Donald Trump’s first term saw a great deal of political polarization. Right- and left-leaning Americans disagreed about environmental regulation and immigration. They disagreed about vaccines and reproductive rights. And they disagreed about whether or not to have children: As Republicans started having more babies under Trump, the birth rate among Democrats fell dramatically.

A few years ago, Gordon Dahl, an economist at UC San Diego, set out to measure how Trump’s 2016 victory might have affected conception rates in the years following. And he and his colleagues found a clear effect: Starting after Trump’s election, through the end of 2018, 38,000 fewer babies than would otherwise be expected were conceived in Democratic counties. By contrast, 7,000 more than expected were conceived in Republican counties in that same period. (The study, published in 2022, was conducted before data on the rest of Trump’s term were available.) Over the past three decades, Republicans have generally given birth to more kids than Democrats have. But during those first years of the first Trump administration, the partisan birth gap widened by 17 percent. “You see a clear and undeniable shift in who’s having babies,” Dahl told me.

That isn’t to say 38,000 couples took one look at President Trump and decided, Nope, no baby for us! But the correlation that Dahl’s team found was clear and strong. The researchers also hypothesized that George W. Bush’s win in 2000, another close election, would have had a noticeable effect on fertility rates. And they found that after that election, too, the partisan fertility gap widened, although less dramatically than after the 2016 election. According to experts I spoke with, as the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans has grown, so has the influence of politics on fertility. In Trump’s second term, America may be staring down another Democratic baby bust.

Dahl’s paper suggested a novel idea: Perhaps shifts in political power can influence fertility rates as much as, say, the economy does. This one paper only goes so far: Dahl and his co-authors found evidence for a significant shift in birth rates only in elections that a Republican won; for the 2008 election, they found no evidence that Barack Obama’s victory affected fertility rates. (They suggest in the paper, though, that the intense economic impact of the Great Recession might have drowned out any partisan effect.) And the study looked only at those three elections; little other research has looked so directly at the impact of American presidential elections on partisan birth rates. But plenty of  studies have found that political stability, political freedom, and political transitions all affect fertility. To researchers like Dahl, this growing body of work suggests that the next four years might follow similar trends.

In the U.S., partisan differences in fertility patterns have existed since the mid-1990s. Today, in counties that lean Republican, people tend to have bigger families and lower rates of childlessness; in places that skew Democratic, families tend to be smaller. And according to an analysis by the Institute for Family Studies, a right-leaning research group, places that tilt more Republican have become associated with even higher fertility rates over the past 12 years. “I don't think there’s any reason to think that’s about to stop,” Lyman Stone, a demographer with the institute, told me.

That Democrats might choose to have fewer babies under a Republican president, and perhaps vice versa, may seem intuitive. People take into account a lot of factors when they’re deciding to have kids, including the economy and their readiness to parent. “People are not just looking at the price of eggs,” Sarah Hayford, the director of the Institute for Population Research at Ohio State University, told me. They also consider more subjective factors, such as their own well-being, their feelings about the state of society, and their confidence (or lack thereof) in political leadership. Trump’s supporters may feel more optimistic than ever about the future, but his detractors feel otherwise. After a few short weeks in office, the president has already announced withdrawals from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization, and paused funding for a slew of government services. Those include child-care-assistance programs, although the administration has promised to support policies to encourage family growth. “If you’re a Democrat and you really care about child care and family leave and climate change,” Dahl said, you might conclude that “this is maybe not the right time to bring a kid into the world.”

Some would-be parents aren’t just worried about the world they might bring a child into—they’re worried about themselves, too. In 2016, Roe v. Wade still protected Americans’ right to an abortion. Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe, states across the country have enacted abortion bans. In some cases, those bans have meant that pregnant women have had to wait for care, or be airlifted to other states; as a direct result, at least five pregnant American women have died. These risks can weigh heavily. After the election, Planned Parenthood locations across the country saw a surge in appointments for birth control and vasectomies.

