Inside one state's fight to save child care
is a policy correspondent for Vox covering social policy. She focuses on housing, schools, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights, and has been reporting on these issues for more than a decade.
Welcome to Field Notes, a reporter's log that gives readers an inside look into some of our most exciting reporting trips. This first appeared in the member-exclusive newsletter the Vox Explainer.
Hi, hello!
This is Rachel Cohen, a reporter at Vox, and I'm here to share a dispatch from a recent reporting trip to Boise, Idaho — where a unique and heated political fight unfolded in the world of child care policy. The piece not only looks at a growing partisan divide in child care but also a broader conservative push to deregulate the sector and redirect public funds away from the license-based centers government subsidies have historically favored.
For both time and budget reasons, I don't get to travel for most stories I work on. In this case though, thanks to a grant from the Bainum Family Foundation to support child care reporting, I was quite fortunate to spend four days meeting with lawmakers, parents, and child care advocates in Idaho. There I worked to understand a very complex, sensitive, and confusing story. In journalism, what I've realized over the years is that oftentimes the very act of traveling to a region can signal to otherwise hesitant sources that you are taking this story seriously. It shows you are investing resources into getting it right, which increases the chances that people will help you and talk with you. They see you're making a greater effort than just picking up the phone, and that really does mean something in this line of work.
Sometimes reporting trips are to collect more vivid detail and description to bring a narrative to life. I wanted to do that, certainly, but this trip was primarily for me to better understand what was really going on, to sit down with people face-to-face, and clarify a series of fast-moving and complicated ideas. I did make a lot of calls. I did review all the existing local reporting before I flew out. And I filed my own public records request with the state of Idaho. But I suspected that going there would prove valuable in being able to report this story better than just doing those things in isolation. Given all the flight delays and other travel complications, I'm very glad that turned out to be true.
You can find the story here. Here's a look inside my reporting.
Field Notes
SUNDAY, MARCH 9
10:30 am: I flew from Washington, DC, where I live, to Atlanta, and then on to Boise. After dealing with some delays with my flight layover, I finally reached my hotel a little after midnight. The long day of travel gave me a lot of time to review my notes and get ready for what I knew would be a busy week.
At the Boise Airport, I was greeted by a nice reminder that I was surrounded by some famous potatoes.
A sign that greeted me at the Boise Airport when I arrived. Rachel Cohen/Vox
MONDAY, MARCH 10
12 pm: My first meeting was at the (very beautiful) Idaho State Capitol, a short walk from my hotel. I learned I was in what is known as the 'Gem State,' a nickname first coined when Idaho was just a US territory in honor of all the precious gemstones around.
I sat down with Democratic state Rep. Megan Egbert to learn more about the H243 bill and what she was hearing from her constituents. She was actively involved in the legislative opposition.
The main entrance really was beautiful, and to my surprise — maybe just because I'm used to stricter protocol — there was no security. Anyone could walk right in. Rachel Cohen/Vox
2 pm: Later that afternoon, I went over to the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry, which is basically their state chamber of commerce, and met with the longtime president to discuss how the lack of child care access affects the state's workforce and economy.
I turned left. We sat in a big conference room for our meeting. Rachel Cohen/Vox
7 pm: At night, I had some calls with child care providers. Idaho is two hours behind DC, and being able to talk to people in their own time zone made reporting a whole lot easier. Oftentimes people can only talk with the media after work, so coordinating evening discussions was just a whole lot easier on Mountain time.
TUESDAY, MARCH 11
10:30 am: I spent the morning meeting with sources off the record (so I can't share specifically who), but I can say I had some very clarifying coffee dates. Then I made my way over to Lakewood Montessori, a reputable child care center in Boise where I got to tour and sit down with the owner, Mary, to talk about the proposed bill. It was a beautiful day, and I knew I wanted to speak with as many child care providers as I could while I was in town.
From my tour of the Boise Montessori child care center. It was a really lovely facility, and seeing such cute kids always makes the drier parts of the reporting process worth it. Rachel Cohen/Vox
2 pm: After lunch, I headed back to the state Capitol where I met separately with both of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Rod Furniss and Rep. Barbara Ehardt. I learned that the bill was going to be amended the next day to restore maximum staff-child ratios, and I spoke with the lawmakers about why they believed deregulation was a good idea in the first place.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12
10 am: Today I had several more off-the-record meetings with sources and calls with child care providers around the state.
5:30 pm: I had the pleasure of having dinner with my old editor, Haley, who I interned for 12 years ago at the Washington Monthly. She now lives in Boise with her husband and two kids.
In Haley's kitchen! Rachel Cohen/Vox
THURSDAY, MARCH 13
8 am: My last day in town proved valuable. After persistent badgering, several sources finally agreed to talk, including from Wonder School — a company facing public backlash for supporting the bill — and officials from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. I also connected with people I'd talk with further when I returned to DC as more legislative developments unfolded throughout March.
