I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 14 minutes.

How Christians think about their politics.

I think Americans of various political and religious stripes often forget that we do live in a pluralistic society — one where Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or atheists inevitably bring their theology to the ballot box or to the policy debate. And when that happens, those religious beliefs do inform our national identity — but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

In last Friday’s edition, Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead explored some Americans’ concerns about the rising influence of “Christian nationalism” in the U.S. government, breaking down what this term means, the influence of Christian beliefs on both sides of the aisle, and how we should think about that influence. You can read it here.

Quick hits.

1. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he will no longer block Kevin Warsh’s nomination to be the next Federal Reserve chair after the Justice Department said it is dropping its investigation into current Chairman Jerome Powell. With Tillis’s support, Warsh’s nomination is expected to advance out of the Senate Banking Committee to a confirmation vote. (The latest)
2. President Donald Trump canceled plans for Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to travel to Pakistan for peace talks with Iran, saying discussions could be held over the phone. (The cancellation) Separately, Iran reportedly sent the United States a new peace proposal, offering to immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz but delay negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program until a future date. (The offer)
3. The U.S. Southern Command struck a boat allegedly operated by drug traffickers in the Eastern Pacific, killing three on board. The operation was the 55th confirmed strike on an alleged drug boat since the U.S. military began targeting vessels in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific in September 2025. (The strike)
4. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a case about whether law enforcement’s use of geofence searches — which collect cell phone location data from an area in which a crime occurred — violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. (The case)
5. King Charles III arrives in the United States today for his first state visit as king. The king will meet with President Trump at the White House in addition to delivering a joint address to Congress and visiting other locations in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Virginia. (The visit)

Today’s topic.

The White House correspondents’ dinner shooting. On Saturday, a gunman fired shots at the Washington Hilton Hotel, which was hosting the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner. The Secret Service evacuated President Donald Trump and other senior leaders, and none of the guests were injured. One Secret Service officer was shot while engaging the suspect outside the ballroom, but he was wearing a bulletproof vest and was not seriously wounded. The gunman allegedly sent a manifesto to his family before the attack, suggesting that he intended to kill the president and other administration officials. He was charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on federal officers using a dangerous weapon.

Note: Due to the well documented contagion effect, Tangle does not name shooters or suspects in high-profile attacks. For similar reasons, we also try to share limited information about the shooter and their alleged motives where possible.

Back up: The WHCA hosts an annual dinner that brings together journalists covering the White House, top government officials, celebrities, and often the president and first lady. The event is billed as a “celebration of the First Amendment,” with comedians roasting guests through humorous speeches. Traditionally, the president is treated as the guest of honor at the event and gives a comedic keynote address; this year’s dinner is the first one President Trump has attended as president. 

According to law enforcement, the suspect was armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives, and he rushed past a security checkpoint while exchanging fire with authorities. He was then tackled and subdued. Videos taken from inside the event show the Secret Service rapidly evacuating President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Cabinet secretaries, and White House advisers as other attendees sheltered in place. 

The suspect was identified as a graduate of the California Institute of Technology and a tutor living in Torrance, California. In his alleged manifesto, he wrote that he was attempting to target high-ranking administration officials and was surprised by how easy it was to bring weapons into the hotel, where he had checked in as a guest the day prior. 

Later on Saturday night, President Trump delivered a statement from the White House, praising law enforcement’s response and describing the reaction inside the room as “totally unified.” He also said the incident underscored the need for the planned White House ballroom, which is being designed to hold secure events with high-profile figures. 

Lawmakers in attendance expressed shock at the incident. “It’s a horrible, horrible moment for our country to see somebody want to attack or disrupt the event,” Rep. Brian Jack (R-GA) said. “It’s insane… that this is happening at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Security is supposed to be top notch,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-CA) said. 

Today, we’ll share responses to the shooting from the left and right, followed by Executive Editor Isaac Saul’s take.

What the left is saying.

• The left condemns the attack, and many connect it to persistent gun violence in the U.S.
• Some push back on conspiracy theories about the incident. 
• Others say the suspect’s manifesto highlighted real security vulnerabilities.  

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board wrote “after a third attempt on his life, Trump could work to make America safer again.”

“President Donald Trump has now been involved in what appears to be an unprecedented three attempts on his life… Sadly, the attack at the White House correspondents’ dinner on Saturday will likely come and go with little consequence or reflection,” the board said. “But just imagine if Trump said enough is enough and used his immense charisma to turn those searing acts of horror into something positive by demanding commonsense gun reform… What if Trump told Congress he would like a package of commonsense gun reform bills on his desk before Election Day.”

“We — like others of goodwill — condemn this attempt on his life and all acts of political violence. By using the power of the presidency to take steps that could have a meaningful impact on firearm deaths, Trump has a chance to be a hero,” the board wrote. “Regrettably, that opportunity grows more unlikely by the minute. Instead of seeking unity, the president will soon be back to posting insults, lies, threats, hate, vitriol and late-night diatribes aimed at his perceived enemies — and giving no thought to how his anger and hate over the past decade has fueled the political divide.”

In Slate, Molly Olmstead explored the “conspiracy theorist bonanza” after the shooting.

“We do not yet fully understand the suspect’s motivations, but we have strong indications. He had donated to Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, he had attended an anti-Donald Trump protest, and he had sent messages to family members before the attack denouncing the Trump administration,” Olmstead said. “Those signposts seemingly paint a straightforward picture of this attack as a politically motivated assassination attempt against the president and members of his administration. But if you ask observers — and particularly observers on the left — there’s something even more sinister going on here.

“It’s true that the attack will help Trump change the subject at a time when his myriad policy failures — particularly the war in Iran — have been front-and-center… But none of that comes close to proving that the shooting was intentional. Additionally, the Trump officials may have not appeared as visibly shaken as people expected simply because the shooter wasn’t actually anywhere near them,” Olmstead wrote. “The rapid impulse to insist the shooting was staged is further proof of just how deep we’ve ventured into a post-truth era, where anything that happens will be immediately engulfed in conspiracy theories.”

In The Atlantic, Graeme Wood said “the most frightening shooters are the smart ones.”

“The line ‘I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done’ could probably have been written in an email to friends by any number of the attendees at last night’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. But the line was apparently written by a man who showed up with a shotgun and pistol and was ready to kill ‘most everyone’ there to get to Donald Trump and assassinate him and his Cabinet,” Wood wrote. “Random acts of violence by unstable individuals are unfortunately a feature of modern life. The most frightening shooters are not these yahoos, but the smart ones — those who carefully plan, train, and choose their settings to inflict maximum damage.”

“The email attributed to [the suspect] as well as the scant biographical details known about him suggest that he had the capacity to do much more harm than he did… [excerpts from the email] do not sound at all like the mad ranting that characterizes many of the encyclicals sent out by attempted assassins before their act. And [the suspect’s] complaints, though too vague to assess individually, are indeed the sorts of things one might reasonably get worked up about,” Wood said. “[The suspect] is right to note that a competent assassination squad would find the job easier than one might hope. He was, thankfully, wrong to think that he was such a squad all by himself.”

What the right is saying.

• The right also condemns the attack, and many connect it to increasingly dehumanizing political rhetoric. 
• Some criticize the Secret Service after another apparent close call. 
• Others praise Trump’s demeanor and remarks after the shooting. 

The Free Press’s editors argued “the American way is under fire.”

“It’s impossible to ignore the fiery pitch of the current political climate. Just outside the hotel, protesters held placards that read ‘Death to Tyrants’ and ‘Death to All of Them.’ They waved these signs in the faces of shaken attendees even after the thwarted attack. Hatred toward public officials and ideological opponents abounds in American politics today, and has too often turned violent,” the editors said. “It struck us, as they waved these placards in the event’s aftermath, that it was the perfect emblem of our present moment. One in which calls for violence against people ‘on the other side’ can be stated flagrantly in public.”

“One can find examples of ugly, violent rhetoric being used across the political spectrum in America today, but the animosity aimed at Trump is on a level of its own. That fixation is the symptom of a broken politics,” the editors wrote. “The shooting is a reminder that the First Amendment alone cannot uphold free speech. Its legal protections for private individuals are essential, but the entire American system of expression, elections, and debate is also built on a shared culture — on the assumption that the elected representatives of the people will never lack the power to speak freely. Today, that can no longer be taken for granted.”

In The Federalist, Brianna Lyman said “the Secret Service failed Trump — again.”

“The question everyone should be asking is: How did an armed suspect get that far in the first place? It’s a question that should sound familiar. Less than two years ago, Americans watched in horror as a would-be assassin climbed onto an open rooftop overlooking Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania,” Lyman wrote. “Here we are at the Washington Hilton Hotel left asking the same question: How did another armed man get this close to the president at what should be a secure location?”

“How is it that there was no meaningful vetting of guests of the hotel in the days leading up to the event? How is it that a man was able to rent a room in the hotel and allegedly bring weapons with him? Why wasn’t there a hardened perimeter, blocks long, checking bags and persons before they made it near the hotel?” Lyman asked. “Sure, the suspect was ultimately stopped. But that isn’t proof that the system worked; in fact, it’s evidence that every decision made leading up to the moment didn’t.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Faith Bottum wrote “Trump stands tall under fire.”

“Donald Trump looked presidential on Saturday night… He proved again that he is at his best when faced with physical danger,” Bottum said. “We can talk — we should talk — about political violence in America, especially against conservatives, who are still shaken by the murder of Charlie Kirk. Political violence has become too common and too normalized. But a word should be said about the bravery of Mr. Trump and those who protected him. Whether or not one likes him or supports his policies, courage is one of the virtues we want and need in our leaders.”

“When asked why assassins keep targeting him, he answered, ‘I studied assassinations,’ and suggested that ‘the people that make the biggest impact,’ such as Abraham Lincoln, tend to be the targets. ‘They don’t go after the ones that don’t do much… I hate to say I’m honored by that, but I’ve done a lot — we’ve done a lot,’” Bottum wrote. “The comparison to Lincoln may seem immodest, but Mr. Trump stood with presidential stature on Saturday. We should all be relieved he survived the attack.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Unfortunately, we’ve had many opportunities to explore aspects of political violence in past coverage.
• Something that stands out to me this time is how many Americans dismiss these events as fake.
• Tackling these theories head-on is crucial, and we need a holistic effort.

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: Charlie Kirk, Brian Thompson, Melissa Hortman, John Hoffman, Josh Shapiro, Yaron Lischinsky, Sarah Lynn Milgrim, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor.

A conservative activist. A healthcare CEO. Two Democratic state lawmakers. A Democratic governor. Two Israeli embassy officials. A Republican- and a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justice. 

Each of these people, just in the last several years, has been killed, targeted, or the subject of a credible assassination plot. They’re just a small subset of politically relevant people whose lives have been at risk or actually taken. And now, for the third time since 2024, that list includes President Donald Trump.

This story has many potential angles; unfortunately, we’ve been able to explore a lot of them already. How does moving on so quickly from assassination attempts against Trump show that we’ve almost normalized political violence as a society? We’ve discussed. How should we talk about the president, who is both the victim of another plot but also someone who regularly employs violent rhetoric? We’ve discussed. How should we weigh someone’s rhetoric after they’ve been the victim of a violent crime? We’ve discussed. How do we relate the accessibility of guns to other relevant issues? We’ve discussed. Who is more extreme between Democrats and Republicans? We’ve discussed.

Here’s something we haven’t touched on, though: The increasing belief among the American public that these events are staged, manufactured, or otherwise unfolding in coordinated ways. 

Trust in the media continues to fall, and in some cases that distrust is well earned. I built an entire media business based on my view that news consumers were living in bubbles, and that major media organizations and social media platforms were part of the problem. Journalists too often inject their own bias into stories sold as neutral reporting, advertising-first models incentivize sensational headlines, and Americans are desperate for a more diverse set of views when they open their phones or computers. I think those criticisms are valid; in many ways, I bet my career that they are.

Yet I don’t believe — and have never believed — that these stories are all performances, which would require all reporters down to the last one to ignore the most incredible stories of our lifetimes. There’s a difference between thinking The New York Times has a left-leaning bias and thinking reporters at The New York Times are so bad at their jobs they can’t accurately report on an event they were all in the room for.  

Legacy news outlets, with reporters who are often doing the real work of bearing witness to these events, now have every sentence of their work scrutinized, challenged, and sometimes outright manipulated by people who mistrust the official narrative. A chorus of internet sleuths who watch people like Candace Owens think that Charlie Kirk’s murder was an inside job — maybe even a set-up by Israel, or his own wife. 15% of Democrats don’t think Trump was actually shot in the ear when a shooter tried to kill him in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

And last night, the term “staged” immediately skyrocketed in use on social media, according to WIRED. As the theory goes, the shooter was some kind of government plant who was paid or otherwise coerced into making an attempt on Trump’s life so Trump could push forward on his bunker ballroom or enjoy some kind of bounce back in the polls. The many reporters in the room reporting on what they saw were apparently all deceived or merely parroting the “official” government story.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), who (mercifully) just lost her Senate primary race, joined the chorus: “Maybe it’s fake… who knows…”

Who knows.

Well, for one, the room full of journalists who heard the gunshots and saw the shooter apprehended on the ground are incentivized to find and share the truth. If you don’t believe their reporting, you can always watch the security camera footage of the shooter running through a group of very clearly unsuspecting federal agents yourself. Or you can read characterizations about the shooter from people who went to school with him. It really stretches the imagination to believe the government concocted all these things, and that a complicit press reported the details without confirming them, with no exceptions.

But this kind of witness testimony and corroborating evidence is no longer enough. It doesn’t matter how many people in the crowd in Butler, Pennsylvania, heard the gunshots ring out, or saw a man get killed directly behind Trump. It only matters that Trump could have activated some kind of fake-blood packet in one moment on the ground to make it look like he’d been hit. 

Some people are just out here creating all manner of confusion, consequences be damned. For instance: One random account on X has gone viral for posting the alleged shooter’s name in December of 2023 with zero context. It’s the only post the account has ever made, and it immediately sparked rampant speculation. Was this shooting planned for three years? Was someone powerful behind it? Who was this account and how did they see into the future? 

The likely explanation is more boring and simple. As journalist and fact-checker David Puente explained, a spam poster probably created a private account to tweet out all manner of names and places that might become relevant in the future, then deleted all but one of the posts and made the account public. The alleged shooter has a very common name, one he shares with an actor who has an IMDb page. That account could have rolled through a portion of common names or the movie database trying to hit on something. 

This kind of conspiracy bait is everywhere now. And in an environment designed for conspiracism to thrive, it’s thriving. 

No silver bullet will solve this problem. It requires a holistic approach: teaching anyone with internet access about cons like this, holding liars and snake-oil salesmen accountable when their misdeeds become obvious, and figuring out ways for newsrooms with journalists who are tethered to reality to win in an attention economy stacked against them. Truth may sometimes be stranger than fiction, but the usual, everyday truth is often less interesting than made-up fantasies — especially when professional conspiracy-mongers are thinking up new, attention-grabbing fantasies every day. 

The situation is now dire. Despite desperate attempts to limit their growth, theories like QAnon have grown more popular, not less. Quarantining or silencing these movements doesn’t work, but neither does totally unregulated speech on social media platforms. Real, historical statements like “the CIA has killed foreign leaders” get chalked up as “conspiracy theories,” effectively diminishing the meaning of the term so that fewer people are dissuaded by the label when it’s used to describe belief in a Satan-worshipping sex cult directing the highest reaches of power.

