logo
CMS Innovation Center plans hiring spree after cuts

CMS Innovation Center plans hiring spree after cuts

Politico21-07-2025
Presented by
With Simon Levien
Driving the Day
HELP WANTED — CMS's Innovation Center plans to expand its workforce as it prepares to launch new health care payment models, POLITICO's Ruth Reader and Robert King report.
The decision comes after CMS cut nearly 300 people, about 5 percent of its workforce, earlier this year as part of a massive HHS reorganization.
'The CMS Innovation Center is hiring passionate leaders eager to make meaningful change in the healthcare delivery and outcomes in Medicare and Medicaid,' Sarah Fogler, director for the center's Patient Care Models Group, wrote on LinkedIn recently.
The Innovation Center wants to fill roughly 100 positions, according to former and current staffers at CMS granted anonymity to discuss internal operations.
'There will be a mix of new hires with subject matter expertise in economics, clinical and data,' according to an official granted anonymity to speak freely on the hiring blitz.
Although the center didn't lose staff in the reduction-in-force, it lost probationary employees in February.
Two former CMS workers fired as part of the reduction-in-force said they tried to apply for the new positions but were told the agency can't hire RIF-ed employees.
One shared an email from Fogler with POLITICO.
'We aren't able to hire individuals who were affected by the reduction in force,' Fogler wrote to one of the former employees who attempted to submit their resume. 'We'll have two postings for direct hire (economist and nurse) otherwise we'll be hiring through the CMS Fellow pathway.'
Fellowships are intended to be temporary; the center's payment models are time-limited and sometimes end early. Fellows stay on for at least one year.
CMS said in a statement that all hiring decisions follow federal guidelines and 'reflect CMS commitment to program integrity and fiscal responsibility.'
Background: The Innovation Center was established under the Affordable Care Act in 2010. It has long promoted creative models of preventive care and has piloted some 50 payment models.
Why it matters: The hiring blitz, which will occur in phases, comes as the center is developing new payment models to implement agency policies, with chronic disease prevention a major priority.
WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. An Indiana Amish community is 'considered one of the least allergic populations ever measured in the developed world,' The Washington Post reports. I'm Carmen Paun, POLITICO's global health reporter, filling in today for Kelly Hooper and Sophie Gardner.
Send your surprise reaction, tips, scoops and feedback to cpaun@politico.com, khooper@politico.com, sgardner@politico.com and follow along @carmenpaun, @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj.
In Congress
DEMS DIG IN THEIR HEELS — Congressional Republicans seek to pass a bipartisan health care package by year's end.
But Democrats are playing hardball, suggesting that Republicans poisoned the well with their party-line domestic policy megabill, POLITICO's Ben Guggenheim reports.
One demand they're making as a condition of engagement: a costly extension of expanded tax credits for Affordable Care Act insurance premiums set to expire at the end of the year.
The tax credits, which Democrats enacted over Republican objections during the Biden administration, reduced insurance costs on the 2010 health law exchanges for millions of middle- and upper-income people for the first time. Extending them will be a tough pill to swallow for Republicans, particularly in the House, where Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith of Missouri recently suggested it could be a nonstarter for his conference.
Why it matters: There's been chatter for months about reviving a sweeping bipartisan health care package that was on track for passage last December as part of a larger government funding bill, but House GOP leaders dropped the health care provisions after President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk said the funding bill was overly broad and threatened to tank it.
A major part of the health package included proposals to crack down on pharmacy benefit managers, which critics accuse of charging health plans more for drugs than the reimbursements they send to pharmacies, among other things. PBMs negotiate drug prices among manufacturers, pharmacies and health plans.
It remains to be seen whether Republicans want a PBM overhaul badly enough to trade an extension of the subsidies.
RURAL HOSPITAL LIFELINE? Republicans clinched a $50 billion fund to blunt blowback from a near $1 trillion Medicaid rollback — but some rural health experts say it's not nearly enough.
The Rural Health Transformation Program, tucked in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, aims to offset deep Medicaid cuts with allotments of $10 billion per fiscal year from 2026 through 2030. Rural communities are expected to lose $155 billion in Medicaid support over the next decade, according to KFF.
The program's rollout, however, remains murky, POLITICO's Amanda Friedman reports.
CMS will administer the grants, with half the funds distributed equally to states with approved plans. The other half will be allocated at the discretion of CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, based on each state's rural population, number of rural facilities and the overall 'situation' facing a hospital.
In a statement to POLITICO, CMS didn't provide requested details about how Oz would assess which states receive more money and how the agency will remain impartial throughout the approval process.