11 pm: I got home and spent another three-and-a-half weeks reporting and writing the article!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
8 hours ago
- Vox
How a little-known law became Trump's weapon of choice against immigration
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. Demonstrators gather to protest against a sweeping new travel ban announced last week by President Donald Trump, outside Los Angeles International Airport on June 9, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump can't stop using — and abusing — his legal authority to block the entry of noncitizens into the country. When he issued a travel ban on citizens of Muslim-majority countries early in his first term, he did so by invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows him to block any foreigner if he deems that their entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' When he issued a proclamation turning away noncitizens who could not demonstrate the ability to pay for their health care costs, he cited Section 212(f). When he halted most legal immigration at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, first from China and then from other countries, there was Section 212(f) again. Finally, last week, he announced that he would block foreign students from receiving student visas to attend Harvard and implement a travel ban on 12 countries, as well as restrictions on seven others. The travel ban took effect on Monday, just after midnight, and the legal framework for both orders was built on Section 212(f). Some of Trump's attempts to invoke Section 212(f) have been challenged in court. Judges struck down several versions of Trump's first-term travel ban before the third iteration was ultimately upheld by the US Supreme Court (after it was expanded to include non-Muslim-majority countries). President Joe Biden rescinded the travel ban, as well as the Covid-19 and health care-related bans, when he took office, refusing to defend them in legal challenges. Most recently, a federal judge in Massachusetts also blocked Trump's order on Harvard students, and as of Monday, the State Department had returned to processing international student visas. However, in testing the limits of 212(f) through these policies, Trump has succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to affirm his broad powers to ban foreign nationals under immigration law, marking a key expansion of executive authority. While previous presidents invoked Section 212(f), none of them did so as frequently or as aggressively as Trump. The law has become a key tool to keep people out as Trump tries to implement his restrictive vision of US immigration policy. How Trump expanded presidential powers to ban foreigners Before Trump, both Democratic and Republican presidents used the 212(f) authority sparingly. It was typically employed in order to enforce United Nations sanctions or target individuals or groups associated with terrorism, human rights violations, drug trafficking, or specific international crises. Former President Barack Obama, for instance, used the authority to block Russian officials from entering the US following their country's 2014 invasion of Crimea. Former President George W. Bush used it to block Syrian officials after the 2005 assassination of the Lebanese prime minister at the hands of the Syrian-backed militant group Hezbollah, which the US designates as a terrorist organization. Former President Bill Clinton used it to impose restrictions on Nigerian military officials who impeded the country's transition to democracy by annulling the country's 1993 elections. Trump's conceptualization of 212(f), however, is markedly different. He has used the authority to block broad swaths of noncitizens from a variety of countries, not just their government officials or people involved in criminal activity. He has not spared US visa or green card holders in some cases, including those affected by his first travel ban. That has created a new legal paradigm that has afforded the president sweeping powers to keep immigrants out. The Supreme Court's 2018 decision narrowly upholding Trump's first travel ban made that shift clear. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that Section 212(f) 'exudes deference to the President in every clause.' For that reason, the court refused to question the superficial national security rationale Trump provided for the travel ban. That's despite substantial evidence that the actual motivation behind the ban was, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in the dissent, 'anti-Muslim animus' that violated the Constitution's religious liberty protections. That evidence included Trump's 2015 campaign statements calling for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,' which lower-court judges pointed to in blocking earlier versions of the travel ban in 2017. The question is whether the justices will again defer to Trump if the new travel ban and ban on international students at Harvard come before the Supreme Court. According to Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, 'court challenges to this travel ban are likely, but they may fail.' However, Yale-Loehr said, 'even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy. We are not necessarily safer by banning immigrants from these countries.' Notably, the new travel ban includes exemptions for green card holders, noncitizens from affected countries who are already in the US, and athletes from the affected countries competing in international competitions like the Olympics. He's also invoked the potential for visa overstays, in addition to the usual national security grounds, in the rationale for his latest ban. All of that might help Trump's case if the policy is challenged in court. Unlike a blanket ban on immigrants from the affected countries, it is tailored to withstand legal scrutiny by targeting only would-be immigrants who are currently not in the US. Additionally, the ban's invocation of national security concerns puts it in territory where the president has generally been afforded considerable discretion by the courts. (A fact he has taken advantage of in issuing a flurry of national emergency declarations on all sorts of issues.) Given the particulars of the new ban and the administration's previous history before the Court, some immigrant advocates have turned to Congress, rather than the courts, to intervene. They are asking for a legislative fix to stop Trump from implementing policies that will affect both US citizens who might be separated from their families and citizens of foreign countries hoping to enter the US, though such a measure would almost certainly have to wait on unified Democratic control of government.
Vox
20 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
20 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…
