar, Edward Miguel, Dennis Egger, and Grady Killeen is that a randomized experiment providing one-time cash grants of worth about $1,871 each to over 10,500 households in rural Kenya found the cash reduced infant and child mortality. (The actual value was exactly $1,000, but given that prices are lower for most things in Kenya, it could buy what Americans think of as about $1,871 in goods and services.) The intervention here is larger than most countries’ cash programs. Kenya’s [main national cash program](https://socialprotection.org/discover/programmes/inua-jamii-cash-transfer) grants 2,000 shillings (about [$45](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP?locations=KE)) a month to its most vulnerable citizens — a tiny fraction of the $1,871 drop this study examined. And the effect size from the $1,871 is truly massive as well: a 48 percent reduction in deaths, mostly shortly after the cash was dispersed in 2015-2017. A reduction that big from _any_ intervention is eye-popping. From an intervention that isn’t even specifically meant to improve health or reduce deaths, it’s sufficiently impressive that you should be instinctively skeptical. Other, [non-experimental studies](https://voxdev.org/topic/health/cash-transfers-reduce-adult-and-child-mortality-rates-low-and-middle-income-countries) have found reductions in mortality due to cash programs, but I’ve found [only one other controlled experiment](https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/134/664/3360/7689751?redirectedFrom=fulltext) that found the same. It’s not a big evidence base. What is the mechanism by which this might have happened? The study can’t say definitively, but it offers some clues. The cash drove a big increase in the share of mothers who delivered babies in hospitals as opposed to at home. If hospital-based delivery is safer than home delivery in these Kenyan villages, that could have caused some reduction in deaths. But it seems very unlikely to cause the entire reduction, especially given that [other studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31104765) have not found that delivery in a hospital or other health facility reduces the odds of infant death. But there are other ways the cash could have helped. Mothers bought more food, and a “food security” measure (reflecting how often children skipped meals or went to bed hungry) improved. That could plausibly drive greater survival. Among mothers who received cash, hours worked fell by half in the three months before and three months after childbirth, implying that the transfer functioned as a kind of paid parental leave program (fathers’ work hours didn’t fall significantly). That could, perhaps, reduce maternal stress in ways that reduce infant mortality. When I asked economists not involved in the study to comment, they generally said it was a well-designed, credible experiment. But no study is perfect. [Berk Özler](https://sites.google.com/site/decrgberkozler/home), formerly a top economist at the World Bank now at the University of Otago and Stanford, noted that overall childbirths were 13 percent more common in villages getting cash. That raises the possibility of a selection effect. Perhaps the cash didn’t cause babies who would’ve been born anyway to be healthier but instead induced women likelier to have healthy babies anyway to get pregnant and give birth. For their part, the study’s authors conducted a number of tests and argue that this is unlikely to explain much of the results. Perhaps the most significant caveat about the study, however, is that, while the effect on infant mortality was large, the _cost_\-effectiveness of the cash program as a lifesaving tool isn’t impressive. The cash program cost $25.75 million, and, per the study results, saved 86 children’s lives, for a cost per life saved of $299,418. That’s very good by rich country standards. For comparison, [Medicaid takes $5.4 million](https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/saved-by-medicaid-new-evidence-on-health-insurance-and-mortality-from-the-universe-of-low-income-adults/) to save a life. But it’s not competitive with the most cost-effective ways to save lives in countries like Kenya. [GiveWell estimates](https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates#Impact_metrics_for_grants_to_GiveWells_top_charities) that Vitamin A supplementation can save a life for about $3,500, while malaria prevention meds can do the same for about $4,500. GiveWell helped fund the cash/infant mortality study, in part seeking to improve its estimates of the cost-effectiveness of cash grants. Its [conclusion](https://blog.givewell.org/2024/11/12/re-evaluating-the-impact-of-unconditional-cash-transfers/) was that the finding doesn’t change its rankings of charities too much and that most of the benefit from cash transfers comes from reducing poverty (which the Kenya experiment certainly did) rather than saving lives. One really bad takeaway you could have from this study is “cash grants are all you need to save lives in the Global South.” The study authors and GiveDirectly itself are clear that cash needs other health infrastructure to work. “People who were further away from health facilities, the improvement wasn’t as great,” Dr. Miriam Laker-Oketta, a physician based at Uganda’s Makerere University and an advisor at GiveDirectly, told me in an interview. “What we need as a complementary intervention is infrastructure” like health facilities. Another really bad takeaway, more from the US studies than this one, would be that cash has no health effects at all, even in the Global South. Among very poor, malnourished people who cannot afford regular medical care, there are strong intuitive reasons to think cash does _something_ for their health. While lower monthly payments, like Kenya’s $45 a month, almost certainly won’t cause infant mortality to fall by half, they might help people’s health on the margin. See, for example, [this study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818312732?via%3Dihub), which found improvements in height-for-age among children born to young cash transfer recipients in Malawi. Of course, whether or not cash is the best or most cost-effective way to promote child health is a different question — and one where cash does worse. Writing about cash programs is a funny thing. For most topics, [readers exhibit a negativity bias](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/402077/bad-news-bias-climate-change-economy-trump-negativity-good-news-optimism): They click more on bad news. But I’ve found that when I write about cash, [big](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/9/13/17846190/cash-saves-lives-rwanda-usaid-foreign-aid-nutrition) flashy [headlines](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/25/20973151/givedirectly-basic-income-kenya-study-stimulus) about all the good it does get lots of hits, while nuanced pieces about benefits and limitations don’t. (Bad omen for this piece, I guess.) That’s a bad set of incentives, and I’m trying my best to resist them. People are working hard to understand what cash can and can’t do. It does them a disservice to only share the good things they learn. You’ve read 1 article in the last month Here at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country. Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change. We rely on readers like you — join us.  Swati Sharma Vox Editor-in-Chief See More: * [Future Perfect](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect) * [Health](https://www.vox.com/health) * [Policy](https://www.vox.com/policy) * [Poverty](https://www.vox.com/poverty) * [Public Health](https://www.vox.com/public-health)