'The program is under development, and CMS is working in coordination with whole-of-government partners,' CMS spokesperson Alexx Pons said via email. 'Additional details will be shared as implementation advances.'
Michael Topchik, a national leader of the Chicago-based consulting firm Chartis Center for Rural Health, which counts hospitals among its clients, told POLITICO the grant program will bring hospitals 'closer to whole,' though he doubts most will escape unscathed.
Eligible providers include rural hospitals, clinics, community mental health centers and federally qualified health centers. But because funding must be shared among them, rural hospitals — which bring in more than $12 billion a year from Medicaid, according to Chartis — are expected to face major shortfalls.
States have a Dec. 31 deadline to submit a 'detailed rural health transformation plan' outlining how they'll improve rural health access and outcomes, use technology and recruit health care workers.
OZ ON THE HILL — CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz is scheduled to meet with members of the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, Ben reports.
A meeting notice viewed by POLITICO says committee members are invited 'to discuss the priorities' of CMS on July 23, including issues 'involving health care matters' that fall within the panel's jurisdiction.
Hospitals
'TOUGH TIMES AHEAD' — NASHVILLE — The American Hospital Association announced the head of a large rural hospital system will become board chair in 2027 at what was likely the largest gathering of health care leaders since President Donald Trump signed into law his 'big, beautiful bill' — which drives deep cuts into Medicaid, Simon reports.
The mood among some attendees was understandably dour.
The AHA Leadership Summit, which drew about 1,200 hospital C-suite executives and managers, began with a commiseration. Tina Freese Decker, the group's board chair, said they 'did everything they could' to stop the cuts, noting her team's sleepless nights working to blunt the bill's impacts.
'There are very tough times ahead,' she said, calling the current health care system unsustainable and then rallying members to reform it.
One health care executive in attendance granted anonymity to speak candidly gave their read on the opening speeches, which featured dire predictions of health care under the cuts. 'AHA must show it recognizes that bad shit happened,' the executive told POLITICO. 'But now we have work to do.'
A new leader: Bill Gassen, president and CEO of Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, will be the AHA's board chair-elect, taking over in 2027, Decker announced. Gassen, who says he leads the largest rural health system in the U.S., will begin his tenure as hospitals — particularly those in remote areas with slim margins — could suffer huge financial hits when many cuts take effect after the 2026 midterms.
Trump's law will disburse around $50 billion to rural health providers, but many industry groups say the fund isn't enough to offset the cuts. Rural clinics rely on Medicaid to a greater degree than other providers.
In his remarks Sunday, Rick Pollack, AHA president, warned to expect potential clinic closures, a slimmer workforce, fewer patients and fewer services if Medicaid cuts aren't negotiated down or repealed.
PHARMA WATCH
THE TARIFF EFFECT ON DRUGS — If President Donald Trump implements the tariffs on foreign-made drugs he's been threatening, the U.S. could see a shortage of critical medicines, the generic drugs sector and analysts have warned.
Trump said he'll impose a low tariff on drugs coming from abroad as of next month and give drugmakers a year to build up production capacity in the U.S. After that, tariffs could rise to 200 percent, he's warned.
But while the higher-value, branded pharmaceutical sector might gradually adapt, Europe's generics manufacturers — operating on razor-thin margins and cheaper competition from India and China — face a stark choice: absorb massive costs or abandon the U.S. market entirely, POLITICO's Giedre Peseckyte reports.
Why it matters: The U.S. relies heavily on imported generic drugs. Generics account for 92 percent of all prescriptions filled in the U.S., dominating by volume but not by revenue due to their low cost.
Tariffs would worsen ongoing U.S. shortages for essential hospital medicines and injectables and deepen America's reliance on Chinese and Indian suppliers, according to Medicines For Europe, Europe's generics drug lobby.
Public Health
MAHA CELEBRATES — HHS Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other proponents of his Make America Healthy Again movement celebrated over the weekend the latest announcements from food companies about eliminating artificial food dyes and other ingredients considered harmful over the next few years.
Kennedy posted a Reuters report to the social platform X about PepsiCo planning to remove artificial dyes and flavors from its potato and tortilla chips, which it sells under the brands of Lay's and Tostitos.
WK Kellogg, the maker of Froot Loops cereals, said Friday it would remove artificial dyes from its cereals by the end of 2027.
WHAT WE'RE READING
The New York Times' Brian M. Rosenthal and Julie Tate report about how a push for more organ transplants is putting donors at risk.
Reuters' Bhanvi Satija reports that Sarepta Therapeutics won't comply with the FDA's request to stop shipping its Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy after the death of a clinical trial patient.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump softens stance on China amid trade talks and summit push
Trump softens stance on China amid trade talks and summit push