Brittany, a labor-and-delivery nurse in North Carolina, told me that she and her husband had decided to try for one more kid—she wanted a girl, after three boys—but after Trump was reelected, she changed her mind. (Brittany requested that I not use her last name, in order to protect her medical privacy.) During her first pregnancy, when she nearly lost her uterus to a severe postpartum hemorrhage, doctors stopped the bleeding with the help of a device that can also be used in abortions. Emergency abortion is legal in North Carolina, but Brittany fears that could change or that doctors might become more wary about using those same tools to save her reproductive organs—or even her life—under an administration that has signaled support for anti-abortion groups. Brittany is 37 now, and not optimistic about her chances of getting pregnant in four years, when Trump is out of office. Her husband, who voted for Trump, “thinks that I’m kind of blowing things out of proportion when I say we’re definitely not having another baby because of this administration,” she said. For her, though, it seemed like the only rational choice.

If Democrats’ drops in fertility over the coming years do again outstrip Republican gains, that trend will worsen a broader issue the U.S. is facing: a countrywide baby bust. The fertility rate has been falling for almost a decade, save for a brief pandemic baby boom. Around the world, falling birth rates have set off anxieties about how societies might handle, for instance, the challenge of an aging population with few younger people to care for them. In the U.S., fears about population collapse also have helped unite conservatives with the techno-libertarians who have recently flocked to Trump’s inner orbit. Elon Musk, who has 12 children, has repeatedly claimed that population collapse is a bigger threat than climate change. At the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., last month, Vice President J. D. Vance told the crowd, “I want more babies in the United States of America.”

So far, no country has hit on the magic public policy that will reverse population decline. Taiwan introduced more paid family leave, along with cash benefits and tax credits for parents of young kids. Russia, Italy, and Greece have all tried paying people to have kids. Japan has tried an ever-changing list of incentives for some 30 years, among them subsidized child care, shorter work hours, and cash. None of it has worked. Vance favors expanding the child tax credit; the Trump administration has also sent early signals of family-first policies, including a memo instructing the Department of Transportation to preferentially direct grants and services toward communities with high marriage and birth rates.

As Musk and Vance fight against population decline, they could entice enough Americans to have kids that they can counteract a Democratic deficit, or even reverse falling birth rates. But that won’t be easy. “There may be a Trump bump in conservative places and a Trump bust in liberal places,” Stone told me. “I would bet on the dip being bigger.”

Emergency teams in China's southwestern Sichuan province searched frantically on Sunday for 28 people missing after heavy rain triggered a landslide.

Emergency officials said there are likely no survivors from a midair collision between a jet and a helicopter.

The nation is bracing itself for what President-Elect Donald Trump has promised will be the largest deportation effort in American history. Trump has vowed to use the military to assist with deportations, relying on emergency and wartime powers such as the Insurrection Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Alien Enemies Act. In addition to worrying about the impact on immigrant families, wider communities, and the economy, many Americans are wondering—is this legal?

The deportation of undocumented individuals who are ineligible for asylum or other legal protection is, of course, well within the government’s authority under current immigration law. (As a policy matter, President Joe Biden has chosen to focus on those who have committed serious crimes—a policy that Trump is set to undo, presumably to facilitate broader deportation efforts.) But deploying the military raises an entirely different set of legal questions. Even under the potent authorities Trump has cited, the actions he proposes to take would be, at a minimum, an abuse of power, and they might well be illegal to boot.

Some degree of military involvement in immigration enforcement is already permitted—and has occurred under multiple administrations—without recourse to emergency powers. This may be surprising to many Americans. Anglo-American law has a long tradition of military noninterference in civilian affairs, for the simple reason that an army turned inward can quickly become an instrument of tyranny. In the United States, this tradition finds expression in an 1878 statute, the Posse Comitatus Act, that prohibits federal armed forces from participating in law-enforcement activities unless expressly authorized by law. Although not every American is familiar with the act, the principle it enshrines is deeply embedded in the public consciousness.  

