Escape Velocity
President Donald Trump ran on a promise of more fossil fuels, fewer environmental regulations, and outright climate denial — and now he's following through. His administration is gutting clean energy policy, fast-tracking oil and gas projects, and reshaping environmental policy with sweeping consequences.
At the same time, though, there's another force pulling hard in the opposite direction. A global clean tech revolution — one that powers our homes, our cars, and our lives without wrecking the climate — is already well underway.
The new generation of wind and solar power, batteries, and electric vehicles are on the verge of, or have already achieved, escape velocity, breaking free from the gravity of political capriciousness. In a lot of places, especially in power generation, the cleanest option is also the fastest, the cheapest, and the one most likely to turn a profit. That's true whether or not you care about the climate.
The world is building momentum around clean energy, unlocking ways to grow economies and raise living standards without cranking up the planet's temperature. And every fraction of a degree we avoid means more lives saved, fewer disasters, more stability, and more of the future left intact.
It's 2025 — halfway between now and 2050, the year stamped on basically every major climate target. That puts us closer to those deadlines than we are to Gladiator, Kid A, iMacs, and frosted tips. So it's a good moment to pause and ask: How did we get here? Are we moving fast enough? And what's standing in the way?
In this special project, Escape Velocity, Vox's climate team set out to answer those questions. We looked at the places where climate progress is still speeding up, the breakthroughs changing everything behind the scenes, and the moments where clean tech might overcome political resistance entirely.
The US has played a key role in getting the world to this point. But now, other countries are eyeing the lead. Right now, we're holding a strong hand, but our government is actively sabotaging it. What's at stake isn't just a cleaner future — it's whether the US stays in the race at all. —Paige Vega, climate editor
CREDITS:
Editorial lead: Paige Vega
Editors: Carla Javier, Miranda Kennedy, Naureen Khan, Paige Vega, Elbert Ventura, Bryan Walsh | Reporters: Avishay Artsy, Sam Delgado, Adam Clark Estes, Jonquilyn Hill, Melissa Hirsch, Umair Irfan, Benji Jones, Paige Vega | Copy editors and fact-checkers: Colleen Barrett, Esther Gim, Melissa Hirsch, Sarah Schweppe, Kim Slotterback | Art director: Paige Vickers | Data visualization: Gabrielle Merite | Photo illustration: Gabrielle Merite | Original photography: Annick Sjobakken | Data fact-checking: Melissa Hirsch | Podcast engineering: Matthew Billy | Audience: Bill Carey, Gabby Fernandez, Shira Tarlo | Editorial directors: Elbert Ventura and Bryan Walsh | Special thanks: Nisha Chittal and Lauren Katz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
10 hours ago
- Vox
Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Justice Brett Kavanaugh before delivering the State of the Union address at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2019. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Federal law states that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This law implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified more than three decades ago. Federal regulations, moreover, provide that even after an immigration judge has determined that a noncitizen may be deported to another country, that judge's order 'shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.' And those regulations also establish a process that immigrants can use to raise concerns with an immigration judge that they may be tortured if sent to a specific country. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The Trump administration, however, claims it has discovered a loophole that renders all of these legal protections worthless, and is now asking the Supreme Court to explicitly give it the authority to make use of that loophole in order to enact its immigration policies. According to President Donald Trump's lawyers, the administration can simply wait until after an immigration judge has conducted the proceeding that ordinarily would determine whether a particular noncitizen may be deported to a particular country, and then, if that noncitizen is allowed to be deported, announce that the immigrant will be deported to some previously unmentioned country — even if that immigrant reasonably fears they will be tortured in that nation. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., the case where the Trump administration asks the justices to neutralize the Convention Against Torture, is unlike some of the more high-profile deportation cases that reached the Supreme Court — such as the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — in that no one really questions that the immigrants at the heart of this case may be deported somewhere. D.V.D. involves immigrants who have gone through the ordinary process to determine whether they can be removed from the country. The Trump administration even claims that some of them were convicted of very serious crimes. According to the administration, 'all were adjudicated removable.' But the Convention Against Torture and the federal law implementing it forbid the government from deporting anyone to a country where there is good reason to believe they will be tortured. And federal immigration law and regulations lay out the process that should be used to determine if an immigrant may be deported to a particular country. How immigration hearings are supposed to work As the district judge who heard this case explained in his opinion ruling that Trump must comply with the Convention Against Torture, when the government wishes to deport a noncitizen, that individual is typically entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. That hearing determines 'not only whether an individual may be removed from the United States but also to where he may be removed.' In these proceedings, the immigrant is given an opportunity to name where they want to be deported to, if the immigration judge determines that they should be removed. If the immigrant does not do so, or if the United States cannot deport them to their designated country, federal law lays out where they may be sent. The United States may deport someone to a country where they have no ties only as a last resort, and only if that nation's government 'will accept the alien into that country.' The immigration judge will generally inform the noncitizen which nations they could potentially be sent to, giving that noncitizen an opportunity to raise any concerns that they may be tortured if sent to a particular country. The immigration judge will then decide whether those concerns are sufficiently serious to prohibit the United States from sending