Tangle - An AI sovereign wealth fund. Plus, Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) answers our questions about the Delaney Hall protests.

Episode Date: June 10, 2026

On Monday, June 1, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) published an op-ed in The New York Times proposing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, a law that would transfer a 50% ownership stake in artificial intelligence (AI) companies into a federal sovereign wealth fund through a one-time tax. “The creative work of millions of people… has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world,” Sanders said. “It’s time for us to reclaim it.” Simultaneously, President Donald Trump has been in discussions with Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI (the maker of ChatGPT), about transferring equity of the company into a government-run “public wealth fund.” Trump has also suggested the government could take equity stakes in other leading AI developers. Why are World Cup tickets so expensive?After much anticipation, the first games of the World Cup jointly hosted by Canada, the United States, and Mexico will begin on Thursday at the historic Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. Associate Producer, longtime soccer/football fan, and Portsmouth supporter Aidan Gorman started looking for tickets — but what he found was a story. Today, Aidan explores the high cost of World Cup tickets and FIFA’s embrace of dynamic pricing. Check out our latest video here!Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of partial government ownership of AI companies? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Will Kaback and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. And welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. I'm your host today, Senior Editor Will Keeback. It is Wednesday, June 10th, and I've spent the past month or so flying all over the country. for a mix of work and personal travel. And one of the side effects of that travel

is that it's given me time to dig into a beast of a book that's been sitting on my shelf since about the start of this year. And that is Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts. It's a semi-autobiographical, nearly 1,000-page novel that's set in India and follows an escaped prisoner who finds his way to what was then called Bombay and is quickly swept up in the city's current. It's full of captivating characters,

but the most riveting of them all might be the country of India itself. India has never been high on my personal list of places to visit, but Shantram has made it feel like an urgent mission to get there. And it's got me thinking what other books also use their setting to the same effect. I'd love to hear about the ones that may have affected you similarly, either in the comments of this episode or on the website or over email. And I've also been reflecting on how our relationship to stories like this

might change as artificial intelligence becomes a fixture in our lives. Today we're covering a related topic, and that's a couple of proposals that would transform the public's relationship with the leading AI companies and the way that government and business interacts. We're also going to share an exclusive interview with Senator Andy, Kim of New Jersey about our story on the Delaney Hall protests yesterday. And then we'll take a look at why today is a really big and historic day in Barcelona. Before we dive in, one more exciting piece of content to share with you. The World Cup is about to begin. And if you were thinking about

going, you may have taken a look at ticket prices for the games here in the U.S. or in Canada or in Mexico and been a little bit shocked at just how high they are, even for. the cheapest tickets just to get in the stadium. That was the exact experience that our associate producer, Aidan Gorman, had when he started to look for tickets and thought about coming over to the states from the UK to watch a few World Cup matches. As he looked deeper into why these tickets have gotten so pricey, he found a really interesting story, and in our latest YouTube video, he explores the high cost of these tickets and FIFA's

embrace of dynamic pricing. You can check out the latest video on our YouTube. YouTube channel and we'll drop the link to it in today's show notes. Highly recommend this one if you are interested in the World Cup, in soccer, but also just more broadly around how the economies of these sports and live events work. It's a great video and again, check it out on our YouTube channel. All right, now I'm going to hand it over to Audrey to take us through the start of today's episode and then I'll be back in a bit to read my take. Thanks, Will. First up, we have today's quick hits. Number one, the U.S.

military launched airstrikes against Iran in retaliation for a downed American helicopter that collided with an Iranian drone. U.S. Central Command said the strikes targeted Iranian air defenses and radar sites near the Strait of Hormuz. Number two, the House of Representatives voted 214 to 212 to pass a roughly $70 billion reconciliation bill that funds immigration and customs enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol through 2019. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill today. Number three, the Consumer Price Index for May showed a 0.5% month-over-month increase and 4.2% annual increase in prices, largely driven by increases in energy costs. Number four, Graham Platner won the Democratic nomination in Maine Senate primary and will

face Republican Senator Susan Collins in the general election. In South Carolina's Republican gubernatorial primary, Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evett and State Attorney General Alan Wilson advanced to a runoff, while Representative Nancy Mace finished fifth and endorsed Wilson. Separately, major news desks projected that Republican Steve Hilton will advance to the general election in California's gubernatorial race to face Javier Bacera, a Democrat. And number five. The National Association of Realtors announced that existing home sales increased by 3.2% on a monthly and annual basis in May, the fastest pace since December 2025. The foundation of AI is based on our collective human intelligence.