[Quinta Jurecic: Yes, the law can still constrain Trump]

Less well known is the fact that the Posse Comitatus Act is riddled with exceptions and loopholes. For one thing, courts have construed the law to bar only direct participation in core law-enforcement activities, such as arrests or seizures. Federal forces may still provide indirect support to law-enforcement agencies in a number of ways, including conducting reconnaissance, sharing intelligence, and furnishing and operating equipment. In the 1980s, Congress passed several laws authorizing active-duty armed forces to provide these types of assistance.

In addition, the act applies only to federal armed forces. It does not apply to the National Guard—military units within the states that usually operate under state authority—unless the president has called Guard forces into federal service, at which point they become part of the federal military. Congress has passed a law authorizing Guard forces to perform federal missions at the request of the president or secretary of defense even when they haven’t been called into federal service. (Governors have the right to refuse such missions.) The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to these operations, because the Guard forces remain, at least nominally, under state command and control.

These gaps in the act’s coverage have enabled military involvement in the enforcement of immigration and customs laws at the U.S.-Mexico border for decades, beginning in the 1980s and ramping up after 9/11. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump sent thousands of National Guard forces to the border, where they provided support to the Department of Homeland Security in the form of surveillance, transportation, equipment, and the erection of barriers. Trump also deployed active-duty armed forces, as did President Biden. In the summer of 2023, 2,500 National Guard forces and 1,500 active-duty armed forces were stationed at the border.

The seemingly permanent militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border may not violate the Posse Comitatus Act, but it has led to a variety of harms. When thousands of soldiers are routinely arrayed at the border, Americans receive the message that migrants are a threat to national security and public safety—a baseless notion that underlies and fuels support for Trump’s anti-immigration platform. Prolonged deployments at the border are also bad for the military, as they undermine service members’ morale and divert resources and personnel from core military functions.

Trump now reportedly seeks to double down on the militarization of immigration enforcement by invoking a trio of emergency authorities, beginning with the Insurrection Act of 1807—the primary statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act gives the president broad powers to deploy federal armed forces (including the federalized National Guard) to quell civil unrest or enforce the law. The criteria for deployment are written in vague, archaic terms that provide few clear constraints. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court held in 1827 that the president is the sole judge of whether the criteria for deployment have been met. In other words, courts generally cannot review a president’s decision to invoke the law.

Although a top aide has said that Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act, the Trump team has provided scant detail on how he plans to use federal forces once deployed. Given that nonemergency authorities already authorize substantial military support to civilian law enforcement, it’s conceivable that Trump’s purpose in invoking the Insurrection Act is purely symbolic—a performative act of “shock and awe.” (The very name of the law suggests that immigrants are attacking from within and must be defeated through force.) At least in theory, though, the law could allow federal forces to perform core law-enforcement functions, such as apprehending and detaining immigrants, in any state in the country and against any governor’s wishes.

Such a use of the Insurrection Act would go beyond a mere expansion of existing military activities. Soldiers rolling into American towns in armored vehicles, knocking on doors, and carting people off to military detention facilities would create risks and harms that current border operations do not. For one thing, direct interactions between military personnel and civilians in fraught circumstances carry a significant potential for violence. After all, soldiers are trained to fight; few receive training in how to peaceably enforce civilian laws while respecting civil liberties. Furthermore, the visible presence of soldiers deployed in the streets would be both alarming and chilling for many Americans. Some would undoubtedly feel less comfortable engaging in protests against Trump’s policies or other basic acts of personal expression.

Heavy involvement of the military in immigration enforcement would also require a massive infusion of resources, both financial and human. That’s where Trump’s plan to declare a national emergency might come in. Under the National Emergencies Act, presidential declarations of national emergency unlock enhanced powers contained in 150 provisions of law spanning almost every area of governance, including military deployment, commerce, transportation, communications, agriculture, and public health. These provisions can supply both additional authority and additional resources for presidential action in a crisis.