the immigrant to that particular country. The D.V.D. case concerns noncitizens who have been through this process. In many cases, an immigration judge determined that they could not be deported to a particular country. According to the immigrants' lawyers, for example, one of their clients is a Honduran woman. An immigration judge determined that she cannot be sent back to Honduras because her husband 'severely beat her and the children after his release from prison' and she fears that he would find her and abuse her again. And that brings us to the loophole that Trump's lawyers claim he can exploit to bypass the Convention Against Torture. Related The Supreme Court signals it might be losing patience with Trump Ordinarily, if the government wants to deport someone to a country that did not come up during their hearing before an immigration judge, it can reopen the process. The government will inform the immigrant where it wishes to deport them. The immigrant will again have the opportunity to object if they fear being tortured, and an immigration officer and, eventually, an immigration judge, will determine if this fear is credible. But the Trump administration claims it can bypass this process. If a country 'has provided diplomatic assurances that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured,' the Trump administration claims it can deport people to that country 'without the need for further procedures.' In other cases, it claims that it can give the immigrant such a brief period of time to raise an objection that it would be exceedingly difficult for them to find legal counsel, much less compile enough evidence to show that their fears are justified. So Trump's lawyers claim that the government can wait until after a noncitizen has received a hearing before an immigration judge, and only then reveal where it intends to send that noncitizen — even if that country is one of the most dangerous locations on Earth. And the immigrant may receive no process whatsoever after they learn about this decision. Can Trump actually deny due process to people who might be tortured? Recently, in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that a different group of immigrants that Trump hoped to deport without due process 'must receive notice…that they are subject to removal…within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek' relief from a federal court. The district judge that heard the D.V.D. case determined that a similar rule should apply to noncitizens the Trump administration wants to deport to a surprise third country. The Trump administration, however, primarily argues that three provisions of federal law governing which courts are allowed to hear immigration disputes mean that the district judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the D.V.D. case in the first place. One of these provisions generally forbids federal courts from second-guessing the government's decision to bring a removal proceeding against a particular immigrant. It also typically prohibits judges from intervening in the government's decision to execute an existing removal order once that order has been handed down by an immigration judge. But, as the district judge explained, the D.V.D. plaintiffs do not challenge the government's 'discretionary decisions to execute their removal orders.' Nor do they 'challenge their removability.' They merely challenge the government's decision to bypass the ordinary process it must use to obtain an order permitting an immigrant to be deported to a specific country. The other two provisions, meanwhile, largely govern the appeals process that immigrants may use if they lose a case before an immigration judge. Such cases are typically appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then to a federal circuit court, not the district court that heard the D.V.D. case. But, again, the D.V.D. plaintiffs do not seek to appeal an immigration judge's decision. They object to the Trump administration's refusal to bring them before an immigration judge in the first place. Trump's lawyers, moreover, are quite candid about what it means if the Supreme Court accepts these jurisdictional arguments. 'To the extent an action does not fit' within their proposed process, they argue, 'the result is that judicial review is not available.' So, if Trump prevails, many of the immigrants he hopes to target will not have any recourse in any court.
Vox
10 hours ago
- Vox
Trump escalates his battle with California
is the senior politics and ideas editor at Vox. He previously worked at Rolling Stone, the Washington Post, Politico, National Journal, and Seattle's Real Change News. As a reporter and editor, he has worked on coverage of campaign politics, economic policy, the federal, and homelessness. This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump is sending troops to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies, a threat to civil liberties and another example of the president claiming that an emergency justifies a major expansion of his power. Catch me up. What's going on here? Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents last week raided workplaces in Los Angeles, as part of the Trump administration's larger goal of mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. Residents protested over the weekend, and, the Los Angeles Times reports, there has been 'widespread' vandalism and damage around the city. Trump on Sunday announced he would begin sending in 2,000 National Guard troops — against California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. Then this afternoon, Trump's administration began mobilizing more than 700 Marines to be deployed in LA, CNN and other outlets report. What's next? Newsom is suing the administration over the National Guard takeover, arguing Trump overstepped his authority by sending in the Guard against a state governor's wishes — which hasn't happened since 1965. Is Trump breaking the law? Using federal troops for domestic law enforcement is generally illegal, but Trump is citing emergency powers, claiming without evidence that LA has been 'invaded and occupied' by migrants. LA authorities acknowledge there is civil unrest but argue the use of military force will only escalate the situation, and it's clear that LA is not in the grip of a foreign power. What's the big picture? The president is citing a false pretense to send active-duty military troops to a city where residents are protesting — some peacefully, some violently — his policies, even as local leaders say conventional law enforcement is capable of restoring order. This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech, and it's yet another expansion of the president's authority. And with that, it's time to log off…
Vox
12 hours ago
- Vox
Trump deploying the National Guard is part of a bigger plan