Our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images, and ideas spanning generations. The reality is that big tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their AI models without permission, without acknowledgement, and without compensation. The creative work of many millions of people, writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists, and ordinary people, has been stolen by the wealthiest people in the world. In the coming weeks, I will be introducing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest AI companies in our country.

On Monday, June 1st, Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, published an op-ed in the New York Times proposing the American AI sovereign wealth fund act. A law that would transfer a 50% ownership stake in artificial intelligence. or AI companies into a federal sovereign wealth fund through a one-time tax. Sanders said, quote, the creative work of millions of people has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It's time for us to reclaim it. Simultaneously, President Donald Trump has been in discussions with Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, about transferring equity of the company into a government-run public wealth fund. Trump has also suggested the government could take equity stakes and other leading AI developers.

For some more context, in February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce Departments to plan the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. A sovereign wealth fund, or SWF, is an investment vehicle managed by the government and created to generate long-term returns for the public. China, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates,

and other countries all manage SWFs. Norway's fund is the law. largest in the world, valued at over $2 trillion. Additionally, the state of Alaska manages an $89 billion sovereign wealth fund. In April, OpenAI published a proposal for the government to cooperate with AI companies to help create and manage artificial superintelligence. The plan argued the government should invest in updating the energy grid, developing guardrails and workers' rights, and spreading the benefits created by artificial

intelligence. Currently, large private tech companies OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX, are preparing for potential initial public offerings, which would allow public investors to purchase stock in the companies. OpenAI filed for an IPO on Monday, seeking an $852 billion valuation following a $122 billion funding round, backed by the UAE's sovereign wealth fund. Anthropic, the company behind Claude,

recently completed a $65 billion funding round and is seeking a $965 billion valuation. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has for proposed that his company would create orbital data centers and is reportedly seeking a $1.8 trillion valuation. SpaceX is expected to go public on Friday. On Saturday, President Trump appeared to endorse a version of Sanders' idea. Trump said, quote, there's something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public, adding that he and Sanders aren't that far apart on their economic views. A sovereign wealth fund managing stakes in tech companies

has generated some interest in skepticism from industry experts. Samuel Hammond, director of AI policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, said, quote, even if taking partial ownership of frontier AI companies can make sense on paper, in practice it's a recipe for political favoritism and corruption. Next up, we'll give some reactions to the idea from the right and the left. Then I'll pass it off to Senior Editor Will Kayback for his take. We'll be right back after this quick break.

First up, what the right is saying. The Wright criticizes Sanders' proposal, calling it a socialist policy. Some say that public ownership would allow the government to control information. Others express concern about the proposal's support from young people. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called the proposal a road to AI state socialism. Mr. Sanders wants to force companies to hand over half of their equity to the government. He calls this a one-time 50% tax on company shares. But it is an tax as most economists would define the term, and certainly not how America's founders

did. For all intents and purposes, this would be a government expropriation. It would violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on government taking property without just compensation. Mr. Sanders doesn't conceal his aim for the government to use its ownership stake to boss around AI companies and redistribute the investment gains, if there are any, to voters. Progressives call this universal basic capital, since citizens would supposedly get an indirect stake in companies, but it's socialism with a capitalist false front. The U.S. leads the world in AI because entrepreneurs and investors have combined to innovate and compete. Political control would stifle that growth and cede leadership to China.

It would be a tragedy for the ages if AI became the road to American socialism. In the Washington Examiner, Mark Whittington argued Sanders wants to seize the means of information. Sanders' proposal would give the government, veto power over decisions by AI companies that, in his judgment, would be harmful to the working class. Do we really trust the government to have control over information, which is what feeds AI systems and makes them run? One of the features of tyrannies has been control of information, whether traditional news sources such as newspapers, TV and radio, or the newer sources, such as social media. Democracy thrives on access to accurate information. Tyrannies, whether they be Nazi Germany,

Soviet, Russia, Islamic Iran, or Sanders' collectivist utopia, thrive on the control and stifling of information. We should no more favor government control of AI than we should favor control of the media, traditional or internet. It can only lead to abuse and a lack of transparency. The free market assures that AI will be free of dishonesty and deceit. In the New York Post, Betsy McCoy said, Youth Support is a red flag.