Trump has used these powers before. In 2019, Trump declared that unlawful migration at the southern border constituted a national emergency. He invoked an emergency power that frees up funding for “military construction” projects, which he used to secure funds Congress had refused to allocate for the border wall. He might well reprise this effort, and he could attempt to use the same provision to fund the construction of military bases that would serve as immigrant-detention facilities. He could also use emergency powers to call up reservists, amplifying the manpower available to detain and deport immigrants. Indeed, Biden did exactly that in 2023 to supplement forces at the southern border.

[David A. Graham: Why didn’t Jack Smith charge Trump with insurrection?]

Finally, Trump has pledged to invoke the Alien Enemies Act—the last remaining vestige of the notorious 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. A president may invoke this law when Congress has declared war or when the president proclaims an “invasion” by a foreign government. It allows the president to detain and deport immigrants, including green-card holders and others lawfully in the country, who are not U.S. citizens and who were born in the enemy nation. Immigrants targeted under the act are not entitled to the hearings and other procedural protections afforded by immigration law.

The act was last used in World War II to implement the internment of more than 31,000 noncitizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent. (U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were detained under a separate authority.) Congress and the U.S. government have since apologized for much of this shameful episode in our nation’s history.

According to reporting in Rolling Stone, Trump may claim that migration from Mexico and other countries south of the border constitutes an “invasion” perpetrated by drug cartels that are operating as de facto governments in those regions. The Alien Enemies Act does not itself authorize military deployment, but it could be combined with the Insurrection Act and other authorities to significantly expand the military’s remit. Most notably, if Trump were successful in invoking these laws, they could allow troops to detain and deport not just undocumented individuals but people who are lawfully present in the United States.

There is no question that the authorities Trump has cited grant the president sweeping powers. The Brennan Center, where I work, has called attention to the dangers posed by each of them. My colleagues and I have urged Congress to reform the laws in order to incorporate safeguards against presidential overreach (or, in the case of the Alien Enemies Act, to repeal it).

But there is also no question that Trump’s proposed actions, as he and his allies have framed them, would be a staggering abuse of these authorities—and quite possibly illegal. Despite the permissive language of the Insurrection Act, it was clearly intended for crises that could not be solved by civilian government actors. That is why it has been invoked only 30 times in the nation’s history and has lain dormant for the past 33 years. In keeping with tradition and constitutional principles, the Justice Department has interpreted the law narrowly, asserting that it should be used only as a “last resort”—specifically, when state and local authorities request military assistance, are obstructing federal law, or have “completely broken down.”

There are many ways to address unlawful immigration short of deploying federal troops. Last spring, for instance, the Senate voted twice on a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically tightened border security. Republicans blocked the measure—reportedly at Trump’s behest, so that he could continue to make the porous border a central focus of his campaign. Having actively obstructed an effort to ramp up civilian enforcement of immigration laws, Trump can hardly argue that military deployment is a “last resort.”  

His cynical behavior could open the door to a legal challenge. Although the Supreme Court has generally barred judicial review of Insurrection Act invocations, it has suggested on various occasions that there might be an exception for deployments undertaken in bad faith. That’s because all of the president’s actions, even those committed to his discretion under Article II of the Constitution, must be consistent with the express constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the law.

In addition, the Supreme Court has distinguished between a president’s decision to invoke the Insurrection Act (which is usually not subject to judicial review) and any actions taken by the military after deployment (which are squarely within the courts’ purview). Soldiers deployed under the act must comply with the Constitution and other applicable federal law. If people’s legal rights were violated under a Trump-ordered deployment—for instance, if military detention conditions failed to meet basic human needs—courts would be able to intervene.

Just as invoking the Insurrection Act would be inconsistent with the law’s intent, declaring a national emergency would be a misuse of emergency powers. To be sure, America’s broken immigration system has led to unprecedented numbers of unlawful border crossings. Emergency powers, however, are designed to address sudden, unexpected crises that can’t be handled by Congress through ordinary legislation. There is nothing sudden or unexpected about the problems at the southern border, and Congress can—and should—address those problems through reform of the immigration system.