And our leaders aren’t helping. I genuinely hate to say it just 36 hours after another person tried to take his life, but no understanding of this issue is complete without this admission: Trump himself is a purveyor of a huge amount of absolute nonsense. Don’t take my word for it; one look at his Truth Social account will send you down all manner of fringe, easily debunkable absurdities. But while Trump gets a lot of blame, he is far from the root cause of the problem; his core delusions (that the election was stolen or President Obama was born in Kenya) can only germinate in a broader culture that fertilizes them. 

The most popular YouTube channels, podcasts, and social media accounts on the planet will spend hours on end wondering aloud whether President Emmanuel Macron’s wife has a penis or if the Artemis II mission was faked because you can’t see stars in pictures of Earth — two theories, by the way, that have thrived despite the president himself contradicting them. As a society, we’ve adopted a “believe nothing” mentality — unless the story already has a sprinkle of collusion, deceit, and conspiracy. Then, we’ll believe anything. Saturday night’s events were no exception, and in myriad important debates about political violence, guns, our president, and mental health, the incredible gravitational force of a conspiracy claiming the whole thing was staged is just as important. 

Take the survey: Had you heard of the theories that Saturday’s incident was staged? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: The first time I saw the video of Alex Pretti’s previous encounter with ICE was on social media and the folks in the comments were discussing whether it was AI-generated. I think enough reputable organizations (AP, NYT, Tangle) have credulously reported the video that it is likely genuine. However, it got me wondering: what is Tangle’s policy/process for vetting whether a piece of media is AI-generated? 

— Micah from Chandler, AZ

Tangle: We collaborate to try to identify AI-generated content, but also rely on other experts with more resources to confirm genuine video. 

Here’s a link to the video you mentioned (that we posted on our Instagram) of Alex Pretti, the man killed by Department of Homeland Security agents in Minneapolis in January. It shows Pretti — 11 days before his death — in an altercation with immigration agents after he kicked their vehicle. As we noted in our caption accompanying the post, the video sparked significant debate about whether part or all of it was AI-generated. It was later confirmed to be authentic.

Behind the scenes, we had an extended discussion about posting the video. Executive Editor Isaac Saul flagged it on Slack and noted that it was being widely shared on social media, suggesting we also post it if we could verify its legitimacy. Social Media Manager Russell Nystrom began scouring different news sites and flagged other outlets that had run the video. COO Magdalena Bokowa and Head of Product Candida Hall highlighted a few frames that appeared strange, and we collectively zeroed in on them. While we were looking at the clips, the BBC confirmed earlier reports that it had verified the video was real, and the man was almost certainly Pretti. At that point, we were comfortable posting it. 

This example is emblematic of our editorial approach: We collaborate to screen videos that obviously appear to be fake, which are often easier to spot than AI-generated text. Body parts move in unnatural ways, features change from shot to shot, and background images are oddly defined. 

However, we need to rely on other outlets to validate real videos, as we don’t have the tools in-house to do so. Instead, we use a similar process to how we authenticate breaking stories: doing a deep search to confirm its original source and looking for verification from multiple trusted professionals. We’re not a breaking-news service, so we prioritize taking our time over rushing to get something out. And if we’re really unsure, we just won’t publish it. This process has served us well: In Tangle’s nearly seven-year history, we’ve never (to our knowledge) published a fabricated image, video, or news story as genuine.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Monday, jury selection will begin in a civil trial pitting Tesla CEO Elon Musk against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Musk is suing Altman over OpenAI’s recent restructuring from a nonprofit research organization to a for-profit entity, which he claims violated the terms of his investment in OpenAI in its early days. Altman says that Musk failed to invest the amount he committed to and was frustrated by OpenAI’s refusal to fold itself into Tesla. In addition to requesting a large financial penalty, Musk has asked the judge to order Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman to be fired. NBC News has the story.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition from Isaac arguing President Biden really did make a mess of immigration.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was our latest episode of Suspension of the Rules.
• Nothing to do with politics: A dizzying 3D map of every known satellite transmitting data in Earth’s orbit.
• Our last survey: 2,333 readers responded to our survey on mid-decade redistricting with 51% saying they don’t want their state to redistrict. “I would like NO partisan gerrymandering. Big money out of politics,” one respondent said. “I don’t want my state to redistrict because, if they did, it would not favor my party,” said another.

Have a nice day.

On April 14, after five years of scanning the sky with 5,000 fiber-optic “eyes,” the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) completed its planned survey goals. The Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has already used DESI to map more than 47 million galaxies and quasars, producing the largest ever high-resolution 3D map of the universe, and it will continue to collect data through 2028. “We’ve built a remarkable piece of equipment that met all our expectations and then some,” DESI Director Michael Levi said. “Now we’re pushing beyond our original plan. We don’t know what we’ll find, but we think it’ll be pretty exciting.” Berkeley Lab has the story.

President Donald Trump posted footage that appears to show the suspected White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter charging through security, surprising Secret Service and law enforcement officers working the event.

This is the Tangle Sunday Edition, a brief roundup of our independent politics coverage plus some extra features for your Sunday morning reading.

What the left is doodling.

What the right is doodling.

Suspension of the Rules

On this week’s episode, Isaac, Ari, and Kmele discuss the Virginia redistricting vote — and the gerrymandering war that surrounds it. Plus, is Trump pivoting for the midterms? How are voters responding to the war and the economy? Are any cabinet members on the way out? Will Kmele finally have something to complain about? Find out here!

Monday, April 20.

The latest from Iran. On Sunday, April 19, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. fired on and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz from the Gulf of Oman. The vessel is the first ship seized by the U.S. Navy since it began blockading the gulf on April 13. Iran said on April 17 it would remove all restrictions on commercial ships passing through the strait, then closed the waterway again on April 18 in response to the ongoing U.S. military blockade. That day, gunboats linked to Iran reportedly opened fire on two ships attempting to transit the strait. 

Our take: “Instability within Iran’s government is contributing to instability of peace talks. Iran’s new leadership is more extreme and more willing to use its force than the leaders the U.S. killed, and the situation is much more tenuous. All told, I don’t see a way this war ends any time soon.”

Reader Survey:

Tuesday, April 21.

Congress’s temporary FISA reauthorization. On Friday, April 17, the House and Senate passed a short-term renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), reauthorizing the law until April 30. Republican leadership pivoted to the stopgap measure after a group of 20 House Republicans voted against an 18-month extension that President Donald Trump had endorsed. Congress is now expected to debate adding new privacy measures to the law before the April 30 deadline. 

Our take: “I opposed Section 702 authorization under Biden, and I still oppose it today. Fear of bad actors should not justify a blanket authority to violate our rights as Americans. Even if Congress reauthorizes Section 702, I believe our intelligence agencies should learn to operate within these constraints.”

Reader Survey:

Wednesday, April 22.

A wealth tax proposal in New York City. On Wednesday, April 15, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) proposed a pied-à-terre tax, an annual surcharge on New York City residences valued above $5 million owned by those who primarily live outside the city. Mamdani and Hochul claim the measure would raise $500 million in annual revenue to help address the city’s budget shortfall; if enacted, it would be the first pied-à-terre tax in New York’s history. 

Our take: “I support the idea of taxing out-of-state residents, but New York should be careful to avoid easy pitfalls. Local tax codes are complicated, and many wealthy property owners already pay a lot in taxes. If done well, this proposal could end up raising revenues while targeting only those who can afford to pay.”

Reader Survey:

Thursday, April 23.

The redistricting referendum in Virginia. On Tuesday, April 21, Virginians voted 51.5%–48.5% to approve a constitutional amendment allowing the state to redraw its congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms. The new map will shift several districts in Democrats’ favor, potentially turning the current 6–5 split to a 10–1 advantage. The referendum comes amid a broader mid-decade redistricting push by Democratic- and Republican-controlled states that began last summer in Texas, and it is facing a challenge in the Virginia Supreme Court. 

Our take: “Virginia Republicans have valid grievances — as do national Democrats. State votes were never intended to be pass-through elections on national politics, and gerrymandering is degrading the whole political system. The edge so far seems to favor Democrats, and Republicans may want to reconsider another round in Florida.”

Reader Survey:

Friday, April 24.

In this week’s Friday edition, Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead explores Christian nationalism, looking back at the arguments that inspired the separation of church and state and parsing out the various strains of American Christianity. Audrey explores the difference between Christians in government and Christian governance, answering the question of what is — and isn’t — Christian nationalism. You can read Audrey’s piece here.

Further reading.

We’ve covered relations with Iran, government surveillance, New York City revenue policies, and redistricting before. Plus, read a previous Tangle editor’s take on the role of faith in American society. Take a look at our past coverage below:

• In May 2024, we covered the death of Iran’s president.
• In September 2025, we wrote about what the government knows about you in a paywalled Friday edition.
• In June 2024, we covered the NYC congestion pricing plan.
• In December 2022, we covered Supreme Court oral arguments over a North Carolina gerrymandering plan.
• In February 2025, Tangle’s then-Associate Editor Sophia Downs wrote about community, government, and American society in a paywalled Friday edition.

What just happened.

Here’s a rundown of the major stories that have broken since our newsletter on Thursday.

• On Thursday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he has ordered the U.S. Navy to “shoot and kill” any Iranian vessels believed to be deploying mines in the Strait of Hormuz. He also said that U.S. minesweepers were in the process of clearing the waterway of mines and directed them to triple their level of activity. (The post)
• On Thursday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order directing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to change the classification of medical cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug. The Biden administration initially launched a review of cannabis’s classification, and President Trump signed an executive order in December 2025 directing the DEA to expedite the rescheduling process for the substance. (The order)
• On Thursday, Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders approved the company’s merger with Paramount Skydance, a key step in completing the deal. (The approval)
• On Thursday, the Justice Department announced that a U.S. Army Special Forces master sergeant had been arrested for allegedly using confidential government information for personal gain (among other charges) linked to bets placed on a prediction market related to the operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January. The Justice Department says the sergeant was involved in the planning of the operation and placed approximately 13 bets totalling $33,000 the week prior to Maduro’s capture. (The arrest)
• On Thursday, the U.S. hosted peace talks between Israel and Lebanon, with the sides agreeing to a three-week extension of their ceasefire, which was set to expire this Sunday, April 26. (The extension)
• On Friday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction on a 2023 Texas law that allows state and local law enforcement to arrest unauthorized migrants who cross the Mexico border. The injunction had been in place since 2024. (The order)
• On Friday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced the Justice Department is ending its probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over the renovation of two Federal Reserve buildings. Pirro said Powell has asked the central bank’s inspector general to look into the cost of the projects. (The announcement)
• On Saturday, President Trump canceled plans for son-in-law Jared Kushner and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff to visit Islamabad for peace talks with Tehran. (The cancellation)
• On Saturday, President Trump was rushed from the stage after shots were fired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C. No public official, journalist or other guest was injured, though a Secret Service agent was reportedly shot but protected by a bulletproof vest. The FBI says it has a suspect in custody. (The incident)

Reader essay.

Twenty years ago, after the United States launched the war in Iraq, Tangle reader Brian Gilette wanted to understand what made a war just or unjust. He developed a five-part rubric for this evaluation and applied it to the war at the time, concluding that the war was unjust. Today, Brian applies his five-part rubric to the war in Iran.

President Donald Trump was evacuated from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner after gunshots were fired.

By Brian Gilette

In March of 2003, as the United States launched its invasion of Iraq, a Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans supported military action. I was not among them. At the time, I wrote an essay called Bad War. I didn’t write it for publication. Instead, I wrote it for myself — to help myself understand how a country like ours decides to go to war, and whether this one met the standard such a decision demands.

I’ve spent my career in leadership — building organizations, making decisions that affect people’s livelihoods, and living with the consequences of those decisions. That experience shaped how I think about responsibility, accountability, and the weight of choice.

I believe in America. In our best moments, we have demonstrated how a nation should operate. In those times, America has been a force for good, using its power to make the world more stable, more just, and more humane. For these reasons, questions of war matter deeply to me, and they should matter to all of us.

In 2003, writing this essay led me to a simple yet difficult conclusion: No matter how it went militarily, the war was morally unjustified.

I didn’t come to my belief through ideology or the benefit of hindsight. Instead, I applied a basic set of questions. Questions that should be difficult to answer. Questions that force us to confront what war actually is, not the language often used to make it sound controlled, precise, and necessary.

More than two decades later, as the United States is once again engaged in conflict in the Middle East, I find myself returning to those same questions to see if that same reasoning I used then can help me understand this new situation today

Before evaluating Iraq then or Iran now, let me explain my simple framework for deciding when war is justified.

• Is there a clear, reasonably imminent threat that cannot be averted by nonlethal means?
• Have nonmilitary options been seriously and genuinely exhausted?
• Can we reasonably expect the war to produce greater benefits than the foreseeable harms?
• Is there a credible plan for what comes next?
• Has the decision been made through a legitimate constitutional process?

These are concrete, answerable questions that set a minimum standard that I think is broadly reasonable and supportable.

What follows is the framework I used then and return to now. It is not perfect, but it forces the kind of clarity these decisions demand.

Iraq, 2003

Was there a clear and imminent threat?

As I argued at the time, war inflicts massive, random death and misery no matter how carefully targets are chosen. Therefore, no war is just that is initiated without a clear, reasonably imminent threat that could not be averted by nonlethal means.

That standard was not met. Inspections were ongoing and, by many accounts, working. The threat was not imminent in any meaningful sense. Yet the case for war shifted constantly, moving between weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and regime change, often relying on fear and obfuscation.

Were nonmilitary options exhausted?

As I wrote then, intrusive inspections could have been made more effective with stronger support, more inspectors, and better intelligence sharing. A long-term inspection regime could have continued to contain Iraq’s capabilities.

Nonmilitary alternatives were not exhausted. They were abandoned.

Was there a reasonable expectation of a better outcome?

At the time, the promised benefits were asserted rather than demonstrated. We were told this would be a swift liberation, that democracy would take hold, that the region would stabilize.

But even then, it was clear that removing a regime in a complex society carried enormous risks. The foreseeable harms — destabilization, sectarian violence, regional spillover — were real and significant. The idea that this would produce a clearly better outcome was not grounded in evidence.

Was there a plan for what came next?

There was no credible plan for occupation, reconstruction, or governance. War planners spoke confidently about the opening phase and far less about what would follow.

And what followed, as we now know, was the real war.

Was the decision made through a legitimate process?

As I argued at the time, Congress treated its responsibility more as a procedural requirement than a substantive one. Absent a direct attack, war should follow careful deliberation with clearly defined objectives. Instead, vague authorization substituted for meaningful debate.

Even then, it was clear that something fundamental was changing. The standard was being lowered.

Iran, 2026

Is there a clear and imminent threat?

Much of the justification for this war centers on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That concern is real and serious. Iran is an authoritarian state with a record of repression and regional destabilization. None of that is in dispute. A nuclear-armed Iran would change the strategic balance of the region in ways that are difficult to reverse. But that doesn’t mean their threat is imminent. The pro-war argument is not that Iran is on the verge of launching a nuclear attack, but that it may eventually develop the capability to do so. That distinction matters. Preventing a hypothetical future threat is a far more elastic standard than responding to an immediate one.

Have nonmilitary options been exhausted?