Sanders's bill is going nowhere while there's a republic. Republican majority in Congress. But ignore it at your peril. It's a warning. Outright confiscation is the left's latest scheme to remedy inequality and pay for ever-expanding public benefits. Who likes these ideas? Young voters. Members of Generation Z in particular have a rose-colored view of socialism, communism, and collectivism. According to a recent Heartland Institute, Rasmussen reports poll, nearly 60% of likely voters, ages 18 to 24, wanted Democratic Socialist in the White House in 2008. Some states are wisely pushing back. Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a new law last year requiring his state's public schools to teach the brutal realities of life

under communism. Texas has passed a similar law. Confiscating capital is the fastest way to kill an economy as history is proven again and again. Sanders' AI theft scheme is just the beginning. The best defense, the only defense, is an educated electorate. Considering the misguided, attitudes of many Gen Z voters, there's no time to waste. Now, what the left is saying. The left is open to the idea, with some praising Sanders' proposal. Others say Trump and Sanders are taking a similar stance for different reasons. Still others question Trump's motivation for government intervention in industry.

In Gizmodo, A.J. Dellinger called Bernie Sanders the only Democrat lawmaker willing to govern on AI. Bernie Sanders might be 84 years old, but he sure acts more in touch with the general public's views on AI than most other lawmakers. On one hand, it'd be better if Bernie didn't pull his punches on this and just called for straight-up nationalization of the frontier labs. It's already clear the technology is a potential danger for all sorts of reasons, and the idea that it should be held by a handful of guys who are heavily invested in making themselves rich means public interest will never be their first consideration. On the other hand, Sanders' proposal does a nice job of calling the bluff of the AI industry.

It's unlikely the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act goes anywhere because basically no legislation goes anywhere these days, but it's another indicator that Sanders is actually taking this moment seriously. He's one of the few Democratic-aligned politicians actively trying to regulate AI at a federal level and considering the possible consequences of this technology being operated by ungovernable billionaires. In New York Magazine, Best Levin suggested that Sanders and Trump are interested in AI stakes for very different reasons. Trump's enthusiasm for giving the government equity in these companies seemingly shares little in common with Sanders' vision,

which is about, among other things, protecting workers and using the money to ensure people can afford their blood pressure medication. Trump, on the other hand, seems most excited about the idea of picking a winning stock, telling reporters on Friday that he should be a stockbroker. Also likely at play here is that the notion that AI is deeply unpopular has broken through. And the president, who was previously content to basically let AI rip, would like to capitalize on that. Sanders says he will introduce the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in the coming weeks. On Friday, SpaceX will go public, at which point millions of Americans will automatically

own a piece of Elon Musk's firm, though obviously not in a way that will give them any kind of say whatsoever. Finally, in MS Now, Steve Bennin said that Trump's considering the proposal adds to an unexpected pattern. As last week got underway, Donald Trump used his social media platform to take a swipe out of all people, communists. He said, has anyone ever seen a happy communist? With this rhetorical question still rattling around the algorithm, it was rather ironic to see the Republican end the week calling for government stake in yet another private industry. He also told reporters that there was some overlap between his economic vision and the Vermont socialists. The debate, can and should continue about the merits of such a policy. But it's hard not to notice the familiarity of the

circumstances. Trump seems to like condemning those who disagree with him as communists. He also seems oddly interested in having the government taking ownership of parts of a variety of private industries. The president, by his own admission, isn't eyeing stakes only in AI companies. That's it for what the ride and left are saying. Now, I'll pass it off to senior editor Will Will Kayback for his take. Thank you, Audrey. All right, this is Will, back to read my take. Instinctively, it feels strange to see Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump

on the same side of any issue. But they both have an economic populist appeal and a willingness to involve the government in private affairs that makes this idea make a bit more sense. While Trump's ideas on government involvement in AI companies are less defined than what Sanders has proposed, which is the bill, the AI sovereign wealth fund act, they're both following the same instinct on the government's role in technological development. And as the president himself said,

they aren't that far apart on many economic issues. Descending from this 30,000 foot view, though, some of the differences between them do become apparent at the ground level. For Sanders, AI is a public resource, since it was trained on data drawn from collective human knowledge. Trump appears to see AI as an appreciating investment that a strong president can leverage for the public's gain. You can see these different starting points in where their ideas end up. Senator Sanders would use a one-time 50% tax to transfer private stock and board seats from the companies to the public. President Trump has suggested that the government should maximize profits from an ownership stake in these companies, but without that same decision-making power.