Washington Post

time27 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump softens stance on China amid trade talks and summit push

The Trump administration has softened its approach to Beijing amid high-stakes trade talks this week and in advance of a potential fall summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The moves include dissuading Taiwan's leader from making planned stopovers in the United States next month, postponing a meeting between Taipei's defense minister and top Pentagon leaders in June, and pausing new export controls on China, according to more than a dozen current and former U.S. officials and other people familiar with the actions. Critics of the nascent détente — including both Republicans and Democrats — have warned that the recent moves could undermine U.S. national security and impact regional alliances. Their concern is that Trump's desire to strike a trade deal with China is sidelining administration efforts to more forcefully compete with Beijing economically, technologically and militarily. China is aggressively seeking to displace the U.S. and its western allies in emerging technologies such as AI and quantum computing, which it sees as the key to accelerating its military modernization and global economic dominance. 'The president cares more about American businesses getting access to China's market than he seems to about national security concerns with Beijing,' said Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The trip by Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, which was tentatively slated for early August to include stops in Dallas and New York City on a visit to diplomatic allies in Latin America, was pulled down after the Trump administration tried to change the itinerary, according to three people familiar with the matter, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. One person said the administration sought to have Lai avoid major cities and limit public engagement. 'They didn't say absolutely no, but they put so many restrictions on [the stopovers] that it was clear they didn't want it,' a second person said. Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its own and views any U.S. engagement with Taiwanese officials as a provocation, had intensely lobbied the administration and China experts in Washington to discourage the visit. Asked for comment, Taiwan's unofficial embassy in Washington pointed to an earlier statement from Lai's office that 'the president currently has no plans for overseas visits in the near future.' The cancellation of Lai's trip after pressure from the Trump administration was first reported by the Financial Times. 'These concessions send a dangerous signal that America's approach to Taiwan is negotiable,' said Ely Ratner, a former senior defense official in the Biden administration. 'That will only lead to more Chinese pressure and coercion. For Beijing, the hunger will grow with the eating.' The latest round of trade talks in Stockholm concluded Tuesday with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying the president would have to decide whether to extend a trade truce between the two countries. 'President Trump has publicly discussed his desire for a constructive relationship with China, who is sending rare earth magnets to the United States,' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement. 'He is focused on advancing American interests, such as leveling the playing field for American industries and getting China to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country.' Lai isn't the first senior Taiwanese official to see his U.S. trip canceled this year. Taiwanese Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo was scheduled to visit Washington in June for high-level meetings with Pentagon officials, including policy chief Elbridge Colby, according to two other people familiar with the situation. Those meetings were abruptly canceled by the U.S. after Xi urged Trump to limit U.S. engagement with Taiwan during a phone call earlier in June, the two people said. Washington has yet to reschedule the meetings. Meanwhile, the administration is weighing whether to directly ship more military equipment to Taiwan. The Defense Department submitted a tranche of aid to the White House for the president's consideration earlier this summer, but it has not yet been approved, according to a U.S. official. Instead, it sent the package to the State Department, which also plays a role in the security assistance process, according to another person familiar with the matter. The Pentagon and State Department did not respond to requests for comment. Critics have also voiced concern about the Trump administration's moves to lift restrictions on the sale of AI semiconductors to China. In July, the administration reversed an April decision to ban the sale of the H20, an AI chip made by the American semiconductor leviathan Nvidia, after CEO Jensen Huang's intensive efforts to persuade Trump. Nvidia has claimed that the H20 chips would not be used to aid China's military and that America benefits when other countries depend on its technology. National security experts and lawmakers from both parties have blasted the H20 decision, saying the technology will help advance China's military-industrial complex, with applications from simulating nuclear weapons to developing unmanned aircraft. 'We believe this move represents a strategic misstep that endangers the United States' economic and military edge in artificial intelligence — an area increasingly seen as decisive in 21st-century global leadership,' said 20 national security experts in a letter Monday urging Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to reverse course. The signatories include former members of both Trump administrations such as David Feith, who spearheaded technology competition policy at the National Security Council until April; and Matthew Pottinger, who served as deputy national security adviser in Trump's first term. The administration has made other moves to mollify China. On May 13, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued guidance on certain chips made by Chinese tech giant Huawei. A press release warned companies that using specific versions of Huawei's Ascend semiconductor chips 'anywhere in the world violates'' U.S. export control laws. Beijing was angered by the move, coming just as it had agreed to resume rare-earth exports, according to Christopher Padilla, a former top export control official in the George W. Bush administration, now a senior adviser with the Brunswick Group consulting firm. Senior Trump administration officials became concerned the Commerce move would undermine ongoing trade negotiations. Shortly afterward, BIS removed the word 'violates' and replaced it with language stating that the agency was 'alerting industry to the risks of using' those chips, said three people familiar with the matter. The linguistic tweak did not affect the application of the rule, but it was a softer, more oblique warning. The Commerce Department did not reply to requests for comment. Shortly after the Huawei announcement, China froze approvals for rare-earth exports to the United States. In late May, BIS imposed export controls on chip design software, certain aircraft parts and ethane to China. In June, both sides met in London and said they had agreed to lift their mutual restrictions. Since then, there has been a de facto pause on new trade controls involving China, several people said. That pause comes in the wake of what some analysts say is the administration's undertaking of an ill-thought out trade war. They point to the president's April tariffs escalation of 145 percent, against which China retaliated with export controls on rare earth minerals. 'China found pain points in the United States that we could not withstand,' Sobolik said. The apparent willingness of the Trump administration to put technology export controls on the trade bargaining table is a troubling development, said Padilla, who also served as undersecretary of commerce for international trade in the George W. Bush administration. 'Since the Carter administration and normalization with China,' the policy has been to deny Beijing's request to lift export controls in return for, say, closing the trade deficit, Padilla said. Using them as leverage in trade talks sets 'a dangerous precedent,' he said, 'and it raises the real possibility that now China will demand relaxation of export controls in exchange for future trade concessions — or for an agreement if the president visits China later this year.' In July, Trump told reporters at the White House: 'President Xi has invited me to China, and we'll probably be doing that in the not-too-distant future.' On Tuesday, Trump posted on Truth Social that he was 'not SEEKING' a summit with Xi. 'I may go to China, but it would only be at the invitation of President Xi, which has been extended,' he wrote. 'Otherwise, no interest!' Eva Dou contributed to this report.