Diplomacy with Iran has been difficult and inconsistent, particularly following the collapse of earlier nuclear agreements and years of mutual distrust. However, difficulty with diplomacy doesn’t mean all efforts have been exhausted.

In fact, negotiations were ongoing in the lead-up to this war. Over the past year, the United States and Iran engaged in multiple rounds of talks, often indirectly and mediated by third parties, focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear program and regional activity. Those talks produced some limited progress, but also revealed deep and persistent disagreements, particularly regarding uranium enrichment, sanctions relief, and security guarantees. 

Even in the weeks immediately preceding the conflict, diplomatic channels remained open. Back-channel efforts continued, mediators attempted to arrange additional talks, and both sides publicly acknowledged that negotiations had not reached a final resolution. 

Progress has been stilting and slow, when you could call it progress at all. Talks stalled. Deadlines passed. Frustration grew. But diplomacy was never truly exhausted. And the shift from negotiation to military action occurred while the process was still unresolved.

Admittedly, diplomacy with Iran has been largely unproductive. However, it has not definitively failed. War, in this case, appears to be the point at which the process became too slow, too uncertain, or too unsatisfying to continue. It was not the last resort chosen reluctantly after all other options failed.

Will this produce a better outcome?

The conflict has expanded across the region, and one of the clearest signs is the Strait of Hormuz itself. Rather than becoming more secure, it has become less so. After a brief reopening, the strait has again been restricted by mutual blockades, constricting one of the world’s most important economic chokepoints.

Military gains have been made, but they may not prove durable. Even while Iran’s military and naval capabilities are severely degraded, Reuters reports that Iran is already replenishing and upgrading its missile and drone launchers at a faster pace than before the war. U.S. officials have said a significant portion of Iran’s missile capability has been destroyed, but other assessments suggest that a large share of its arsenal remains intact. Furthermore, China is reportedly preparing new air-defense deliveries to Iran. Instead of Iran’s defenses being obliterated, they are adapting — and a strengthened relationship with China could offset losses dealt by American military superiority.

Regime change has also been fleeting, but also may have produced a worse outcome. Leadership aligned with the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) appears to have tightened its hold over wartime decision-making and may drive a more hardline strategy going forward. 

Part and parcel with removing the previous regime was improving the safety of the Iranian people. In fact, the well being of protestors in Iran was one of the main communicated goals of intervention in the lead-up to the war. A more extreme IRGC will not make for a more secure populace.

We were told war would reduce danger,  improve strategic balance, and secure the Iranian people. Instead, the strait is again in crisis, the leadership may be more hardline than before, and the Iranian people are no better off. 

Is there a plan for what comes next?

A clear exit strategy may exist behind the scenes, but it has not been communicated, leaving us to guess at its existence. The stated objectives of the war include degrading Iran’s military capabilities, preventing nuclear development, and limiting proxy activity. Those objectives have shifted over time, degrading the idea of a clear exit strategy. 

Recent reporting and analysis point to ongoing uncertainty about how the conflict ends. Some officials have suggested that continued pressure could reshape Iran’s behavior over time, while others have raised the possibility of internal political change. Again, these are goals — or possible outcomes — but they are not plans for a post-war future. And possibilities without a defined path have a way of becoming open-ended commitments.

We have seen this before.

In Iraq, the absence of a clearly defined and realistic end state ensured that the most difficult phase would come after the initial success. That is a recipe for quagmire. The mission expanded, the commitment deepened, the exit became harder to find — and into the muck we sank. These same ingredients are present in Iran.

To be clear, that does not mean that a prolonged engagement is ensured. What it does mean is that a plan for a post-war future does not appear to exist.

Has the decision followed a legitimate process?

Straightforwardly, this war has not followed a legitimate process — that has been the case for U.S. military engagements for quite some time. The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. In the decades since, presidents from both parties have relied on broad authorizations or executive authority to initiate military action, often justified by the need for speed, flexibility, or secrecy in a modern threat environment.

Congressional debate does more than authorize action. It forces clarity about objectives, surfaces disagreement, and requires those advocating for war to make their case publicly and withstand challenge. When that process is abbreviated or bypassed, those pressures weaken. 

In Iran, the executive branch not only acted without the authority of Congress but without its advisory process totally. As in 2003, the Constitutional process does not appear to have been applied. The decision to use force moved forward without the level of sustained, explicit deliberation that the Constitution envisions for war.

The Question That Matters.

My aim in writing this essay is to demonstrate how applying the same principles and ideals to a situation we can see with the benefit of hindsight can help us understand another situation unfolding in real time. I am not intending to argue that all war is unjust — instead, I’m trying to apply a standard for what makes wars just. If I had applied all of these conditions to World War II, they all would have passed easily.

Supporting some wars does not mean supporting all wars. And opposing a war is not weakness. It is a refusal to lower the standard.

War is the most consequential decision a nation can make. It is a test of judgment, restraint, and honesty. And like any test, it only has value if we are willing to apply it consistently.

We have a framework for doing that. We know the questions to ask. We have seen what happens when they are ignored.

So before we go further, before this conflict expands, before more lives are lost and more consequences unfold, we should ask the only question that ultimately matters:

Are we applying that standard honestly? Are we demanding clear necessity, exhausted alternatives, a credible path to a better outcome, a realistic plan for what comes next, and a process that reflects the weight of the decision?

Because if we are not, the outcome is not uncertain. It is predictable.

And we have seen it before.

Brian Gillette is an Assistant Teaching Professor at Iowa State University, where he teaches business communication and professional speaking. Before entering academia, he spent more than two decades in business leadership roles, where he was responsible for high-stakes decisions affecting people, organizations, and outcomes.

Hundreds of ships light up the ocean off Argentina every night — visible from space. But they’re not local.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle. You are reading a preview of a members-only Friday edition. To read it in full, you'll be asked to subscribe.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump participated in an event called “America Reads the Bible,” designed in honor of America’s 250th anniversary as “a spiritual celebration of our nation’s founding ideals and a call to rediscover the truth that still anchors us today.” The president read 12 verses from 2 Chronicles 7 in the Oval Office.

Trump’s participation in the event is another chapter in his long, complicated relationship with American Christianity — and it’s part of an ongoing movement within the Trump administration. In February this year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparked a minor controversy when he invited pastor Doug Wilson to lead a worship service at the Pentagon. Hegseth’s open faith as Defense Secretary was already a source of controversy — particularly as he called for restoring Christianity as a central building block of U.S. military life and began taking action accordingly. But the invitation of Wilson to speak drew criticism for a new reason: Wilson is a self-described “Christian nationalist”; as he puts it, Wilson wants the American government to be explicitly founded on the “transcendent ground” of Christianity.

The specter of Christian nationalism, and discussion of American Christianity more broadly, has risen to the cultural forefront in recent months. Hegseth and Wilson advocate for a Protestant vision of America in the halls of the military. The majority-Catholic Supreme Court receives both praise and criticism for its handling of religious freedom and gay rights cases. The Trump administration (which has several prominent Catholic members, including the vice president) and the Vatican’s rocky relations famously came to a head just weeks ago when the president criticized the pope for opposing the war in Iran. And the rising star of Presbyterian seminarian and staunch progressive James Talarico in Texas has opened new conversations about Christian politics, including debates and divisions among other prominent Christians about how to receive him. In the background of all these recent examples is the ongoing debate about whether American Christianity is undergoing a revival — that is, whether a country that has long been on a decades-long shift away from Christianity is suddenly re-embracing faith.

Our nation has a long tradition with Christianity. However, it also has a long tradition of keeping Christianity (or any religion) outside of our government. For a lot of Americans who believe in the principled separation of church and state, Christian nationalism has become a primary concern — particularly among secular or non-Christian Americans. The prominence of Christianity in U.S. politics, and in right-wing politics in particular, is intimidating. That’s especially true when the precepts that underlie Christian political activity aren’t well understood, and when a wide variety of people claim to be working from the same religious principles but disagree on fundamental issues like abortion and welfare and marriage and immigration. 

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 14 minutes.

Corrections.

In yesterday’s “On this day in history” section, we had two unfortunate errors. First, we referred to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring as a novel when it is in fact a nonfiction science narrative. Second, we misidentified Pete McCloskey as a U.S. senator from California, when he was in fact a U.S. representative. These errors were missed during our fact-checking process, and we will be paying extra attention to our newer sections in the future.

These are our 155th and 156th corrections in Tangle’s 360-week history and our first corrections since April 15. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers.

Our latest Suspension of the Rules.

On our most recent episode, Isaac, Ari, and Kmele discuss the Virginia redistricting vote — and the gerrymandering war that surrounds it. Plus, a 30,000-foot view of the political landscape: Is Trump pivoting for the midterms? How are voters responding to the war and the economy? Are any cabinet members on the way out? Will Kmele finally have something to complain about?

All will be answered in today’s episode!

Quick hits.

1. Navy Secretary John Phelan has left his position. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly fired Phelan due to tension between the former secretary and Pentagon leadership. Navy Under Secretary Hung Cao will now serve as acting Navy secretary. (The departure)
2. The Trump administration is reportedly nearing a deal to loan Spirit Airlines up to $500 million in exchange for a potential stake in the company. Spirit is in the midst of its second bankruptcy process since 2024 and facing heightened financial pressure due to elevated jet-fuel prices. (The report)
3. Rep. David Scott (D-GA) passed away at 80. He was elected to the House in 2002 and was running for a 13th term in 2026. (The passing)
4. Jay Bhattacharya, the acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, canceled the release of a study that reportedly showed Covid-19 vaccines significantly reduced the likelihood of emergency room visits and hospitalizations from Covid. Bhattacharya objected to the study’s methodology, suggesting it misrepresented the vaccine’s effectiveness. (The cancellation)
5. The Senate voted 50–48 to adopt a budget resolution, setting up a vote on a budget reconciliation package next month. Republicans plan to use the process to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through 2029, which will require a simple majority to pass. (The vote) 

Today’s topic.

The redistricting referendum in Virginia. On Tuesday, Virginians voted 51.5%–48.5% to approve a constitutional amendment allowing the state to redraw its congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms. The new map will shift several districts in Democrats’ favor, potentially turning the current 6–5 split to a 10–1 advantage. The referendum comes amid a broader mid-decade redistricting push by Democratic- and Republican-controlled states that began last summer in Texas, and it is facing a challenge in the Virginia Supreme Court. 

Back up: In late July, President Donald Trump called on Texas lawmakers to redraw their congressional map ahead of the typical decennial redistricting cycle in an effort to gain additional Republican seats in the House. The state legislature approved the plan, prompting California to pursue its own redistricting to boost Democratic representation. Six states (including Virginia) have now implemented new maps as a result of mid-decade redistricting, and several others are considering doing so. 

The Virginia referendum asked voters to vote yes or no on a constitutional amendment creating a one-time exception to the state’s redistricting system, which uses a bipartisan commission and court review to redraw congressional district lines at the start of each decade. The change is designed to be temporary — and pegged as a response to mid-decade redistricting actions in other states — and Virginia would revert to its normal process at the end of the decade. However, the new map will be in effect for both the 2026 and 2028 House elections. 

Democrats significantly outspent Republicans in support of the measure, with prominent figures like former President Barack Obama endorsing the effort. Critics, such as former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), have said the process of getting the amendment on the ballot was unconstitutional and called on the state supreme court to strike it down. 

Despite Tuesday’s results, several challenges to the redistricting effort remain. In particular, two lawsuits allege that the wording of the ballot question was misleading, and the plaintiffs have appealed their case to the Virginia Supreme Court. The court allowed the question to remain as written for the referendum but has yet to issue a final decision; if it rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it is unknown how the decision would impact the redistricting outcome. Separately, on Wednesday, a circuit court judge blocked the referendum results from being certified, finding that the amendment process and ballot language were handled improperly. State Attorney General Jay Jones (D) said his office will immediately appeal. 

Virginia Democrats celebrated the result. “Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they approved a temporary measure to push back against a President who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress,” Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) said. Republicans expressed disappointment but recommitted to push forward with legal challenges. “The ballot box was never the final word here,” Delegate Terry Kilgore (R) said. “Serious legal questions remain about both the wording of this referendum and the process used to put it before voters.”

Today, we’ll share views from the right, left, and Virginian writers about the referendum. Then, Associate Editor and Virginia resident Russell Nystrom gives his take.

What the right is saying.

• The right is disappointed by the results, with many calling out Democratic hypocrisy on gerrymandering.
• Others say Republicans must fight fire with fire. 

The Washington Post editorial board wrote “Virginia plunges America deeper into the gerrymandering abyss.”

“Democratic leaders have long fancied themselves as champions of democracy and fair elections. But many of these politicians, including former president Barack Obama, made a more cynical calculation in Virginia,” the board said. “For them, disenfranchising Republican voters is the only way to counterbalance the desperate attempts by Republicans in other states to save their congressional majority. They’re right that the GOP started this fight by trying to pick up five House seats in Texas through gerrymandering, but they can spare us the false sanctimony about democratic norms going forward.”

“None of this was necessary. Democrats in Maryland ended their legislative session this month without passing new maps to eliminate the sole Republican in the state’s eight-member House delegation. Bill Ferguson, the Democratic president of the state Senate, withstood a nasty pressure campaign led by Gov. Wes Moore (D),” the board wrote. “Republican legislators in Indiana similarly defeated a gerrymandering scheme despite threats of retribution from Trump. If only more legislators were willing to stand on principle.”

In The Daily Caller, Mary Rooke said the result reveals a “hard truth” for the GOP.

“For decades, Republican populists have been handicapped by the so-called ‘principled conservative’ wing of the GOP. The Democratic success with Virginia’s redistricting teaches a lesson that the old hats can no longer ignore,” Rooke wrote. “Either use the power the voters gave you to enact their will and mandate, or sit back like the impotent fool you are and watch Democrats erase any chance for you ever to govern again.”

“There can be no room for pretending that norms and principles play a role in a discussion where the other side has zero intent to play fair,” Rooke said. “The lesson for the so-called ‘principled conservatives’ is actually quite simple. They can either willingly fall in line with the populist movement and help save America from the modern-day Bolsheviks in the Democratic Party, or they can cling to their norms like a life raft as the greatest country ever formed sinks into the ocean.”

What the left is saying.

• The left sees the result as a rebuke of Trump, even as many worry about the long-term impacts of gerrymandering.
• Others say the redistricting fight is far from over. 

In The Atlantic, Russell Berman described “Trump’s enormous gerrymandering blunder.” 

“When President Trump last summer implored Republicans to launch a nationwide gerrymandering blitz to pad their narrow House majority, the fight he started did not seem fair,” Berman wrote. “This morning the landscape looks a lot different, after Virginia voters yesterday approved a lopsided new House map that could hand Democrats an additional four seats that Republicans currently hold… Democrats have now succeeded in drawing districts that will likely yield them nine more seats this fall, at least matching what Republicans have been able to achieve in states that they control.”

“Trump’s move to open this new front in a centuries-old gerrymandering war between the parties looks like an enormous tactical blunder. Republicans have appeared taken aback by the ferocity with which Democrats have responded — and the speed with which they’ve set aside their drive to ban gerrymandering in the name of good government,” Berman said. “In both California and Virginia, Democrats swamped the opposition in campaign spending, using the redistricting referenda to rile up a party base seeking any opportunity to push back against an unpopular administration.”

In MS NOW, Paul Waldman suggested “this was the easy part.”