both ideas would take a huge chunk of potential earnings from these companies that are seeking to go public with valuations that are the size of small countries and in some cases maybe even medium-sized countries. So you might expect that the companies would be opposed to this idea, but interestingly, they seem to be on board. OpenAI and Anthropic have each thrown their weight behind putting some of their value into sovereign wealth funds for the public's benefit. Elon Musk supports universal basic income for Americans, funded by AI profits. And when a Republican president, a Democratic socialist senator, and the leading AI firms and CEOs agree on something like this, well, we should consider their idea. But do I think it is a good idea? I honestly don't. I agree with Sanders that AI was built on human writing, art,

code, knowledge, and more. And I also agree that AI models have been trained on this knowledge without permission or compensation in most cases. But those points don't employ. But those points don't imply that the government should have outsized control over these companies. For one, the use of that power would vary widely depending on who exactly is in charge of the federal government. Sanders has been an outspoken critic of the Trump family's alleged self-dealing through the presidency. Does he really support giving this administration powerful voting shares in companies that soon could be worth trillions of dollars? I don't think so. His plan also doesn't specify how the government's voting shares would be exercised, but it's

hard to imagine that the executive branch wouldn't have a large say. Even in a post-Trump world, a future president could use that power to push for policies that produce an immediate political benefit, like a stock market boost before a midterm that doesn't serve the public in the long run. It sounds nice to frame these voting shares as the publics, but in reality, politicians or their appointees would be the ones wielding this power. And right now in this administration, we're seeing firsthand how that power can be abused. Separately, I'm wary of the idea that governments are entitled to dividends or board seats if public knowledge contributed to a technology's development. To me, it's downstream of an argument that lawmakers like Senator Elizabeth Warren have long made about

raising taxes on corporations. Quote, you built a factory out there, good for you, Warren said back in 2014. Quote, but I want to be clear, you moved your goods to the market on roads, that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for, end quote. This sentiment appeals to a sense of fairness

and rightfully notes that all companies benefit from public contributions in some way. But this rationale for increasing taxes would combine with the government holding equity in private companies in a dangerous way. Should the government receive a stake in every private company that uses public roads or hires workers who went to public schools.

Well, AI might feel like an extreme case that warrants this level of government involvement, but I think if we crack that door open, it will legitimize other cases too. Opening that door could create benefits, yes, but it also carries serious risks, which I'll talk about in a little bit. Sanders also suggests that the government can't change AI company's behavior without a seat on their board. But as policy experts like Cato's Ted Dehaven have noted, the government can exert influence through regulations, taxes, contracts, and lawsuits. The senator doesn't explain why these existing mechanisms are insufficient to address AI risks, and it feels like an admission that Congress just isn't capable of doing its job.

That very well may be, but Congress's inaction or ineptitude doesn't justify a hugely expanded federal presence in the AI sector. Now, President Trump comes at this issue from a different angle. His vision of federal investments in AI tracks closely with his view of the government's role in important private industries. His administration has followed up on its 10% stake in Intel last August with stakes in quantum computing firms and rare earth mineral companies this year. He's touted the Intel deal in particular as proof of that strategy's success, and in financial terms, it absolutely has been. The government's stake was up 300% and worth roughly $36 billion in late April. And now with several major AI firms planning to go public soon, not only will this Intel stock likely rise further,

but the president also sees an even bigger money-making opportunity to work with these AI companies directly. But still, even taking that financial opportunity for what it is, I don't think that that revenue is worth further transgressing the boundary between government and private businesses. The risks, like insider self-dealing, abuse of public funds, inserting political considerations into company decisions, or a catastrophic failure of an invested company, are all real. And even if the Intel deal hasn't yet manifested these downsides, they would only deepen with AI companies in the federal portfolio.

The more government money is spread around high-stakes sectors, the greater the liability becomes. AI is still a relatively nascent industry. So what Trump and Sanders are proposing here is difficult to compare to what other countries have done. But we have seen sovereign wealth funds take huge losses or fail outright after risky investments or global economic downturns. In 2010, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund took a roughly 70% loss on its $10.3 billion stake in the Swiss Bank UBS amid the global financial crisis. Separately, Brazil established a national fund in 2008 to support critical domestic industries, like the country's majority state-owned oil company. But after that company's share price cratered, Brazil had to shudder its fund just 11 years after it launched.