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. After protests erupted in response to federal agents raiding businesses around Los Angeles to arrest immigrants, President Donald Trump quickly decided to dump fuel on the fire: On Saturday night, the president declared that he would deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to the city. Given that presidents usually only activate the National Guard upon a governor's request, it's an extraordinary step that bypasses California Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority, since Newsom made no such appeal. This isn't the first time Trump has considered sending in the military to squash local protests. In 2020, when nationwide protests broke out after a police officer murdered George Floyd, Trump also wanted to display an overwhelming show of force to respond to the demonstrations — so much so that he even inquired about shooting protesters. But a standoff between Trump and the Pentagon eventually pushed the president to decide against deploying troops across the country. This time, Trump has a more subservient Pentagon. On Saturday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized,' adding that 'they are on high alert.' The chaos unfolding in Los Angeles underscores that Americans are living under an administration that is far too eager to use the power of the state to suppress dissent and a president who is far too keen on siccing the military on American citizens. Trump's latest effort might make 2020 look like a trial run and shows just how unrestrained the president has become. Can Trump deploy the National Guard without governors' consent? It is generally illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement within the United States. But there are exceptions. The Insurrection Act — one of the president's emergency powers — allows the president to use the military against American citizens on domestic soil, including in nonconsenting states, to quell an armed rebellion or extreme civil unrest. That's why President Lyndon B. Johnson was able to deploy the National Guard to Alabama without its governor's consent in 1965 — the last time a president activated a state's National Guard troops against that state's wishes, as Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the New York Times. The Insurrection Act itself was last invoked in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush used it to send troops to Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King riots. However, that action was taken upon then-Gov. Pete Wilson's request. So far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, he has cited Section 12406 of the US Code, which gives the president the authority to call members of the National Guard of any state into federal service when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The president can use as many troops as he considers necessary to 'repel the invasion' or 'suppress the rebellion.' That statute, however, is more limited than the Insurrection Act since it applies only to the National Guard and not the US Armed Forces more broadly. It also states that the order to call in National Guard troops should be issued by governors. Since California did not issue that order, Newsom has said Trump's move to federalize California's National Guard is 'unlawful' and requested that the federal government rescind the deployment. Newsom indicated that his office intends to sue the Trump administration over this matter. Trump is escalating his assault on Americans' fundamental rights — just like he said he would Trump has long made clear his disdain for dissent and protests against him, and now he's taking it to the next level. His move to deploy National Guard troops in California is already an escalation from how he responded to the George Floyd protests in 2020. At the time, Trump focused his efforts on Washington, DC, where — perhaps in a prelude to how he is handling the protests in Los Angeles today — he sent National Guard troops from 11 states into the nation's capital. DC's mayor objected to the deployment, but because DC is not a state, Trump had more leeway to exercise military muscle. He ultimately decided against deploying the military in other states. Trump's reliance on federal officers to squash protests made DC a testing ground for a strategy he could eventually try elsewhere. What he's now doing in California is the natural next step. Indeed, after Trump left the White House in 2021, he lamented over his administration's supposed restraint during the George Floyd protests and said that should he return to power, he wouldn't wait for governors to make requests for federal assistance. 'You're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,' he said in a 2023 campaign rally. 'The next time, I'm not waiting.' During the campaign trail, he and his allies mapped out plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day back in office to quell protests with military force. That is precisely why so many feared a second Trump term. Where Trump may have shown more restraint in his first administration — because he feared political consequences or because some officials stood in the way — critics feared he would be more unleashed in his second, both because he has nothing to lose and because his Cabinet would be staffed with even more loyalists. And that seems to be what's happening now, with the Pentagon seeming just as eager as Trump to unleash the US military on US soil and against American citizens. This is all part of Trump's broader assault on democracy — and his attack on the First Amendment in particular. Since coming back to the White House, Trump hasn't hesitated to punish people for exercising their right to free speech and their right to protest, going after students for participating in protests against Israel. His administration has detained and tried to deport protesters for merely expressing pro-Palestinian views, sending unidentified plainclothes immigration officers to abduct dissidents. Trump is now trying to use the might of the US military to further suppress people's free speech rights, dramatically expanding his crackdown on people's rights. And while Trump cited 'violence and disorder' as the reason he deployed National Guard troops, local law enforcement had not indicated that they were in need of federal assistance to restore order. What likely pushed Trump to deploy the National Guard (and get other members of the Armed Forces ready) is that he simply saw an opportunity to do so and he seized it. He is clearly more emboldened and even more averse to norms than ever before. Since Trump got himself involved in the protests, tensions have only escalated. But if anything, that might be what Trump wants: a dramatic standoff between protesters and federal troops. Ultimately, this strategy is less about 'law and order' and more about sending a message to Americans across the country: speak out against Trump and there will be consequences.