“The theory of the successful initiatives in California and Virginia is that only by punishing Republicans for their mid-decade redistricting can the GOP be persuaded to pull back from the unfair system it has constructed,” Waldman wrote. “In other words, this is a step toward some kind of grand bargain in which the parties will agree on a future with more competitive elections. Unfortunately, that will still be a tough sell for the GOP, which might reasonably conclude that if the point where we have arrived for this year’s midterm election is its worst-case scenario, gerrymandering will continue to work to its advantage.

“That raises the practical problem at the end of this tit-for-tat. If Democrats’ goal is to force Republicans to come to the table to negotiate a post-gerrymandering future, Republicans will have to conclude that the current system is costing them a chance at power,” Waldman said. “And if Republicans simply refuse to change their ways, what then? Will Democrats in California and Virginia keep their word to revert back to independent redistricting commissions, which would be unilateral disarmament if the redistricting wars are still going on?”

What Virginia writers are saying.

• Some Virginian writers argue the amendment is an affront to the state’s prior embrace of bipartisan redistricting. 
• Others say the decision is rightfully being left to voters. 

In The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jason Miyares (R) and Eric Cantor (R) wrote “Virginia voters already chose fair maps. Now Washington money wants a do-over.”

“In 2020, Virginians did something rare in politics. We changed the rules on ourselves. By a two-to-one margin, more than 2.8 million Virginians amended our Constitution to end partisan gerrymandering and create a bipartisan redistricting commission, which became a national model. The maps the commission drew, and the courts approved, included the preservation of historic minority-majority districts and served as a source of pride,” Miyares and Cantor said. “Republicans and Democrats alike said the same thing: voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.”

“Now, just a few years later, the political class is asking for a do-over — because they don’t like the outcome. The April 21 referendum would scrap the spirit of that 2020 reform and pave the way for a congressional map designed to produce 10 Democratic-leaning seats and just one Republican-leaning seat. That’s not ‘fair maps.’ That’s a mid-decade power grab dressed up in the language of reform,” Miyares and Cantor wrote. “Sixty-six percent of Virginians voted for a bipartisan commission, transparency and an end to back-room map drawing. They did not vote for a six-year partisan detour that hands the pen back to politicians and their national funders.”

Before the vote, The Virginian-Pilot and Daily Press Editorial Board explored voters’ decision on the “fate” of the amendment.

“Whatever one thinks about the issue, the important thing is that this will be decided by the people — not by elected officials in Richmond or Washington, and not by those who have poured tens of millions into the campaigns. Virginians will decide what’s best for Virginia,” the board said. “Contrary to how advocates on both sides of the debate over Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment frame it, neither party can claim the moral high ground when it comes to drawing district lines.”

“Typically decisions about the maps governing elections are made well out of public view. Redistricting has long been a process defined by opacity, with lawmakers drawing lines that protect incumbents and, for the party in power, seek to preserve the status quo,” the board wrote. “President Donald Trump ordered Republican states to draw new lines in advance of November’s election in an attempt to retain power in the U.S. House; Democratic-led states, including Virginia, have moved to counter that effort and offset any potential GOP advantage… Now that decision is in the hands of voters.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Virginia Republicans have valid grievances — as do national Democrats.
• State votes were never intended to be pass-through elections on national politics, and gerrymandering is degrading the whole political system.
• The edge so far seems to favor Democrats, and Republicans may want to reconsider another round in Florida.

Associate Editor Russell Nystrom: Last summer, as President Donald Trump urged Texas to become the first domino to fall in the mid-cycle redistricting arms race, Democrats warned him that they would respond in kind and that he may come to regret it. In my home state of Virginia, where I’ve lived my entire life, the response was loud and immediate. 

And to be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about that response. Despite every other ad on TV being about the race, spending on this issue eclipsing the GDP of at least one country, and being elbow-deep in coverage of the event, I wasn’t 100% sure of the choice I made when I voted — and I still feel that way, about 36 hours later.

Middle and high schools across the country have what they describe as a “zero tolerance” policy with respect to fighting. That means that if one student punches another student in self-defense, or in response to bullying, that student would be punished equally to the aggressor. That policy, rightfully, has drawn significant criticism; there are times when standing up for yourself is necessary and the right thing to do. By the same logic, I’m fine with Democrats standing up to Trump on redistricting and gerrymandering in response. I think if they didn’t fight fire with fire, Republicans would see it as an opportunity to push gerrymandering even further, knowing they wouldn’t face any resistance. But at the same time, the situation in Virginia just feels gratuitous, and both parties nationally have been in a race to the bottom on this issue (which Virginia Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas (D) has been explicit about wanting to win).

Virginia Republicans have plenty of fair grievances, a couple of which resonate with me. First, they are absolutely right to complain that the referendum language is needlessly slanted. There have been lots of articles about this, but many don’t include the text of the referendum itself (emphasis added): “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”

Anecdotally, I even had a friend — who is a Democrat but not very politically active — tell me after voting that she was surprised at how biased the question was, asking how it could even be legal. The language certainly seems like an attempt to influence voters. “Fairness” aside, Democrats may have committed a grievous tactical error by including it. I doubt the text actually swayed many opinions, and now that language is facing legal challenges that could imperil Democrats’ new map. I think the Virginia Supreme Court will uphold the new map against legal challenges (and I don't think the challenge on wording is even the most threatening legal challenge this referendum faces), but regardless, Democrats have needlessly dragged this out and given Republicans extra legal and political attack angles. 

Second, it’s hard to swallow the reality that a vote of 51.5% was able to effectively strip Virginians in four of our 11 congressional districts from fair representation in Congress. Our founders feared an outcome like this and tried to design our system against it. And as Virginia writer Matt Glassman pointed out in his blog, another negative byproduct of the gerrymandering wars is that we are increasingly treating state legislatures — the people responsible for making congressional maps — as a pass-through for national politics. We should be electing our state legislatures based on the policies they will set for the state, not as a proxy election for what a state’s congressional delegation will look like. 

A grievance that doesn’t resonate with me is President Trump’s recycled claim that this election was stolen with fraudulent mail-in ballots. This pattern is so predictable that it almost feels redundant to even notice it. But we should notice. When an election goes Trump’s way, he finds no reason to bring the results into question (unless it is to say that it was rigged in a blue state). Meanwhile, if it goes against Trump, the election is always rigged in some form. The deep irony of this messaging is that both parties are objectively trying to rig the 2026 election in certain states. That’s the whole point of the gerrymandering wars, and President Trump kicked it all off himself nine months ago in Texas.

When Democrats warned Trump they would respond in kind to Texas’s redistricting, I thought they were bluffing. I didn’t think it was plausible that Democrats could match Republicans in a redistricting tit-for-tat. The number of states where Republicans could mobilize was simply too much to match, right?  

Now, I think the Democrats might have been right all along. One lesson we can learn from that is both Democrats and Republicans actually hadn’t gerrymandered as much as they could have, meaning plenty of them — until now — had opted for a more ethical, honest route. Yet the main events of the last few months paint a picture of a rapidly deteriorating situation: 

Since Texas’s measure last summer, Republicans have also redistricted in Missouri and North Carolina, likely gaining a seat in each. Ohio rejected calls for a more extreme gerrymander, and instead their redistricting commission agreed in October to a change that moved two Democratic-held seats towards Republicans, making one a lean Republican district and the other a toss-up. At the same time, they also moved a Democratic seat from toss-up to lean Democratic. Meanwhile, Republicans in Indiana rejected Trump’s call to redistrict altogether, while it became clear Republicans in Kansas would not be able to override a veto from their Democratic governor. 

On the Democratic side, California and Virginia approved maps designed to pick Democrats up five and four seats, respectively. Additionally, Democrats gained a surprise seat in Utah, after a state judge ruled that the map Utah approved in 2021 violated a voter approved state law aimed at reducing partisan gerrymandering. 

That may all sound like a wash: Republicans purposely gerrymandered to gain nine seats, and Democrats did the same. That's how a lot of headlines were written as it was happening. But the headlines don’t tell the whole story.

In Texas, Republicans took three seats that were safely Democratic and made Republicans heavily favored in two and moderately favored in another. They then took a couple of seats Trump won by single digits but were represented by Democrats and moved them a shade redder. Democrats could win up to three of these seats, and they are even favored in one of them. In North Carolina, Rep. Don Davis’s (D) district is once again being changed to favor Republicans, but it is still by no means out of reach for the battle-tested Democrat. Ohio sent two seats in the Republican direction, but they are still winnable for Democrats and one seat was even tilted blue. Missouri is the one state where the effect is obvious, taking a safe Democratic seat and making it a safe Republican seat.

While too many seats were affected in California to break it all down here, of the five Republican-held seats that were shifted towards Democrats, Republicans probably only have a chance in two of them — and are favored in none. In Virginia, all four Republican seats targeted are now lean or likely Democratic seats. 

Putting all this together, with a national environment in 2026 that is likely going to work against Republicans, the results of the gerrymander war so far seem to favor Democrats. I think they’ll win each of these nine seats, plus a couple of the seats that Republicans tried to gerrymander in their own favor. 

I can only hope that after all this, both sides take stock of where we are, realize this was not worth it for anyone, and pick a different path. Florida is the next state to watch — with the state legislature holding a special session to consider redistricting next week. Maybe they will realize that nine months after Texas started this redistricting war, the total electoral balance isn’t that different from where we started, but the entire country is worse off for it. 

Take the survey: Would you support a redistricting effort in your state? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: I had a thought this morning, what’s going on with Ukraine–Russia peace negotiations? Seems like that went by the wayside when Trump hit the Iran war button? 

— Katherine (submitted through Subtext)

Tangle: The U.S. has been involved in facilitating peace talks between the two countries, but the start of the war in Iran at the end of February caused the U.S. to put planned March talks on hold.

Last week, Russia carried out its deadliest attack in Ukraine in 2026, killing 18 people in a series of drone strikes across the country. A few days later, Ukraine struck oil refineries and other facilities in Russia following a U.S. waiver on sanctions against Russian oil. Also over the weekend, a Moscow-born man opened fire on civilians in Kyiv, killing seven before he was killed by police on the scene; the incident is being investigated as an act of terrorism.

The European Union finalized a €90 billion (roughly $105.4 billion) loan package to Ukraine on Thursday, and it is expected to impose additional sanctions against Russia. The loan had been proposed last year, but had been tied up by objections from Hungary and Slovakia, partly relating to concerns over the Druzhba oil pipeline, which ceased operation for months due to damage caused by Russia. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Ukraine completed repairs on the pipeline on April 21, allowing it to resume operation and clearing the way for the final approval of the loan package.

Zelensky has asked Turkey to host further peace talks, reportedly pushing for direct talks between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two sides have yet to agree to another round of scheduled talks, though we are keeping an eye on the story and plan to give it some full newsletter attention soon.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

The road not taken.

Most of our discussion over the topics to cover this week focused on one issue: Ukraine. We’re cognizant of the fact that we haven’t provided an in-depth update on the war since last fall, favoring frequent updates on the current U.S. war in Iran, explorations of domestic issues, and occasional “flex topics” (less immediate stories that feature interesting policy debates). One flex topic in particular came close for us this week: moving the U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters out of D.C. However, we couldn’t justify choosing that topic over Ukraine — and while we think an update on the war is overdue, we ultimately found the issues of the wealth tax in New York City and the gerrymandering referendum in Virginia to be far more politically salient.

The war in Ukraine has fallen off our list week after week, which gives us a great deal of pause. We don’t want to treat Ukraine as the kind of “ambient war” Isaac fears the Iran conflict may turn into. To help provide some coverage, we gave an update in response to a reader question today; we will continue to revisit the latest happenings in the war as candidates for a full feature.

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about Pete Hegseth’s uncertain future.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the list in the free version sponsored by FinanceBuzz for things to cut in retirement.
• Nothing to do with politics: More complicated than the web of high school romances is this chart of the relationships between penguins at the Kyoto Aquarium.
• Our last survey: 2,490 readers responded to our survey on the New York City pied-à-terre tax with 50% supporting the specific proposal and new taxes on the wealthy more broadly. “Refine the existing property tax classification system to reach this end goal,” one respondent said. “Long-term consequences will be negative for the city, it sets a bad precedent,” said another.

Have a nice day.

The number of American pedestrians who died in the first half of 2025 declined 11%, the largest annual drop since the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) began tracking these deaths 15 years ago. Pedestrian deaths from January to June of 2025 totaled 3,024 incidents, still above pre-pandemic levels but below the totals for the first six months of any year since 2020. “Now is the time to double down on what works — more and better infrastructure, enforcement to deter dangerous driving behaviors, engaged and informed communities, and vehicles designed to protect people on foot,” said Jonathan Adkins, CEO of GHSA. “An all-in strategy to address pedestrian safety will help us build on this recent momentum and save even more lives.” GHSA has the story.

Is Donald Trump’s political standing starting to slip?

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 14 minutes.

Get more from Tangle!

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump said he is extending the ceasefire with Iran “until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal,” adding that the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports will also continue. Earlier on Tuesday, the president had suggested he opposed extending the ceasefire. (The announcement) Separately, Iranian state media reported that Iran seized two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, claiming the ships were operating without required permits. (The seizures)
2. Virginia voters approved an amendment to the state constitution allowing legislators to proceed with redrawing the state’s congressional map for the remainder of the decade. The change, which passed with 51.6% support, is expected to result in 10 Democratic districts out of 11. (The results)
3. Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s nominee for Federal Reserve chair, testified before the Senate Banking Committee, telling lawmakers that he viewed the central bank’s independence as “essential” and that the president had not pressured him to push for lower interest rates. (The hearing)
4. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) resigned from the House shortly before the chamber’s Ethics Committee gathered to discuss sanctions for multiple campaign finance violations. Cherfilus-McCormick is also charged with stealing $5 million in Covid-19 disaster relief funds. She is the third House member to resign since April 13. (The resignation) 
5. The Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights organization, on 11 counts, including defrauding donors. The organization allegedly paid members of neo-Nazi groups millions of dollars to act as informants for a now-defunct program to monitor threats from extremist groups, an effort the Justice Department said was concealed from donors. The SPLC denied any wrongdoing and said it was being targeted for political reasons. (The indictment)

Today’s topic.

A wealth tax proposal in New York City. On Wednesday, April 15, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) proposed a pied-à-terre tax, an annual surcharge on New York City residences valued above $5 million owned by those who primarily live outside the city. Mamdani and Hochul claim the measure would raise $500 million in annual revenue to help address the city’s budget shortfall; if enacted, it would be the first pied-à-terre tax in New York’s history. 

Back up: Mamdani was elected mayor in 2025 on a platform featuring several proposals to increase taxes on the city’s wealthy residents to help pay for improved public services, including an increase in the state corporate tax rate and a two-percentage-point rate hike on residents making over $1 million per year. However, he has not proposed a tax on pied-à-terres (a term for luxury vacation homes) until now. Several countries have imposed versions of this tax. 

The press release from the mayor’s office said, “The measure targets ultrawealthy out-of-city residents and global elites who use New York City real estate as a vehicle for wealth storage rather than as homes.” The release and a video from Mamdani promoting the idea both singled out hedge fund manager Ken Griffin’s $238 million pied-à-terre in Manhattan as an example of the tax’s targets.

Later that day, Mamdani said the plan is a step toward a key campaign promise to raise taxes on the wealthy. “I always said that I believed in the importance of taxing the rich. This is taxing the rich,” he said. “A pied-à-terre tax has been something that has long been fought for in the city but hasn’t been possible to get over the finish line.” 