You could also look at the mortgage industry before the 2008 financial crisis, when the United States economy became dependent on a few banks that we were told were too big to fail. And that's a lesson on what happens when the government doesn't properly play its oversight. role. Again, none of these parallels are perfect to assess a prospective AI wealth fund. But these cases do show the risk of outsized investment, particularly in turbulent economic times, which we are in right now. Both Sanders's and Trump's cases for government involvement in AI companies rest on the belief that this technology will be so disruptive, so unlike anything that has come before it, that the government needs to take unprecedented steps to give the public a handhold as the technology takes off.

But even if you believe that, I still think these proposals are ill-advised. This merging of government and business would create massive conflicts of interest for the politicians in charge of managing the public's stake. But the public alone would shoulder the risk of bad investments and oversight. I personally think AI will cause economic and societal disruptions that necessitate some form of a government response. In fact, AI already is causing those disruptions. But the tools to address them already exist, and if they're properly utilized, they can be effective without this kind of risky and oversized government involvement.

The uncomfortable reality is that we are staring down in uncertain and often scary future with AI. But I don't think that throwing away the principles that have long grounded our government gets us any closer to meeting that challenge. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take. now I'm going to pass it over to executive editor Isaac Saul to share an interview that he conducted this morning with Senator Andy Kim, a Democrat in New Jersey. I'll let Isaac explain the nature of his interview

and how it came to be, but the gist of it is that we got Kim on the phone this morning to talk a little bit more about the protests that are happening at the detention center and what he thinks should happen as a result. Isaac, over to you. Hello, this is Isaac. That's my phone ring.

with Senator Andy Kim, the Democrat from New Jersey on the other line. Yesterday, we did a podcast about the Delaney Hall Detention Center, and I'd actually reached out to Senator Kim the day before to see if I could speak to him because he, of course, was at the center of this controversy. He is a New Jersey senator. He had been pepper sprayed during protests outside Delaney Hall, and I wanted to hear from him about what had happened, and what his view of what was going on was and what the latest was.

Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to get on the phone before the edition came out, but when he called me back this morning, I figured why not share a little bit about our conversation. So today, we're doing something a little different. We're just going to drop in this interview, a senator's view, on the story we covered yesterday. It's a 10 or 15 minute phone call that I had with Senator Kim. This is the raw audio from that phone call. and in it, Senator Kim talks about his conversations with DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, his response to Mark Wayne Mullen's accusations that he was spreading falsehoods and engaging in political theater, what he saw when he went into Delaney Hall, the kinds of people he met there and the challenges they were facing, and what his alternate path is if we're not going to hold people in this detention center. It was a short interview, but interesting, and I think very much worth your time.

So here it is me and Senator Andy Kim. Hey, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, I can. How are you doing? Okay, I'm doing okay. Thanks for hopping on. I appreciate it. Do you mind if I record while we chat just so I don't have to take notes?

Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, awesome. So first of all, just curious if you could just kind of tell me in your own words, you know, why you went to Delaney Hall a couple weeks ago when you got pepper sprayed, sort of what was your top-level goal what you were hoping to do while you were there? Well, I had been to Delaney Hall a couple times before that, but this particular time I went because of the protest that was happening inside, the hunger strike and the wider protest. I had talked to a number of the family members of those inside, those who were protesting, and I wanted to go and talk to these detainees and see and hear directly from them about their concerns.

and see what I could do to try to fit to try to address their needs. What did you see when you were there? And what do we know about the conditions inside right now? Yeah. Well, I think two things on this front. You know, first and foremost, there were real, you know, real deficiencies there, things that just shouldn't be accepted anywhere. I'd say the things that really stuck out to me was just the lack of medical care, especially to some of the people who were most in need. I've pointed out before, you know, there were women in there that were pregnant, that were not getting the care that they need, and we're just very worried about what could happen to them,

especially when there was another woman in there that had a miscarriage. and, you know, the said that the staff there told her that she did not have a miscarriage and that it was just menstrual cramps and that really worried a lot of the other women that their needs won't be taken seriously and that they would be treated the same

as that woman who ended up having the miscarriage. You know, there were just numerous, I mean, like countless concerns about not getting prescription medication and you know and just the concerns of that level especially with varying degrees of seriousness of their needs for that medication

and you know and like Delaney Hall just like geo group just runs just what appeared to be just like a really ad hoc operation like when they're handing out medication they're just like flipping through a handwritten notebook you know like I don't really don't understand how they're keeping track of all the needs of hundreds of detainees.

