What's Happening

Politics

A Tense, Yet "Midwestern Nice" VP Debate

What's going on: Last night, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) faced off against Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) — aka “Coach Walz” — in what could be the last debate of the 2024 election. Right off the bat, Vance played offense, attributing the country’s high inflation and immigration crisis to the “Kamala Harris administration.” As for Walz, it appeared he needed a debate coach as he stumbled on answers to questions about the Middle East crisis and his inaccurate comments about visiting Tiananmen Square — attributing them to being “a knucklehead at times.” On the issue of reproductive rights, which (surprise) actually got a decent amount of air time, Vance said the Republican Party needs to “do so much better of a job at earning Americans’ trust back” on abortion. Meanwhile, Walz called out former President Donald Trump for praising and taking credit for the end of Roe v. Wade. As for child care, Vance attempted to decode Trump’s unclear stance on the issue, while Walz defended Harris’s “care economy.” Other key moments from the night: Vance not being a fan of fact-checking and the moderators muting the mics. Sadly, there was no fly to be seen.

What it means: On the debate stage, Vance gave more Hillbilly Elegy than VP candidate who has made controversial “childless cat ladies” and child care comments. (Though, he appeared to downplay the Jan. 6 attack and sidestepped a question about whether he’d challenge the election results.) He painted VP Kamala Harris as an incumbent — something that could sway undecided voters who have been critical of the Biden administration. As for Walz, the Midwestern dad vibes didn’t appear to be in the room, and he didn’t offer many specifics about what a Harris administration would look like. The two largely avoided personal attacks (yes, “Midwestern nice” was in the building) during the policy-focused debate, and the candidates actually agreed with each other at times (gasp). While VP debates typically don’t move the needle much among voters, the showdown comes amid a tight presidential race.

Related: Yes, the VP Debate’s Top Moments Are Now Memes (Teen Vogue)

International

Tensions Between Israel and Iran May Be Coming to a Head

What's going on: Yesterday, Iran launched its largest-scale attack against Israel in modern history, firing more than 180 ballistic missiles. The attack, which lasted for roughly an hour, triggered air sirens across Israel, prompting citizens to seek shelter. The Israeli military said it intercepted most of the missiles with assistance from US naval forces in the region, though there were “a few hits.” While the full extent of the damage is still being assessed, Israeli authorities reported no fatalities. However, a Palestinian man in the West Bank was killed by shrapnel, according to media reports. Iran’s retaliatory attack came a day after Israel began its ground invasion into Lebanon which, according to Israeli officials, was to push Hezbollah back. It also followed a series of devastating blows for Tehran, including the assassinations of top Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. The Israeli military said, “This attack will have consequences.”

What it means: Iran’s attack further threatens the fragile stability of the Middle East. For months, Iran had shown relative restraint since launching more than 100 drones and missiles at Israel in April. However, it continues to back its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, in their conflicts with Israel in Gaza and southern Lebanon. One expert told The Wall Street Journal that this recent attack may give Israel justification to strike Iran directly, potentially triggering a regional war that could involve the US. What happens next in the region could largely depend on Israel’s response, as it navigates wars on two fronts: Gaza and Lebanon. Arab officials told the WSJ that Israel said it would respond by striking Iran’s nuclear or oil facilities. Meanwhile, an Iranian commander warned that they are prepared to hit Israeli infrastructure if Israel attacks Iranian territory.

Related: What Types of Weapons Does Iran Have? (NYT Gift Link)

US News

California Scraps Legacy Admissions at Private Colleges

What's going on: Did your parents graduate from Stanford or USC? Well, California doesn’t care. College applicants will no longer be able to rely on connections to alumni or donors for admission to private California universities. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signed a bill into law earlier this week ​​banning the practice of legacy and donor admissions at academic institutions like Stanford University and the University of Southern California, effective fall 2025. Private colleges in the state have continued this practice (even though public universities in California stopped decades ago), in part to help boost endowments that fund campus programs and scholarships. USC, Stanford, and Santa Clara University reported that at least 13% of their admissions for the fall of 2022 had legacy or donor connections. Newsom says the ban will help level the playing field so it’s all about “merit, skill, and hard work.”

What it means: California’s new ban on legacy admissions comes as colleges across the country navigate changes to how they accept and reject applicants. The Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action, or race-based considerations, prompted some to call out the unfairness of legacy admissions, which often favor white and wealthy applicants. While some students and experts applaud the change in California, others are not convinced it’ll lead to more fairness. That’s because private universities won’t face fines or other harsh punishments if they break the law. Instead, institutions that continue to utilize legacy admissions will have their names publicly shamed on the California Department of Justice website. (Sounds like a slap on the wrist to us.) Meanwhile, other states, such as New York and Massachusetts (home to Harvard), are considering their own bills to ban legacy admissions.

Related: Yes, the Varsity Blues Admissions Scandal Played a Role in CA’s Ban (AP)