By law, the mayor is obligated to address the city’s budget deficit, which totals approximately $5.4 billion. While the tax would only address a portion of that shortfall, Mamdani and Hochul say it would help the city move toward that goal without having to enact large-scale cuts to social services. The Democratic-majority state legislature must pass the tax as part of the state budget currently being negotiated, but Democratic leaders in the state House and Senate responded favorably to the announcement. 

Critics of the plan — and wealth taxes more generally — say the measure would impose undue burdens on wealthy New Yorkers who already pay high taxes and whose presence in the city contributes to its economy in myriad ways. Others warned that the plan could drive wealthy residents out of the city, while luxury real estate groups claimed it would hurt the industry. 

Today, we’ll share views from the left and right on the pied-à-terre tax proposal and the “tax the rich” movement. Then, Managing Editor Ari Weitzman gives his take.

What the left is saying.

• Most on the left support the tax, calling it a prudent way to raise government revenue.
• Some say the measure rightfully targets the ultra-wealthy’s excess.
• Others frame the tax as a win for Mamdani and the democratic socialist movement. 

The New York Daily News editorial board called the measure “the right tax.”

“Mayor Mamdani wanted the state to impose higher income taxes and corporate taxes and Gov. Hochul is wisely offering him a pied-à-terre tax. He is smart to take it. He should now also drop his calls for the other tax hikes,” the board wrote. “If a perennial concern with progressive taxation is the potential of driving well-off New Yorkers out of the city, this policy threads that needle by targeting people who are, by definition, not full-time New Yorkers. The people who have bought second homes or investment properties in New York City have done so precisely because it is the city that it is — a global hub of business and culture — meaning that an extra tax bump is something they’ll eat happily.”

“Wealthy people with homes they own that they don’t use a majority of the time, from Trump to Russian oligarchs to Gulf royals to more ordinary folks, enjoy and benefit from the enormous services and amenities that the city offers, and their properties are only worth what they’re worth as a result of the vibrancy created by the community around these properties, a community that needs the investment taxes can allow,” the board said. “Plus, it’s only fair that if they’re spending a significant chunk of their time not contributing to local economic activity and avoiding state and local taxes, then they can pay a little bit more on their assets to even things out.”

In USA Today, Sara Pequeño argued “Mamdani’s pied-à-terre tax proves you really can tax the rich.”

“While progressives are celebrating the implementation of ‘tax the rich’ policies, others are losing their minds over the possibility of people paying a tax on their multimillion dollar vacation homes and investment properties,” Pequeño wrote. “It’s hilarious that some netizens are so willing to go to bat for the wealthiest people in the world who are driving up the cost of housing in New York City — especially those who don’t live here… why shouldn’t the ultrawealthy people who can afford a vacation home here have to pay for it?”

“It doesn’t seem to be the rich who can afford second homes being priced out of New York City — it’s the people who were raised here who can no longer afford to call the city home,” Pequeño said. “More than 125,000 non-Hispanic Black residents have left the city over the past 20 years, according to a 2023 analysis from Gothamist, due in part to the city’s affordability crisis. Meanwhile, the number of millionaires in the city has grown by 45% over the past decade to nearly 385,000.”

In Jacobin, Liza Featherstone said the tax is “a victory for Zohran Mamdani and the socialist movement.” 

“The announcement is a real victory for the socialist left and would never have happened without its tireless organizing to elect Mamdani, nor would it have happened without the campaign to ‘tax the rich,’ which has continued since he’s been in office, as New Yorkers have rallied, lobbied, and relentlessly dogged the governor at public events,” Featherstone wrote. “At the same time, the socialist movement is rightly viewing the new tax as a beginning rather than an end of a longer project of redistributing the city’s staggeringly unequal wealth and of building a New York where everyone can thrive.”

“It’s not too late to tax the rich more this year. Budget negotiations in Albany are not over; at present lawmakers are mired in discussion on climate policy, which Hochul wants to ignore, and car insurance, her favorite topic. So there’s a long way to go before settling big questions of revenue,” Featherstone said. “The Left will continue to demand more redistribution and revenue — income and corporate taxes.”

What the right is saying.

• The right strongly opposes the measure, with many arguing it is economically unsound.
• Some criticize Mamdani’s “tax the rich” rhetoric.
• Others say the tax will drive away wealthy residents. 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board explored “a New York tax on out-of-towners.”

“The details are still being worked out, but the Hochul administration says the goal would be to raise $500 million a year by taxing 13,000 homes. That’s a big bite taken from a small number of people, who might easily decide that keeping a place in New York isn’t worth the cost,” the board said. “‘They’re part of our skyline, but those people are not part of our city,’ [Hochul] said Wednesday. Got that, longtime Manhattan banker or law partner who now has a primary residence elsewhere? New York’s Governor says you are not part of her city. Ms. Hochul’s focus is supposed to be on improving the state so that they want to come back.”

“Albany debated the pied-à-terre idea in 2019, and there was concern it might crash the market for luxury properties. The tax rates in that proposal ranged from 0.5% on value above $5 million to 4% above $25 million. According to a Journal analysis, something like half of the revenue would have come from only 280 homes above the top threshold, with an average tax bill of $846,000. Their property values might have fallen by 46%,” the board wrote. “Class warfare is ugly as politics, but it’s terrible as economics, and if New York drives away more wealth, voters won’t like the result of living in a city that’s downwardly mobile.”

The Free Press’s editors argued “scapegoating the rich won’t fill a $5.4 billion budget hole.”

“Economies stagnate when they’re layered with policies that slowly sap their productivity and orderliness — some red tape on business here, budget cuts to policing there. That’s what New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is risking with his latest tax proposal,” the editors said. “Mamdani singles out billionaire financier Ken Griffin in the video, exclaiming the $238 million price tag of his penthouse and putting the building on camera. It’s as if to say, There’s the enemy, New Yorkers, looking down on you from his spare palace.”

“The heckling is akin to the current wave of ‘eat the rich’ progressivism, which is pushing Democrats everywhere to embrace wealth taxes, and has even turned deadly on the movement’s fanatical fringe. Luigi Mangione’s alleged murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO appears to have been motivated by a similar kind of two-dimensional view of how the rich relate to the masses,” the editors wrote. “The purpose of the tax may not be to pay for anything at all. By pushing it forward, Mamdani is keeping a promise to supporters via signaling. It’s politically savvy, but economically risky.”

In City & State New York, New York City Councilmember Joann Ariola (R) wrote “I’m not a millionaire, but I am against more taxes on the rich.”

“The highest tax bracket in New York is already shouldering nearly half of the income tax burden in the state. This is an enormous share and provides us with much-needed funding for an array of programs and public works,” Ariola said. “But when the members of this tax bracket change their address and stop paying their income taxes to the Empire State, the government will be left with no other option than to push that burden down to the middle and working classes.”

“If we want to actually expand the tax base and bring more money into the city, we need to provide incentives for the wealthy to return. Because, as the numbers show, many of those with the means to do so will and are simply packing up and moving just across state lines, and this leaves the working classes and the middle-class civil servants who are too invested in the city to just up and leave shouldering the burden,” Ariola wrote. “Eventually, if we keep adding more taxes, we will eventually run out of rich people’s money.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I support the idea of taxing out-of-state residents, but New York should be careful to avoid easy pitfalls.
• Local tax codes are complicated, and many wealthy property owners already pay a lot in taxes.
• If done well, this proposal could end up raising revenues while targeting only those who can afford to pay.

Managing Editor Ari Weitzman: Tax policy is complicated, and Gov. Hochul and Mayor Mamdani’s joint proposal is no exception. But by and large, I think this is a great idea in theory. Now, execution will be everything.

I’m a fan of progressive tax policies — taxing people who have more to pay feels very fair to me. I don’t know if this policy will raise $500 million, and it doesn’t solve the city’s budget problems on its own, but I also don’t think it will have the large problems a lot of the critics say it will. Remember, these are part-time residents who already demonstrated they will pay at least $5 million once and $60,000 in taxes every year to take advantage of what New York City has to offer; I doubt an additional $30,000 annually will meaningfully change the behaviors of people in that category.

In fact, I called for almost this exact policy in January when responding to President Trump’s proposal to raise the tax rate on corporate investors, saying we should instead increase the tax rate on second homes — specifically at local levels. I argued that targets of such a policy should be “very wealthy people who already own and live in a primary residence but also own vacation properties that are often vacant in areas with housing shortages,” adding that doing so would increase both revenue and supply (by acting as a disincentive to owning investment properties).

I’d been harboring this idea for a while, and after writing about it in Tangle, I got a lot of well reasoned pushback. Now that Mamdani and Hochul are considering doing this in the real world, I want to test the proposal against the pushback that I received. 

First, this should only be considered a revenue-raising proposal to raise revenue, not one that will impact housing availability. When I pitched my idea to tax second homes, I optimistically stated that I could see people who buy up rental properties getting dissuaded from doing so or being motivated to rent them out. Counterarguments have convinced me that likely isn’t the case. Second homes make up only 4% of U.S. housing stock, a figure that is decreasing, and many of these properties are already rented out. Increasing taxes on them could have a marginal effect on encouraging more local home ownership, but it’d likely contribute to raising rents (let’s put a pin in that for now).

Mamdani and Hochul are pitching this as a revenue-raising policy, so they’re already ahead of me. Which brings me to the next point: Additional taxes on expensive second homes already exist to some degree.

In Vermont, where I live, the state offers a homestead tax exemption for people who live in their primary residence. This means my home state already taxes second homes at a higher rate, they just frame it as a discount to residents of their primary homes. Vermont is not alone; 37 other states offer similar exemptions, including New York. However, it is a marginal policy in the Empire State, only offering annual tax savings of $293 for most home owners. So while a similar policy in other states effectively is an extra tax on second-home owners, that’s not true of New York. 

But that doesn’t mean that New York doesn’t already tax these properties to a high degree. New York City divides its properties into four categories — one-to-three unit residences, properties with more than three units, utilities, and all others. These properties are then taxed at different rates, complicating the existing tax policy.

Class 1 properties (basically single-family homes or small apartments) are taxed at 19.84%, while Class 2 properties (large rental buildings and investment condos) are taxed at 12.44%. However, Class 1 homes are taxed on only 6% of their value while Class 2 properties are taxed on 45% of their value, making the effective tax rate of these Class 1 properties much, much lower: ~1.2% of market value compared to ~5.6% of market value.

That’s a lot of numbers, so let’s take an example. Say I own a $5 million, four-story brownstone in New York City. If I am the owner and occupant of that property, I am only assessed taxes on 6% of its value, or $300,000. My tax rate of 19.84% means I pay about $60,000 in taxes, an effective rate of ~1.2%. If I break that property into four units and rent them out, I am assessed taxes on 45% of the building’s value, or $2.25 million. My tax rate of 12.44% means I pay about $280,000 in taxes, an effective rate of ~5.6%. That’s a difference of well over $200,000. 

But would the pied-à-terre tax apply to properties that are identified as Class 1, or Class 2? As it stands today, that would depend a lot on the individual property. If it’s the former, then great — a surcharge on these properties can help raise revenues on a set of people that can afford it and who already aren’t paying as much in taxes as a landlord of an average small building in New York City (a cost that gets distributed among the residents). But if it’s the latter, then the surcharge essentially becomes a double tax on people who are already paying a great deal for their properties.

So far, the pied-à-terre proposal isn’t very specific on its application. I can understand that — it’s early, and the proposal that eventually gets introduced to the legislature will have to fall somewhere between the catchy “tax on $5 million homes owned by people who don’t live here” and the complicated reality of the existing tax code. But I hope is that the actual policy Hochul and Mamdani end up pitching looks something like this:

Clarify the classification. Pied-à-terres owned by out-of-state millionaires and real-estate investors don’t make sense as Class 1 properties, because these owners shouldn’t receive the benefits intended for most home owners. However, pied-à-terres aren’t a great fit as Class 2 properties, either, which is meant to encompass larger residences and apartment buildings. If a $10 million brownstone is in the same category as a 200-unit apartment building, then future changes to the tax code will either raise rents for the working class or keep taxes down for the rich. Instead, investment properties, pied-à-terres, and luxury apartments would be better suited in their own category.

Tweak the rates, don’t apply new charges. If these properties are simply put into their own bucket where the assessment rate is about as high as Class 2’s and the tax rate is about as high as Class 1’s, then I think Hochul and Mamdani accomplish the revenue target they want while keeping the code (relatively) simple, avoiding unintended regressive consequences, and without applying targeted thresholds. A “$5 million pied-à-terre tax” sounds catchy, but creating sharp cliffs like that both leaves money on the table (what about $4 million?) and creates a line for investors to avoid. Instead, using stepwise increases within this new classification will generate more revenue and be more progressive.

Cut the personal attacks. This is more of a messaging note, but the way the policy is messaged is a central part of it. As The Free Press editors wrote (under “What the right is saying”), filming marketing material outside one person’s house makes them the single target for class resentment and creates a genuinely dangerous environment. Mamdani is playing up class resentment in a way that we’ve seen fail, to deadly effect, with political extremism. People like Ken Griffin shouldn’t be treated as enemies while you’re asking for more money out of them.

Ultimately, the devil is in the details. New York has a potentially great idea on its hands — one that could increase its tax revenue with a minimal impact on full-time New York City residents — and I’ll be very interested to see how this idea evolves.

Take the survey: What do you think about the proposed pied-à-terre tax? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

We're skipping the reader question today to give our main story some extra space. Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

On this day in history.

An environmental "teach in" in Michigan in 1970 | Wikimedia Commons

Today is Earth Day — let’s take a look back to see how that designation began.

On April 22, 1970, thousands of college campuses nationwide held classes, demonstrations, and protests to raise awareness of industrial air and water pollution, a concern popularized in part by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring. 20 million Americans, roughly 10% of the U.S. population at the time, took part in the event. Behind the effort was Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D), who recruited California Rep. Pete McCloskey (R) to serve as his co-chair and activist Denis Hayes to organize the campus rallies. Sen. Nelson originally proposed calling the event “Environmental Teach-In,” but by the time April 22, 1970, rolled around, organizers and national media had widely adopted “Earth Day,” a name coined by legendary advertising writer Julian Koenig. “Our goal is a new American ethic that sets new standards for progress, emphasizing human dignity and well being rather than an endless parade of technology that produces more gadgets, more waste, more pollution,” Sen. Nelson said in an address to a crowd in Denver, Colorado, on the first Earth Day.

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about the death of Pope Francis.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was our video about Chinese fishing vessels.
• Nothing to do with politics: An injured turtle gets its own wheels.
• Our last survey: 1,572 readers responded to our survey on renewing Section 702 of FISA with 70% saying Congress should not reauthorize it. “A warrant is a minimum reform. How hard is it to get a warrant from a FISA court anyway? That needs reform too,” one respondent said. “If you’re not talking with foreign criminals then you have nothing to worry about,” said another.

Have a nice day.

With 18,000 land mine-related deaths in Cambodia in the past half-century, one nonprofit, Apopo, has turned to using African giant pouched rats, whose small size and powerful sense of smell allow them to locate hidden mines quickly and safely. One of these rats, Magawa, stood above the rest, locating over 100 mines in his five-year career. He died in 2022, and Cambodia unveiled a seven-foot statue earlier this month to honor his work. “Magawa was one of the best rats we’ve ever had. Magawa was calm and focused … he was gentle and friendly with his handlers. He just had the perfect temperament,” Michael Raine, a program manager at Apopo, said. The Washington Post has the story.