Axing EPA's ‘endangerment' BS will unleash a new era of US prosperity
Axing EPA's ‘endangerment' BS will unleash a new era of US prosperity

New York Post

time27 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Axing EPA's ‘endangerment' BS will unleash a new era of US prosperity

Hooray for President Donald Trump and EPA chief Lee Zeldin for moving to roll back trillions of dollars in federal mandates by undoing the Obama-era greenhouse-gas 'endangerment' finding. Back in 2009, Environmental Protection Agency functionaries listed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as posing a public-health threat — not for any actual toxicity, but because of their role in speeding global warming. That in turn allowed for unprecedented EPA regulation of factories, power plants and auto emissions — including the hated stop-start feature. None of it ever made sense: Congress created the EPA in 1970 to fight actual poisons in our water and air, not to manage complex bank-shot contingencies as the 'endangerment' finding envisioned. After long teasing the repeal, Zeldin finally made the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of America' official Tuesday; it'll be a huge win for energy sanity. After all, anti-carbon mandates do major immediate harm to public health, by making electricity and other goods far more expensive: This green madness is a major reason why Western Europe has seen next to zero economic growth over the last two decades. And much of it makes little sense even as anti-climate-change policy: The EPA itself admits that the vehicle stop-start feature — which kills internal-combustion engines at red lights — hasn't shown clear reductions in emissions. Yes, cutting carbon emissions is an important long-term goal — but trying to make them zero immediately is nuts, especially when China is still building new coal plants at a record pace. The nation (and the world!) is far better served by Trump's drive to boost US energy production and ensure a plentiful and reliable supply of cheaper electricity to meet the growing demands of manufacturers and AI companies. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters For all progressives' current talk of 'affordability,' energy costs remain by far the single most important issue when it comes to improving public health and quality of life. But the anti-carbon cult has a death grip on the elites who set the Democratic agenda; expect a vast wave of propaganda posing as news and invective pretending to be science in response to Zeldin's move. Lawsuits, as well — since Democrats snuck language declaring greenhouse gases to be 'pollutants' into the utterly mislabeled 'Inflation Reduction Act' three years ago. Republicans in Congress need to put rolling back that absurdity high on their agenda when Congress reconvenes in the fall.