[Quinta Jurecic: Trump secures his get-out-of-jail-free card]

As a legal matter, courts will be reluctant to second-guess Trump’s decision to declare an emergency. But they will be less deferential in reviewing whether his administration’s actions are authorized under the specific powers he invokes. Although Trump has not identified which powers he plans to use, none of the 150 provisions available during a national emergency is designed to facilitate deportation. Trump will likely be stretching some of these laws beyond their permissible limits. (During his first administration, some courts struck down his use of the military-construction authority to build the border wall.) Courts will also review whether the actions Trump takes pursuant to a national-emergency declaration comport with other federal laws and constitutional rights.

Perhaps the most glaring abuse would be invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The history and design of the law make clear that it is a wartime authority only. It was intended to address armed attacks by foreign nations, not people fleeing political persecution, drug- and gang-related violence, or economic hardship. Even if a significant portion of migrants were criminals—a myth contradicted by all available evidence—that would not render their border crossing an act of war.

Moreover, whether in wartime or peacetime, the Alien Enemies Act suffers from grave constitutional flaws. It permits the targeting of individuals based solely on their ancestry, rather than their conduct, and it allows those individuals to be detained and deported without a hearing. As a recent Brennan Center report argues, these powers are fundamentally inconsistent with modern understandings of constitutional equal-rights and due-process protections.

Whether the Supreme Court would uphold the actions Trump has threatened is impossible to say with any certainty. In recent years, the Supreme Court has occasionally taken positions previously thought inconceivable, and overturned numerous long-standing precedents. But regardless of how the Supreme Court may rule, these actions should rightly be understood as an abuse of power, an abuse of the public trust, and an abuse of the law. And as soon as there is an opportunity, Congress must reform the emergency authorities in question so that no president can ever commit such abuses in the future.

In Los Angeles, we live with fire. There is even a season—fire season, which does not end until the rains come. This winter, the rains have not come. What has come is fire. And Angelenos have been caught off guard, myself included.

Tuesday mid-morning, a windstorm hit L.A. In the Palisades, a neighborhood in the Santa Monica Mountains that overlooks the Pacific Ocean, a blaze broke out. Over the past two days, it has burned more than 17,234 acres and destroyed at least 1,000 structures. The Palisades Fire will almost certainly end up being the most expensive in California history. It is currently not at all contained.

By Tuesday night, another fire had sparked—this time in the San Gabriel Mountains, near Altadena, where winds had been clocked at 100 miles an hour and sent embers flying miles deep into residential and commercial stretches of the city. By mid-morning yesterday, the Eaton Fire had consumed 1,000 structures and more than 10,600 acres. It, too, is zero percent contained. Together, the fires have taken at least five lives.

Last night, just before 6 p.m., another fire erupted in Runyon Canyon, in the Hollywood Hills. Like the Palisades and Eaton Fires, the Sunset Fire seems to have first broken out in the dry chaparral scrub whipped by the roaring winds. The hillside there is particularly dense with homes, and the neighborhood is jammed up against the even denser, urban L.A., where apartment buildings quickly give way to commercial blocks. One of this city’s many charms is its easy access to nature, but nature is also the cause of its current apocalypse.

Living through these fires, I’ve struggled to understand the scale of the event; to see the threat for what it is and respond appropriately. My family lives in Eagle Rock, a neighborhood 20 miles from the Palisades with a whole mountain range in between. On Tuesday, while driving on the freeway, I saw the colossal thunderhead of gray smoke of the Palisades Fire erupting from the Santa Monica Mountains and decided: This is fine. I finished my errand. I went on with my day.

When I got home, I turned on KTLA, which was broadcasting live from Palisades Drive, where dozens of cars, trapped in evacuation traffic, had been abandoned by their fleeing owners. A man ran up to the reporter, removed his face mask, and spoke into the microphone. Looking directly at the camera, he implored viewers to leave their keys in their car if they were going to flee, so that the fire crews could get to the fire unimpeded. The guy looked familiar. The reporter asked him to identify himself. It was Steve Guttenberg. Mahoney from Police Academy! Only in L.A.