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 13 minutes.

Our latest video.

Maritime issues have been a constant in the news this year — from drug boat strikes in the Caribbean to blockades in the Strait of Hormuz. At Tangle, we tend to focus on the issues that involve American vessels or the U.S. military. But Associate Producer Aidan Gorman wanted to dig into a story about what could be the largest fleet on the open oceans: Chinese fishing vessels. 

Aidan goes deep on the issue, talking to experts and surfacing the context, in the latest video on the Tangle YouTube channel. Check it out here!

Quick hits.

1. The White House announced that Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will leave her position for a role in the private sector. In recent months, Chavez-DeRemer was accused of misusing federal funds for personal expenses and having an affair with a member of her security team, prompting an inspector general probe. Deputy Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling will serve as acting secretary until a replacement is confirmed. (The departure)
2. President Donald Trump set an informal deadline of Wednesday evening for U.S. and Iranian negotiators to reach a peace deal, saying it is “highly unlikely” he would support extending the current ceasefire if no deal is reached by then. (The comments)
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic, alleging that the magazine defamed him in a report claiming the director has engaged in excessive drinking and erratic behavior. (The suit)
4. The Supreme Court agreed to take up a case challenging Colorado’s restrictions on funding for Catholic preschools due to the schools’ refusal to admit students based on their or their parents’ sexual orientation or gender identity. (The case)
5. Virginians are voting on a referendum on whether to temporarily approve a new Congressional map expected to give Democrats a 10–1 advantage in the U.S. House, part of a broader mid-decade redistricting push by Democratic- and Republican-controlled states. (The referendum)

Today’s topic.

Congress’s temporary FISA reauthorization. On Friday, the House and Senate passed a short-term renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), reauthorizing the law until April 30. Republican leadership pivoted to the stopgap measure after a group of 20 House Republicans voted against an 18-month extension that President Donald Trump had endorsed. Congress is now expected to debate adding new privacy measures to the law before next Thursday’s deadline. 

Back up: FISA was originally enacted in 1978 as a framework for gathering physical and electronic foreign intelligence. In 2008, Congress added several amendments to the law, including Section 702, which enables U.S. intelligence agencies to collect and analyze information on non-citizens abroad for foreign intelligence purposes without a warrant. While U.S. citizens cannot be directly surveilled, their data may still be collected when they interact with a foreign surveillance target. U.S. officials have credited the program with aiding operations against terrorist leaders, but critics argue it has allowed for warrantless surveillance of Americans. Congress reauthorized the program for two years in April 2024. 

On Wednesday, President Trump endorsed a “clean extension” of Section 702, writing, “While parts of FISA were illegally and unfortunately used against me in the Democrats’ disgraceful Witch Hunt and Attack in the RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA Hoax, and perhaps would be used against me in the future, I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!”

On Thursday, GOP leadership put forward a five-year extension with new provisions specifying that only Federal Bureau of Investigation attorneys could allow intelligence queries on U.S. citizens and requiring the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases. That proposal failed, prompting the 18-month and 10-day extension votes. 

Lawmakers from both parties have sought more meaningful reform to the program. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called for “clos[ing] a loophole in federal law that allows the government to buy Americans’ location data without a warrant” and adding protections against using artificial intelligence to conduct mass surveillance. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) offered three amendments that would create new warrant requirements, bar “reverse targeting” (surveilling a non-American as a means to gather intelligence on their American associate), and restrict access to information held in private data centers and other electronic communications systems. 

If Congress fails to pass an extension by April 30, the program can continue operating through March 2027, since an intelligence court recertified it last month. However, GOP leaders have indicated they will try to reach a deal on a long-term extension in the next week. 

Today, we’ll break down the debate over extending Section 702, with views from the right and left, followed by Executive Editor Isaac Saul’s take.

What the right is saying.

• Many on the right support extending Section 702, saying it is a critical intelligence tool.
• Some argue the program has been abused and should be repealed. 
• Others note that prior reforms to the program have been working as intended. 

National Review’s editors argued “reauthorize FISA Section 702 — again.”

“The threat of international terrorism may not be as visible and visceral to the public as it was 25 years ago, but with the United States currently at war with the leading state sponsor of terrorism, this would be an especially inopportune time to let the legal authority for this crucial function lapse,” the editors wrote. “Where Section 702 and its predecessors become controversial is that surveillance of the communications of foreigners abroad may sweep in their conversations with Americans. Of course, this has a parallel in domestic law enforcement, where even searches or surveillance with a proper warrant can sweep in communications with people other than the target of the warrant.”

“If Section 702 is not reauthorized, the executive branch will be back in the legal no-man’s-land it inhabited before 2008… the legal safeguards would lapse, and rank-and-file members of the intelligence and law enforcement community could face uncertainty about whether they would face legal jeopardy for doing their jobs,” the editors said. “It’s a curious situation that Congress has to keep revisiting this issue on increasingly compressed timelines… when so many other laws, programs, and powers of the executive branch are authorized in perpetuity no matter how unpopular or obsolete they grow.”

In The Dispatch, Patrick G. Eddington made “the case for letting FISA’s Section 702 expire.”

“No person on U.S. soil should be the subject of intelligence collection under FISA in the first place unless they are in direct contact with a known or suspected terrorist or foreign spy. And if they are, that itself is probable cause to get a warrant for investigative purposes under the Fourth Amendment,” Eddington wrote. “Yet it’s known that information on millions of innocent Americans is swept up and stored for years via Section 702’s digital dragnet.”

“If FISA were to revert to its pre-9/11 legal form, the Justice Department and U.S. intelligence community could still collect foreign intelligence information on foreign entities, including terrorist organizations. The attorney general would still be authorized to conduct warrantless surveillance on an emergency basis but would be required to report such surveillance to the FISA Court… within 24 hours,” Eddington said. “In other words, if Section 702 expires for a time, it wouldn’t be the end of FISA. But it would force a badly needed reckoning with its abuses — and provide Congress with time to agree on a bill that would preclude such abuses in the future.”

On the Senate floor, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called for “reauthoriz[ing] FISA Section 702.”

“Section 702 is an essential national security tool. That law is responsible for over 60% of the intelligence in the president’s daily brief. Section 702 enables our intelligence and law enforcement communities to thwart attacks before they occur,” Grassley said. “It gives our military a strategic edge, allows us to hunt down foreign terrorists and rescue hostages and helps us defend critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. More recently, Section 702 has enabled more than 90% of CIA-driven synthetic drug disruptions abroad and prevented a mass casualty terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert overseas.

“So, there’s no doubt that this is a powerful, critical tool to protect Americans. But there’s also no doubt that powerful tools like this require strong oversight and accountability,” Grassley continued. “Two years ago, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, RISAA for short, added critical and successful reforms to Section 702 in response to some abuse and overreach… In the last public audit, the FBI achieved a 99% compliance rate with its U.S. person queries, which have also decreased sharply overall in recent years. The reforms that we imposed in RISAA are working. If it expires, so do its civil liberties protections and many of its oversight mechanisms."

What the left is saying.

• Most on the left oppose Section 702’s “back door” surveillance of Americans. 
• Some say Congress has a small window to pass bipartisan reforms.
• Others reject claims that intelligence agencies use the program responsibly. 

In Just Security, Ryan Goodman explored “guarding FISA Section 702’s ‘back door.’”

“Section 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect the email, text, and phone communications of foreign nationals located outside the United States. As a byproduct, Americans’ communications are caught in the net as well. Subject to limitations that Congress introduced in 2024, the FBI can dip into that vast database to look for derogatory information on Americans,” Goodman said. “That ‘back door,’ allowing access to Americans’ communications, is ripe for abuse especially in the context of the administration’s campaign to paint ‘antifa’ as an international and domestic terrorist threat.”

“Failure to maintain Section 702 would be a tragic outcome. Specifically, the loss of the core surveillance program — the interception of communications of foreign actors abroad who pose real threats — would amount to ‘the worst intelligence failures of our time,’ as the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) explained in 2023,” Goodman wrote. “A solution that fits the problem is to require the Justice Department to obtain a judge’s approval for the FBI to read Americans’ communications. That may be good policy regardless of presidential administrations and whatever one thinks the Fourth Amendment demands.”

In Bloomberg, Noah Feldman wrote “Congress has a rare chance to stop warrantless searches.”

“[Section 702] effectively permits the government to collect the private information of Americans indirectly. And it doesn’t bar the government from buying data that would be unlawful for the government to collect itself or get directly from phone and internet providers,” Feldman said. “A bipartisan bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, that would close the most important loopholes in the current law.”

“The bill proposes to close [the ‘back door’] loophole by specifically requiring the government to get a warrant before querying and searching the names of Americans… The bill would also close the so-called data-broker loophole. Longstanding federal law says phone and internet service providers can’t sell customer data directly to government agencies… But no law prohibits the government from buying the same exact information from data brokers,” Feldman wrote. “Congress should pass the Government Surveillance Reform Act, and the president should sign it. This moment of bipartisan agreement might not last.”

In The Hill, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) argued “FISA 702 endangers your privacy.”

“Protecting Americans’ constitutional rights while operating this surveillance program is only possible when key oversight and auditors within executive branch agencies are able to operate independently from the federal government and the president,” Jayapal said. “While this Department of Justice’s actions have been particularly egregious, administrations on both sides of the aisle have routinely violated Americans’ privacy rights and conducted surveillance on millions of people without any warrant or justification.”

“The FBI has a long and troubling history of spying on Americans. From the inception of the agency, we have seen disturbing surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr., anti-Vietnam War protestors, environmental groups, and regular U.S. persons. And we’ve seen how quickly surveillance abuse can spiral out of control when oversight and safeguards are torn down,” Jayapal wrote. “Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been misused by administrations on both sides for too long to collect the private, sensitive communications of Americans. Congress must not reauthorize it without real reforms and protections.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I opposed Section 702 authorization under Biden, and I still oppose it today.
• Fear of bad actors should not justify a blanket authority to violate our rights as Americans.
• Even if Congress reauthorizes Section 702, I believe our intelligence agencies should learn to operate within these constraints.

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: When President Biden signed legislation to reauthorize Section 702 in 2024, I criticized the extension. 

My message then was simple: If intelligence agencies want access to the communications of American citizens, they can get a warrant. Two years later, my opinion remains as straightforward as that. 

Believing that warrantless access to American communications is illegal doesn’t mean there are no good arguments for it. Yes, the United States faces a multitude of threats from abroad, and giving our intelligence agencies more latitude to do their jobs is one way to try to keep the country safe. In that vein, some of the writers advocating for this extension have compelling points and unconvincing points. National Review’s editors argued (under “What the right is saying”) that, given the threat posed by Iran, “this would be an especially inopportune time to let the legal authority for this crucial function lapse.” I find this argument entirely unconvincing. It is always an inopportune time, in the eyes of Section 702 supporters, to remove this tool. Fear of foreign threats created this framework in the first place, so of course that same fear can be used to require keeping Section 702 in place. And if letting it expire is never an option, then we’ll never really know whether we can live without it (and law enforcement will never learn to operate without it).

Holding the line on civil liberties requires some level of bravery, bravery we exercise all the time while defending our own rights. A dozen witnesses might watch someone commit a crime, but that doesn’t mean the state gets to imprison that person without a trial. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. Staying committed to this ideal means that some innocent citizens will face harm when some criminals go free — living with that requires bravery.

Similarly, we all understand that bad people will try to do bad things, and that Americans’ right to privacy provides secondary protections against surveilling those bad actors. It takes a level of bravery, then, to say that the right to privacy is more important than constantly looking out for bad guys. Just as we live with the consequences of the right to a fair trial, we live with the consequences that the government can’t just listen to an American’s phone call because that person is talking to a non-American target of their surveillance. And just as a judge may keep someone incarcerated while they await trial if they deem that person a public safety threat, a judge may also approve a warrant to monitor an American citizen — if someone shows reasonable evidence they are a threat. 

The same National Review editors make a much more convincing argument later in their piece, though, which is that reforms to Section 702 are already having a positive impact. More stringent reporting requirements and a higher standard for recording communications that include Americans have dramatically reduced such incidents. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who previously opposed a Section 702 extension under Biden and now supports it, said there were 278,000 improper queries of the database in 2023. Yet, post-reform, he pointed out the total number of searches on U.S. persons dropped from 2.9 million in 2022 to 9,000 in the past year. And that’s despite the targeting of foreign surveillance going up from 2022 (246,000) to 2025 (349,823). 

Notably, these numbers have produced a lot of skepticism. In March, the Brennan Center published a report claiming the FBI improperly tracked and audited search queries involving U.S. citizens; if true, the numbers from 2024 and 2025 are likely a significant undercount. So while I’m glad to see some reforms implemented, those changes seem like they aren’t enough (or at least warrant further scrutiny).

I also worry about how easily these reforms can be undone. Put another way, “Until we pass a warrant requirement, the government’s powerful surveillance authorities will always be subject to abuse” — that’s what Jim Jordan said in April of last year. 

Right now, the most straightforward way to prosecute FISA violations is through the U.S. attorney general. But let’s state the obvious: The Justice Department is becoming totally captured by President Trump, and that’s setting the stage for a more politicized DOJ under future Democratic presidents, too. A presidentially dominated DOJ would never actually prosecute FBI Section 702 abuses. Just as easily as I could believe these reforms are having a positive impact, I could believe the FBI has been on its best behavior to get a long-term extension — or adjusted its behavior to prepare for a repeal — and will go right back to its old ways. This is just one of a dizzying number of ways the president’s demands for loyalty directly and negatively impact American citizens. 

The president himself is an interesting case here. After all, he was the victim of maybe the most notorious abuse of FISA in American history, when Carter Page’s contacts with Russia were used as a pretext to target someone in Trump’s orbit. Trump came out against Section 702 in 2024, urging supporters to “KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!” 

Now that he’s in office, though, the president’s tune has changed. “I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!” he said in a Truth Social post last Wednesday. 

It’s a somewhat amusing and also jarring pivot. It’s amusing because it really is the most straightforward argument, said out loud in a way a president probably shouldn’t: In order to back Section 702, you genuinely have to believe in giving up your rights and trust our military and intelligence communities to Do The Right Thing. It’s jarring because the president was so adamantly on the other side of this issue just two years ago. A charitable read is that he is now receiving daily briefs with information gathered using FISA (60% of the briefs contain intel from Section 702, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley), and the people around him understand the importance of this information, so he wants it. The less charitable read is just as likely: He is the one who has the power now, and when presidents acquire power they very rarely give it up.

Either way, Trump and Rep. Jordan were right the first time, and I agreed with them then. Their position has changed, but mine hasn’t. One judge, in 2023, described the FBI’s abuses of Section 702 as “persistent and widespread.” If you broaden the abuses of this warrantless surveillance beyond just Section 702, to FISA as a whole, everyone should have a bone to pick: January 6 protesters, Trump’s campaign, Black Lives Matter protesters, pro-Palestine activists who may have faced government surveillance, and even members of Congress. Letting Section 702 expire won’t stop our law enforcement agencies from monitoring and pursuing active threats to Americans, but it will reduce how often they access Americans’ communications without a warrant. 