Are Tax Cuts a Political Loser Now?
Are Tax Cuts a Political Loser Now?

Atlantic

time28 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Are Tax Cuts a Political Loser Now?

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular. But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump. The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. 'If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work,' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later. If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he did—in both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, 'Read my lips: no new taxes,' and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP president—his son, George W.—made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy. Although separating Trump's own low approval from the way the public feels about any particular policy he pursues is difficult, the old consensus may just no longer hold. A few factors might explain the shift. First, thanks to 45 years of reductions, the overall tax burden is a lot lower than it was when Reagan took office, especially for wealthy taxpayers. In 1980, the top marginal individual tax rate —what the highest earners paid on their top tranche of income—was 70 percent; it had been as high as 92 percent, in 1952 and 1953. In 2024, it was 37 percent, applying only to income greater than $609,350. Since 1945, the average effective tax rate has dropped significantly for the top 1 percent and 0.01 percent of earners, while staying basically flat for the average taxpayer, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top corporate tax rate has also dropped from a high of 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969, to 21 percent, in 2024. Second, and not unrelatedly, income inequality has risen sharply. Although the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has stabilized in the past few years, it remains well above historical averages. Voters aren't interested in subsidizing even-plusher lifestyles for the richest Americans. That's especially true when tax cuts are paired with cuts to government-assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Majorities of people in polls say Trump's policy bill will mostly help the rich and hurt the poor, and they are correct, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Third, Republicans have argued for years that tax cuts are good policy because they generate enough growth to pay for themselves. This effect is known as the Laffer Curve, named after the influential conservative economist Art Laffer, and it allows supposed fiscal conservatives to justify tax cuts that increase the deficit in the short term. The problem is that it isn't true. Reagan's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, nor did W. Bush's, nor did Trump's first-term cuts. These cuts won't either. Voters also consistently worry about the national debt and deficit, and today even liberal economists who wrote those concerns off in the past are sounding alarms, citing the cost of interest payments on the debt and concerns about the debt as a percentage of GDP. This points to a future problem: Even if voters have soured on tax cuts, that doesn't mean they are willing to endorse tax increases. As my colleague Russell Berman explained to me back in May, Republicans felt pressure to pass the budget bill, lest the first-term Trump tax cuts expire—which voters would hate, and which could hurt the economy. (Those cuts were time-limited as part of procedural chicanery.) And few politicians are willing to run on raising taxes. Most Republicans have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Trump's tariffs are a tax, and he made them central to his campaign, but he also falsely insisted that Americans wouldn't pay their cost. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have in recent cycles vowed to raise taxes on the very wealthy but generally rejected increases for anyone else. This math won't work out forever. At some point, Americans will have to reconcile the national debt, their desire for social services, and their love of low taxes. It will take a brave politician to tell them that. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A gunman killed four people and critically injured another in a shooting at a building in Midtown Manhattan yesterday evening. He was found dead, and police say a note in his wallet indicated that he may have targeted the NFL's headquarters. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a revocation of its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health, in an effort to end federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. The proposal seeks to remove emissions limits for cars, power plants, and oil and gas operations. Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers said today that Maxwell, who was convicted of child sex trafficking and other crimes, would be willing to testify before Congress under certain conditions, including receiving immunity and the questions in advance. The House Oversight Committee rejected the request. Evening Read Homes Still Aren't Designed for a Body Like Mine By Jessica Slice Seven years ago, while sitting in my eighth-floor apartment with my toddler, I heard a voice over the intercom: Our building had a gas leak, and we needed to evacuate. A few weeks prior, a coffee shop down the street had exploded from a gas leak, killing two people and injuring at least 25. Terror struck me: Our elevators were powered down—and I use a wheelchair. I was trapped, unable to take myself and my child to safety. The fire department quickly determined that it was a false alarm. Still, I didn't stop shaking for hours. After a similar episode a few months later, my husband, David, and I bought a duffel bag the size of a human. We invited our neighbors over for pastries and asked if anyone would be willing to help carry me out during an emergency; my toddler could ride in the bag with me. A few neighbors agreed, but I couldn't ignore that my survival—and that of my child—was contingent on who else might be at home, and who might remember our request and be able to reach me. Eight months later, we moved out. We vowed never to live in a high-rise again. Yet nothing could free me from the indignities of seeking housing while disabled. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Watch. In 2022, David Sims recommended 10 must-watch indie films of the summer —each of which are worthy of as much fanfare as the season's blockbusters. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store