The wind was making a constant low, terrible moan through the trees. Every few minutes, a violent gust would blast through and rattle the house. That afternoon, I went to pick up my kids, who had been kept inside their school all day. At home, I let them run around outside, but everyone’s eyes got itchy. There was so much dust in the air. Still, the only fire I knew of was all the way across town, so I went out again that evening to see a movie.  

At intermission, a friend returned from the restroom and told me that my wife had been trying to reach me. I turned my phone off airplane mode and called her; when she picked up, she told me a neighbor had just knocked on our door to tell her that a brush fire was burning nearby. It was close, she said. How close? I asked.

Across the street, she said. Like, can you see it? From our house? She said no. I’m coming home, I told her.

Driving back, I saw a huge, glowing gash in the San Gabriel Mountains—the Eaton Fire. I thought about what needed to happen when I got home: the go bags we should pack, the box of birth certificates and Social Security cards. A photo album or two. I’d park the car facing out, for a quicker exit. I’d move some potentially long-burning objects (trash cans) as far from the house as possible.

I knew what to do. I knew the procedure. I’d reported on fires before. Hell, the home I’d grown up in was nearly burned down by wildfires twice in 2017, and my aunt and uncle had lost their home in Santa Rosa that same year. I’d interviewed firefighters about days just like this one—when the Santa Anas howl and it hasn’t rained for eight months or longer, the chaparral is a tinderbox, and fires begin popping up everywhere.

And yet, I hadn’t thought that it could happen down the street. I hadn’t considered that it could happen to me and my family.

[Read: ‘I’ve never seen anything like this’]

I arrived home just after 9 p.m. First neighbors with hoses, then the fire department, had doused the blaze nearby. I worked through my checklist, packed the kids a bag of clothes, then my wife and I packed small bags of our own. A thought nagged at me: All day, I’d been looking at fire—why hadn’t I seen the immediacy of the threat? I pulled out a book called Thinking in an Emergency, by Elaine Scarry, which I find extremely calming in intense moments because it presents an extended argument for the benefits of thought and practice during emergency situations. “CPR is knowable; one can learn it if one chooses,” Scarry writes. “But one cannot know who will one day be the recipient of that embodied knowledge … It is available to every person whose path crosses one’s own.”

What we do during emergencies, when the habits of the everyday (getting out of your car, keys in hand) come face-to-face with the extraordinary (a fire by the side of the road), requires extraordinary thinking. And we would be wise to insert these acts of thinking into our everyday habits. We perform a version of this constantly: We call it “deliberation.” Mostly, we spend very little time between deliberation and action. But emergency-style deliberation is difficult, because true emergencies are rare. It is hard for us to conceive of them happening until they are.

The drivers who locked their car doors and left with their keys were not thinking within the framework of the fire as a threat. A fire doesn’t steal one’s car; it burns it down. I had been no different in my thinking that day. Maybe I was worse: I had the knowledge of what to do in a fire, but I hadn’t even considered the realistic possibility that the fire presented a threat to my family.

I spent most of Tuesday night awake. The wind remained terrible. The smell of smoke began to fill the house. I rolled up towels and stuck them at the foot of the doors. Yesterday morning, just after 7 a.m., our phones buzzed with an alert: an evacuation warning for our corner of the neighborhood and much of nearby Pasadena. We hustled our kids through breakfast, packed up, and got out. Our going was optional, but at least 100,000 other Angelenos are under mandatory evacuation, a number that is surely growing higher as all of these fires continue to burn.

We left with the little we’d packed in our go bags, which was clarifying. I felt a weight lift. This was everything that truly mattered. Rereading Scarry had reminded me: I did not learn to perform CPR until I was about to be a father, until the possibility of having to perform it seemed a bit more real. I still, thankfully, have never had to. But will I retrain myself? Should I be practicing? We motored on through traffic. After a while, the smoke began to clear, just enough to see patches of sky. I will schedule that CPR retraining, I thought. That’s something I should do. When we can get home and catch our breath.