Again: I’m heartened Congress has implemented some strong reforms, even if questions remain about how effective they’ve been. Given that it looks like we’re barreling toward another long-term reauthorization (hopefully with those reforms), I’ll probably have to settle for that win and hope it holds. Yet I’m disheartened that those reforms didn’t go all the way. All the improvements in the world can’t move me off my core position that my communications should never be monitored without a warrant. That’s the kind of fundamental right that should be guaranteed to me in a free country, it’s one Section 702 rules undermine, and it’s one that our intelligence agencies should learn to operate within. 

Take the survey: Do you think Section 702 should be reauthorized? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: I live in Idaho and I just read an article by the Idaho Capital Sun about House Bill 896. On the surface it seems like a good thing to me: “The Attorney General can seek to bar local officials from office for violating states’ rights” seems like accountability for being a bad official and going against your state’s rights. 

So now I’m confused, isn’t there already some kind of way that people are held accountable for violating states’ rights? What would this be changing? Why should anyone be exempt from this?

— Sophie from Smelterville, ID

Tangle: All people, including public officials, are subject to local, state, and federal laws. The bill wouldn’t have changed that. However, it would have added a new mechanism for punishing officials who break the law. House Bill 896 would have given the Idaho attorney general the direct authority to sue government agencies, officials, or employees without going through the typical channels of law enforcement and the court system. 

For context, Idaho House Bill 896 was drafted in response to the city of Boise’s attempt to sidestep a 2025 state law that prohibits flying any unofficial government flag on public property by making the Progress Pride flag the city’s official flag. Several Idaho House members wanted the state to be able to punish government officials who “willfully” violated the law, and the lower chamber passed the measure in March — however, the Idaho Senate rejected the bill in April over concerns that it would give the state attorney general too much power.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Numbers.

• 2018. The year Congress passed a full reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for the first time, extending the law for approximately six years.
• 65–34. The vote in the Senate’s passage of the 2018 full reauthorization. 
• 2024. The year Congress passed a full reauthorization of Section 702 for the second time, extending the law for approximately two years.
• 60–34. The vote in the Senate’s passage of the 2024 full reauthorization. 
• 35%. The percent increase in Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) searches of U.S. person data collected under Section 702 between December 2024 and November 2025, according to an FBI letter to Congress.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition on the SAVE Act.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the mass shooting in Shreveport, Louisiana.
• Nothing to do with politics: An unbelievable view of the Earth setting behind the moon.
• Our last survey: 2,321 readers responded to our survey on the war in Iran with 51% saying it will last until at least the end of the Trump administration. “The two sides work on very different time perspectives, and the Iranians know it,” one respondent said. “Not until after the mid-terms, but I’m uncertain whether it will be done this year,” said another.

We originally asked this question on April 9, and the results of that survey are included below.

Have a nice day.

The eastern migratory monarch butterfly population has plummeted in recent decades, but two reports published in March show signs of hope from the past year. In one report, scientists found that nine colonies of monarch butterflies in Mexico occupied 7.24 acres of forest during the 2025–26 winter, a roughly 64% increase from the 2024–25 winter. In the second, researchers found that 6.3 acres of the butterflies’ winter habitat were degraded between February 2024 and February 2025, approximately 2.9 acres fewer than the same period from the previous 12 months. While environmental challenges remain, World Wildlife Fund-Mexico Director General Maria Jose Villanueva said the studies offered “promising signs of recovery” for the monarch butterfly population. The World Wildlife Fund has the story.

Off the coast of Argentina, hundreds of fishing vessels gather every night — so brightly lit that they can be seen from space.

In this interview, Isaac Saul sits down with Steve Hilton (R) to discuss his campaign for governor of California — and his argument that the state has lost its way.

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 14 minutes.

Data center development: Yes or no?

Data center construction is quickly becoming a hot-button issue in the United States. Tech companies seek sufficient computing power for their artificial intelligence products, but local communities push back on the projects’ footprints. On Friday, Managing Editor Ari Weitzman and Associate Editor Lindsey Knuth took part in the first-ever Tangle debate edition, arguing for and against building more data centers. 

We polled the Tangle audience on their opinion before and after reading the arguments. Before:

After:

You can read the arguments that changed people’s minds here.

Quick hits.

1. Louisiana authorities said a man killed eight children, including seven of his own, and wounded two other people in a shooting spree spanning at least three locations in Shreveport. The shooter died while attempting to evade police by car. (The shooting)
2. Congress approved an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until April 30. The act allows some federal agencies to collect and analyze communications outside of the United States without a warrant. (The extension)
3. Customs and Border Protection’s tariff refund system, called Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries, launched on Monday, allowing companies to submit refund claims for duties deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (The launch)
4. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to expedite research into certain psychedelic drugs as potential treatments for mental health disorders. The president also directed the Food and Drug Administration to accelerate its review of new treatments. (The order)
5. A gunman killed seven people and wounded at least 14 others in a mass shooting in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. Ukrainian security forces killed the suspect, who was reportedly born in Russia and had lived in the Donbas region for an extended period. (The shooting)

Today’s topic.

The latest from Iran. On Sunday, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. fired on and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz from the Gulf of Oman. The vessel is the first ship seized by the U.S. Navy since it began blockading the gulf on April 13. Iran said on Friday it would remove all restrictions on commercial ships passing through the strait, then closed the waterway again on Saturday in response to the ongoing U.S. military blockade. That day, gunboats linked to Iran reportedly opened fire on two ships attempting to transit the strait. 

Back up: The sides agreed to a ceasefire on April 7, but the status of the Strait of Hormuz has remained unclear. On April 12, President Trump announced a naval blockade of Iran’s ports to prevent countries friendly with Iran from circumventing restrictions imposed on other ships. Although leaders from both nations communicated that the strait would be open for transit on April 17, several ships reportedly turned back over confusion about the requirements for safe passage.

In one incident on Saturday, a crew member on an Indian-flagged tanker radioed Iran’s military saying the ship was under attack and asking for permission to turn the vessel around. In a second incident, an Indian-flagged container ship was hit by “an unknown projectile,” damaging some containers. Both incidents are under investigation, and India’s External Affairs Ministry called on Iran to “resume at the earliest the process of facilitating India-bound ships across the Strait.” 

The U.S. had turned back over 20 Iranian vessels attempting to cross the strait prior to Sunday’s incident. In a Truth Social post, Trump said the Iranian-linked ship “refused to listen” to warnings to stop, after which USS Spruance “[blew] a hole in the engineroom.” U.S. Central Command added that the ship was attempting to travel to an Iranian port and failed to comply with repeated warnings over a six-hour period. In a statement, Iran called the incident an “act of armed piracy” and said it would retaliate. 

The seizure comes ahead of scheduled peace talks this week. Vice President JD Vance, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, will travel to Pakistan on Monday in anticipation of a second round of negotiations with Iran. However, Iran’s participation is uncertain, and it threatened not to attend the meeting over “excessive demands, unrealistic expectations, constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and the ongoing naval blockade.”

Today, we’ll cover these developments, with views from the left, right, and Middle East writers. Then, Executive Editor Isaac Saul shares his take. 

What the left is saying.

• Many on the left see Trump’s maneuvers in the strait as risky and counterproductive. 
• Others say the U.S. continues to act unlawfully in the conflict. 

In CNN, Stephen Collinson wrote about “the gamble in Trump’s Iran blockade that could decide the war.”

“[The] growing hopes of US officials, conservative editorial pages and analysts that the blockade could bring Iran to its knees rest on an assumption that has repeatedly led the US astray in the Middle East,” Collinson said. “The hope is that Iran’s leaders offer concessions to alleviate the blockade’s eventual extreme repercussions. The plan also hints at an unspoken hope that deteriorating economic conditions could set off new internal political dissent and test the regime’s grip… But the idea that Iranian leaders will view the stakes in this way may be a leap.”

“The blockade presents Iran with a new strategic puzzle. Its options for escalation are risky since they could trigger a resumption of fighting and a rupture of the ceasefire with the US and Israel. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces could respond to the blockading of their ports by renewing attacks on US Gulf allies,” Collinson wrote. “Another option would be for Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen to shut down an alternative oil trafficking route through the Red Sea. Such a move would be a hammer blow to the world economy and would surely heap political pressure on Trump as the war would threaten to careen out of control.”

In The Nation, Maryam Jamshidi argued “only one side has clearly broken the law in the Strait of Hormuz.”

“The Trump administration has made half-hearted attempts to justify its joint attack against Iran as defensive. Hardly anyone — including America’s Western allies — has bought into these legal justifications, even though many still support the US/Israeli war politically and militarily,” Jamshidi said. “Blockades are prototypical examples of illegal uses of force and acts of aggression, where not justified by the right of self-defense or a Security Council resolution. In the case of Iran, the US blockade is both unlawful… and effectively ends the ceasefire between the United States and Iran.”

“The US blockade also violates the laws of naval warfare, which prohibit blockades if ‘damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from’ the action,” Jamshidi wrote. “The purpose of the US blockade is not to pursue any military advantage against Iran but rather to achieve the political objective of increasing US leverage in ongoing negotiations with the Iranian government… Even if that objective was somehow a valid, military one, the blockade would still be illegal because it is designed to do significant damage to the civilian population by collapsing the Iranian economy.”

What the right is saying.

• Many on the right encourage Trump to keep up pressure in the strait.
• Some contend the U.S. Navy is well equipped to achieve its goals.

In Fox News, Lisa Daftari said “Hormuz whiplash proves Tehran can’t honor any deal it signs.”

“Within days, Tehran went from signaling that the Strait of Hormuz would remain open to threatening to close it. That reversal is a reminder that the regime cannot be trusted to uphold any deal it signs because its strategy depends on constant threats and keeping the world off balance,” Daftari wrote. “For years, U.S. and European officials have negotiated as if Iran’s commitments on paper would translate into predictable behavior. But the regime’s most powerful actors are not invested in keeping those commitments. This regime was not designed to be constrained, reformed or tamed.”

“Washington cannot afford to treat diplomacy as an end in itself. An agreement that is not backed by real enforcement, credible military deterrence and a clear understanding of who holds power in Tehran will not hold. It will be tested, stretched and eventually broken when the regime decides it can get away with it,” Daftari said. “A regime that turns a vital energy choke point into a pressure tool is not a responsible partner. It is the opposite. The back‑and‑forth over Hormuz is a hard reminder that Tehran’s core strategy is leverage through threat, not cooperation.”

In The Washington Examiner, Ali Holcomb and Joel Griffith suggested “our Navy was built for this moment.”

“President Donald Trump must not forget that the U.S. Navy was created with one thing in mind: securing the freedom of navigation for Americans. And that is exactly what it needs to do in the Strait of Hormuz,” Holcomb and Griffith wrote. “Amid the hand-wringing over this conflict, one crucial fact goes unacknowledged: The U.S. still holds overwhelming military superiority. The U.S. made a serious mistake in negotiations by even entertaining the possibility of Iran profiting from the strait. Thankfully, we have since corrected course.”

“‘Innocent Passage’ is the right of vessels of all nations to traverse through territorial seas, even through a different nation’s exclusive economic zone. ‘Strait Passage’ is even more permissive,” Holcomb and Griffith said. “The U.S. is the world’s leading enforcer of these laws and norms of the sea. When Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi declared the entire Gulf of Sidra to be Libyan territorial waters, the U.S. responded by deploying a carrier strike group straight into the gulf and shot down Libyan fighter jets attempting to enforce Gaddafi’s claims. We even have a formalized term for such operations, ‘Freedom of Navigation Operations,’ and we back up our declarations with action.”

What Middle East writers are saying.

• Many writers in the Middle East note the wide-ranging consequences stemming from the strait’s closure. 
• Others say the war is already reshuffling our understanding of the global order.

In Arab News, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed wrote about threats against “Gulf ports.”

“The fighting has not stopped since negotiations in Islamabad came to a halt. US President Donald Trump’s dangerous decision to impose a blockade on Iran’s maritime trade has disrupted the entire landscape, as Iran is now threatening to target Gulf ports,” Al-Rashed said. “The blockade is the most dangerous weapon that can be used against Iran. Impeding Iran’s maritime trade could bring down the regime if it is sustained long enough and enforced strictly. Of course, choking Iran at sea has consequences and could potentially reignite a broader war.”

“The US has shown a willingness to continue fighting. It could be argued that more strikes that force Iran into surrender would be Trump’s best option, as they would allow him to emerge victorious in the eyes of the world,” Al-Rashed wrote. “Iran’s new leadership may appear fanatical, but this same leadership has expressed a desire to return to negotiations. It has a strong interest in avoiding destruction that risks the very existence of the regime. A blockade and devastation would be less likely if the American and Iranian delegations were to return to the negotiating table.”

In Al Jazeera, Khalid Al-Jaber said “the Iran war has exposed the limits of neutrality.”

“The course of the war demonstrated that the concept of ‘neutrality’ is no longer viable in contemporary regional contexts, particularly in the Middle East,” Al-Jaber wrote. “Neutrality is easier to declare than to maintain. Iranian strikes on energy infrastructure across Gulf states forced several producers to declare force majeure and suspend their operations. In Qatar, Qatar Energy halted LNG production, and the effects were felt almost immediately in Europe through a surge in gas prices of almost 50 percent in the Netherlands and the UK.”

“Calling for a cessation of hostilities without addressing the root causes of the crisis may amount to nothing more than postponing the inevitable explosion, while pursuing radical change without a clear vision for the day after may open the door to even wider chaos,” Al-Jaber said. “Between these two options, the world confronts a fundamental question: How can it deal with a regime widely viewed by many states as part of the problem, without allowing the pursuit of its transformation to create an even greater one? What appears evident is that the coming phase will leave little room for the grey zone within which states have long been accustomed to manoeuvring.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Instability within Iran’s government is contributing to instability of peace talks.
• Iran’s new leadership is more extreme and more willing to use its force than the leaders the U.S. killed, and the situation is much more tenuous.
• All told, I don’t see a way this war ends any time soon.

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: I think a good deal of the chaos we’ve seen in the last few weeks can be attributed to a fractured and chaotic Iranian government. To grasp why, let’s start by revisiting the Iranian government’s pre-war makeup:

The theocratic side of the government (on top) held most of the power. The supreme leader commanded all of the military (the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC), while the Guardian Council approved all of the “elected” legislators. The ayatollah’s vetted parliament mostly fell in line, but at times it split from him. In one notable recent example, President Masoud Pezeshkian, who ran as a reformer and was almost certainly allowed to win because Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wanted to relieve some tension, was much more permissive than Khamenei during the January protests. Pezeshkian even went as far as to say the regime must “listen to the people.” 

Now, the Supreme Leader is dead — as are a long list of senior officials, including the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the intelligence minister, a top nuclear advisor, the commander-in-chief of the IRGC, the defense minister, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, and the IRGC’s navy intelligence chief, just to name a few. The U.S. was hoping that, in the vacuum created by the deaths of these leaders, reformers like Pezeshkian would rise up — and some have, to a degree. Iran’s foreign minister, who serves under Pezeshkian, has been at the center of negotiations to end the war.

Yet, by and large, a reform-minded Iranian government has not emerged; in fact, the opposite has happened. Iran’s new, younger supreme leader is reportedly more “extreme” (read: theocratic and anti-Western) than his predecessor, and the new state and IRGC leadership is also more radical. Iran’s new national security chief is Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who is so radical that Qassim Soleimani — the general Trump assassinated in 2020 — once reportedly quit his role in the military in protest over Zolghadr’s views. 

Anti-Western hardliners are dominating military decision-making in Iran, and they’ve expressed their ideology and their power by holding the global economy hostage in the Strait of Hormuz (something Ali Khamenei opted not to do when Israel and the U.S. struck Iran’s nuclear facilities last June). The disparity between Iran’s negotiating team and its military leadership played out in real time over the weekend: Iran’s foreign minister announced the Strait of Hormuz was fully open after negotiations with the United States. Less than 24 hours later, the IRGC said the waterway was still closed (and they’re keeping it closed) while the U.S. attacked an Iranian-flagged cargo vessel.

Power vacuums aren’t usually filled in an orderly manner, and right now Iran’s leadership is unstable. That instability is upstream of miscommunications, inconsistencies, and the inability to land a genuine “ceasefire” — a word that has been so misapplied as to be made totally meaningless (we’re technically in a “ceasefire” right now, it just includes multiple exchanges of fire, constant barrages, and very little negotiating). It is also upstream of intensified crackdowns on dissent and the deployment of regime supporters to the streets of Iran. They recognize their leadership is fragile, and they only have one way to keep it: hard power. 

We’re now on Day 52 of the war, and it contains all the ingredients for a prolonged conflict. The men across from us at the negotiating table represent a government that is somehow more radical than the one we thought was too radical to negotiate with originally. Iran reportedly still has about 40% of its prewar stock of drones, and it’s using the reduction in fighting to dig out missile launchers it's been hiding underground. Its missile supply could soon return to 70% of what it was prewar. These estimates, like all intelligence, are inexact; but at the very least they imply that Iran is capable of keeping up the fight, and the new regime seems happy to do so.

A week ago, I wrote about the risk of Iran becoming a kind of “ambient war” — a conflict that fades into background noise we in the U.S. all become accustomed to. That scenario looks something like this: The U.S. and Iran work into an uneasy stalemate, with few major breakthroughs and the occasional blip. Perhaps Iran kills a U.S. sailor in a drone attack, or the U.S. seizes a cargo ship and oil prices temporarily spike, or the Iranian regime engages in a particularly horrific crackdown on protesters, or an Israeli rocket hits a civilian center in Beirut, or maybe a Hezbollah missile breaks through and lands in downtown Tel Aviv. This becomes the new normal — relative quiet punctuated by big, newsy events. Meanwhile, Iran remains under the control of a radical regime, the Middle East remains unstable, and our regional allies remain unsafe, all while stalled negotiations start and stop and an energy crisis continues to spread across the Eastern Hemisphere. 

Eventually, some New Thing will demand our attention. Maybe China invades Taiwan, or Russia tests the borders of Poland, or the U.S. reconsiders an incursion into Greenland, or we all simply turn to the midterms and other domestic matters instead. In time, we come to accept the war that did not exist two months ago as a fact of life, and the untold money, blood, and even financial sacrifices at home fade into background static. This is my fear. 

I’ve made a habit of steelmanning alternative views to check this perspective, but that sunny alternative seems less and less likely to me each day. I could make the case, sure: Though committing to dominating the strait would be costly, our navy is capable of achieving it. By confiscating Iranian cargo ships that account for so much of the regime’s revenues, we could put Iran in a vice grip that requires them to back off their current demands. Maybe the Gulf states turn against the new leadership to create a kind of unified front that totally isolates Iran, fully bringing its theocratic leadership to heel. In a clearly positive development, we have greatly diminished Iran’s nuclear program, taking a live Iranian threat off the table. 

Yet expecting those upsides to lead to long-term peace anytime soon (within months, or even years) feels pollyannish to me. Iran is already angling for a cash deal from the U.S., one much larger than the kind they received from previous administrations. If they don’t get it, they will likely use their grip on the Strait of Hormuz to squeeze more money from the West. Remember, Iran’s current regime is more radical than the last, and the window for decisive regime change has likely closed. 

How other impacted nations respond now will be crucial to determining the length of the conflict. Gulf states and some European and Asian nations are surely infuriated by and scared of the new Iranian regime, but those same countries also need Iran’s oil — and the energy pinch they find themselves in is not domestically sustainable. The UAE is already asking the United States for a financial lifeline. I could bet on a future where America’s Eastern allies stand strong with the U.S. while Western allies join in its war with Iran, or I could bet on Eastern countries desperately meeting whatever conditions are asked of them to get their oil from Iran while Western allies criticize the U.S from the sidelines. The smart money is to bet on the latter.

Again: We’re 52 days into the conflict. We are cheering the opening of a shipping lane that was open pre-war and still isn’t really open; we’re facing a new, more radical regime; we’re still grasping for a long-term peace plan; and we’re staring down the barrel of a prolonged global energy crisis. I want to be wrong, but every analytical bone in my body believes this is not a better recipe for a peaceful tomorrow than the one we had just a few months ago. 

Take the survey: For how long do you believe the war in Iran will last? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: Both the Americans and Israel are bombing the heck out of Iran. What is stopping them from using an atomic bomb?

— Gerry from Quebec

Tangle: Several important factors make this possibility highly unlikely.

Two small things off the bat: First, atomic bombs use a nuclear fission process — the United States today maintains a thermonuclear arsenal that uses fission to ignite a hydrogen fusion process, creating a much more destructive explosion. Second, Israel is widely believed to have about 90 nuclear warheads (compared to the U.S.’s roughly 5,000), but they have never officially confirmed that they have any. 

Physically, nothing is preventing either the U.S. or Israel from using a nuclear weapon against Iran, but several factors work against it — the largest of which is the immediate moral implications. An estimated 204,000 people died when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and today’s weapons are many times more destructive. No country has been able to justify the indiscriminate killing of that many people with just one weapon since the end of World War II. But even putting those considerations aside for a moment, several other factors make the option extremely undesirable. 

For one, dated reports indicate that Russia has a “deadhand” nuclear deployment system, which would detect incoming ballistic nuclear missiles and deploy its own defensively. The potential for such a system being operational and active in Russia deters any country from using intercontinental ballistic missiles (launched from land) or submarine-launched ballistic missiles (from submarines), especially if their trajectory goes towards Russia.

However, the United States and Israel have air superiority in Iran, so they could feasibly drop a nuclear bomb from an airplane. Of course, the fear of reprisal from Russia or China still remains a deterrent, and support and recruitment for Iranian proxies in the region, like Hezbollah and the Houthis, would likely intensify. That could lead to terrorist attacks in Israel, against ships in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, against our other Middle East allies, and potentially in the United States.

Even more assured are the diplomatic ramifications. One of the stated reasons for the war was to aid the Iranian people, and deploying even a small nuclear weapon would be devastating to Iran’s civilian population, which would severely diminish the U.S. 

diplomatic standing globally. Even a targeted strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would cause incredible damage by detonating an unknown amount of fissile material. Even one thermonuclear bomb could severely damage a region hundreds of miles in diameter, contaminating groundwater and dispersing irradiated fallout that has been linked to increased incidence of thyroid cancer across an unknown area. Such an attack would fracture — if not destroy — standing U.S. alliances, cause global economic turmoil, destroy the credibility of disarmament pacts, and potentially even trigger impeachment proceedings against the president. 

Simply put, nuclear weapons damage the target country physically, but the sheer cost of human life, the possibility of reprisal, and the potential political damage against the aggressor remain massive deterrents against their usage.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Will California’s next governor be a Republican?

California’s all-party primary is on June 2, with the top two vote getters — regardless of party — advancing to the general election. Former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s exit from the race has upended the Democratic field, but on the Republican side, Steve Hilton appears likely to advance. Last week, Isaac spoke with the former political adviser and Fox News host about his upset bid in deep blue California. 

You can listen here or watch it here. 

Under the radar.

On Thursday, the United States signed an agreement with the Philippines to create a U.S. industrial hub on a 4,000-acre site on the island of Luzon. The land is a gift from the Philippines, and it will function as a special economic zone with diplomatic immunity under U.S. common law. Furthermore, the hub will create access to critical minerals — such as nickel, copper, chromite, and cobalt — independent of Chinese supply chains, giving U.S. companies reliable access to key inputs for high-tech manufacturing. Details on the development’s timeline have not been announced, but the Trump administration will reportedly ask U.S. companies to submit bids to take part in the construction, with investment from private-sector companies. The Wall Street Journal has the story. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition on the SAVE Act.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the Senate rejecting a war powers resolution.
• Nothing to do with politics: A young wrestler in Ohio gives an unforgettable interview.
• Our last survey: 1,747 readers responded to our survey on Anthropic’s Mythos model with 45% saying it will have a major effect on cybersecurity and the internet. “As a software engineer, I find the hype believable. I also think this is just the beginning,” one respondent said. “This seems like a topic that is being thrust into the headlines to escape the AI bubble that seems to be forming,” said another.

Have a nice day.

When a former student entered Pauls Valley High School in Oklahoma armed with two semi-automatic handguns, Principal Kirk Moore acted instinctively and courageously, charging and tackling the assailant. Moore took a bullet to the leg before he disarmed the shooter, but no students were harmed in the incident. To show their appreciation, the students voted Moore prom king at the school’s dance this weekend. “He would do anything to save those kids,” Madison Knighten, a former Pauls Valley student, said. WBAL News Radio has the story.

This is the Tangle Sunday Edition, a brief roundup of our independent politics coverage plus some extra features for your Sunday morning reading.

What the right is doodling.

What the left is doodling.

Suspension of the Rules

On this week’s episode, Isaac, Ari, and Kmele talk about growing divides on the right and the Eric Swalwell scandal. Plus, some discussion about demons? You can check that out here!

Monday, April 13.

Negotiations with Iran. On Sunday, April 12, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. Navy will impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz after peace negotiations with Iranian officials failed to produce a breakthrough. While Iran has largely restricted transit through the strait over the past month, it has allowed some ships to pass through by paying a toll; in other cases, vessels linked to friendly nations like China have been granted passage. President Trump suggested the U.S. blockade will shut down the waterway entirely, though U.S. Central Command later said the blockade would not apply to ships passing through the strait to or from non-Iranian ports. Note: Ceasefire negotiations are expected to resume in the coming days.

Our take: “Negotiations so far seem unproductive. Trump instituting a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz invites more questions, and makes global shipping more tenuous. I worry economic disruptions are on the horizon if talks don’t produce agreements, and soon.”

Reader Survey:

Tuesday, April 14.

The elections in Hungary. On Sunday, April 12, Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party defeated Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz Party in Hungary’s parliamentary elections, unseating the 16-year incumbent. With 98% of the vote counted, Orbán and Fidesz had won 56 parliamentary seats, while Magyar and Tisza Party won 137 seats, giving it a two-thirds supermajority. Orbán had been supported by the Trump administration, which viewed him as a key ally in the European Union. After the majority of votes were tallied, Orbán conceded the race but said he will remain active as an opposition leader. 

Our take: “Hungary’s election can teach us about modern conservatism in the West — especially in the United States. JD Vance shares Orbán’s postliberal beliefs that only a strong government can deliver needed cultural and economic change. Magyar’s victory shows how Western conservatism can evolve to avoid postliberalism.”

Reader Survey:

Wednesday, April 15.

The Swalwell accusations. On April 10, a former staffer for California gubernatorial candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) accused the Congressman of making unwanted advances, sexual assault, and rape. Three other women also came forward to accuse Swalwell of sexual misconduct, describing a pattern of sending explicit messages through Snapchat. On Tuesday, April 14, a fifth woman, Lonna Drewes, came forward to accuse Swalwell of drugging and raping her in a hotel room in 2018. Swalwell denies the allegations, but apologized for “mistakes in judgment” and dropped out of the gubernatorial race after losing prominent endorsements. On April 14, Swalwell officially resigned from Congress. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who was embroiled in a separate sexual misconduct scandal, resigned later on the same day. 

Our take: “Resignation is the right step for both Gonzales and Swalwell — the legal ramifications can come in time. The fact that these consequences took so long to arrive reflects poorly on both parties and the media. That said, serious stories take time, and these outlets rightly solidified their reports before releasing them.”

Reader Survey:

Thursday, April 16.

Anthropic’s latest artificial intelligence model. On April 7, artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic announced that it would not release its newest AI model, called Claude Mythos Preview, to the general public, citing potential security risks. Instead, Anthropic released the model to a select group of about 50 companies that will test its capabilities in a defensive security initiative known as Project Glasswing. According to the company, Mythos’s capabilities represent a “step change” in AI performance. During early testing, Mythos demonstrated advanced capabilities to identify and exploit previously undetected cybersecurity weaknesses across a wide range of servers and operating systems.

Our take: “I’m skeptical about a lot of AI hype, and this story is no exception. After talking with an expert, though, I can see how Anthropic could be trying to responsibly prepare for the release of a powerful tool. Lots of people are jumping to conclusions based on press releases, but I’ll wait to judge until I see the evidence myself.”

Reader Survey:

Friday, April 17.

In this week’s Friday edition, two Tangle editors debate the issue of data centers. Managing Editor Ari Weitzman argued that more data centers should be built, while Associate Editor Lindsey Knuth wrote that data center construction should slow down. This is a brand-new format in Tangle, and you can check it out here.

Further reading.

We’ve covered relations with Iran, international elections, misconduct allegations, and tech industry developments before. Plus, since we tried out a new debate format in this week’s Friday edition, we’re looking at what makes arguments good or bad. Take a look at our past coverage below:

• In April 2025 — roughly a year ago — we covered nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran.
• In July 2024, we covered election results in France.
• In September 2019, Isaac wrote about the sexual assault allegations against then-nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh.
• In March 2023, we covered the failure of Silicon Valley Bank.
• In June 2023, Isaac wrote about what makes a bad argument in a paywalled Friday edition.

What just happened.

Here’s a rundown of the major stories that have broken since our newsletter on Thursday.

• On Thursday, a federal judge issued an order blocking above-ground construction of President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom. On Friday, a federal appeals court overturned the order, allowing all construction to continue. (The order)
• On Thursday, President Trump nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz, who served in the military and as deputy surgeon general during the first Trump administration, as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (The nomination)
• On Thursday, President Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon following U.S.-brokered talks. The ceasefire went into effect on Friday at midnight. (The ceasefire)
• On Thursday, Russia carried out its deadliest attack in Ukraine this year, killing at least 17 people in a series of drone and missile strikes on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. (The strikes)
• On Thursday, authorities announced that former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) allegedly shot and killed his wife then himself following a domestic dispute. Fairfax’s wife had filed for divorce last year, and a judge had ordered him to move out of their home. (The shooting)
• On Thursday, Analilia Mejia (D) defeated Joe Hathaway (R) in a special election to fill New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s (D) House seat. Mejia’s victory narrows House Republicans’ majority to 218–214. (The election)
• On Friday, Congress approved an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until April 30. The act allows some federal agencies to collect and analyze communications outside of the United States without a warrant. (The extension)
• On Friday, Iran announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to all commercial traffic, saying the waterway would remain open for the duration of the U.S.–Iran ceasefire. (The reopening) However, on Saturday, Iran said it was closing the strait again and reportedly fired on tankers in the waterway. Iranian officials said they will keep the strait closed as long as the U.S. blockade continues. (The update)
• On Saturday, U.S. officials announced plans to begin boarding Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in international waters. (The plans)

Reader essay.

This week, Tangle reader Jo Madnani shares her experiences as a first-generation immigrant daughter of a first-generation immigrant — and how those experiences taught her about the power and pain of resilience.