That was the most egregious. I mean, I certainly heard complaints about food. One man ran to me and showed me this milk carton that was like congealed solid. It really just, you know, raising concerns that this is not being stored, you know, that some of the food items are not being stored properly. you know some of the units were just unbearably hot

and it wasn't even a particularly hot day but they said that there's just no no airflow you know large concerns about just the sanitary nature especially the bathrooms that went in there and it's quite filthy the a lot of times the

detainees are are you know forced to do the cleaning and other things not being compensated to do so. So those are some of the things that I had heard on the condition side. The detainees were very clear, though, that it wasn't just the conditions that they were protesting.

It was the fact that many of them been there for 8, 10, 12 months, and they didn't know, like, when any of this will be resolved. And that, you know, when they were just kind of feel like they were just, like, held in limbo, and they, you know, kind of felt, me that they think that that's intentional. They think it's intentional that this is an effort to try to just break their spirits so that they give up. And, you know, when they were telling me about some of like the retaliation from the protests, it kind of fits into this broader concern about just like the psychological effort that that seems to be underway, you know, threatening the protesters with transfers. They, in fact, you know, took one of the protests organizers. and transferred into another system in the middle of the night. And, you know, did that as sort of a very clear threat to the other is that if you continue this protest, you will be transferred as well.

And, you know, we've now seen, you know, probably over 200 transfers of detainees out of Delaney Hall just in the last, you know, two weeks or so, probably, you know, similar to what we had seen, what happened to that one organizer. You know, they're being transferred around. They're being, their units are being split up. They're being told that, you know, they continue on with this type of behavior,

other types of, you know, family visitations will be canceled, other things like that. So, you know, it's just, they're being threatened saying that, you know, if they don't voluntarily agree to be deported, that, you know, they will be forcibly deported to places like the Democratic Republic of Congo. So there's, you know, this kind of psychological threats as well is part of this. I'm curious. I mean, what alternate paths you feel like we might have, you know, do you think Delaney Hall should be shut down? What can we do in its place with the migrants who are here,

you know, potentially illegally or have immigration proceedings? Like, what's the other option in your view? Well, there's very clear other option, but let's take some of the people that I met in there. You know, there's a man in there who has a skeletal, muscular degenerative disease, was at first not giving crutches or a wheelchair and really unable to get around. Eventually was given a wheelchair, but then put into medical isolation for over four months, not able to get around at all, not able to live anything close to what we would go. call, you know, a life of dignity. After we shine the light on his case, he was released last week.

And as a result, like, it just shows you that, like, this is all things that can be happening without detaining tens of thousands of people who don't have violent criminal backgrounds. Dwayne Hall is a place where they are not actually able to hold anybody that does have, you a violent background. It is a place for what they call low and medium low concerns of the detainees. So, like, there's literally no one in there that is, as a, you know, certainly a violent criminal background or a significant criminal background. Why are we spending so much money detaining all of these people,

including, you know, an 18-year-old high school senior, who, by the way, we also shined the light on two weeks ago, and then last week was released. Oh, and by the way, these pregnant women that were held inside, they've now been released. Like, it shows that, like, we don't have to lock up tens of thousands of people with no criminal background

for them to be able to go through the legal, judicial process, as it should. Plus, it clearly shows the backlog and the problem that is there. And unfortunately, it appears to be an intentional decision by this administration not to surge on immigration judges. They are spending ungodly amounts of money surging up on the enforcement side of immigration with no commensurate level to surge up on the judicial process and to be able to adjudicate these cases. So again, they're creating all of this pent-up energy there, and it's just causing more and more strain. This is why they have to have more and more detention facilities.

It's not just that they're locking up more people. It's just that they are not having the outflow when it comes to detainees getting their day in court. When I go to detainee Hall and they show me a piece of paper that shows that one judge has 74 cases before them in one. day, you know, you see the problems that we have in this system, not just getting through the numbers, but doing so in a way that is anywhere resembling fairness of our judicial process. So without that lack of surge, in fact, the Trump administration has cut and fired immigration judges. It's just making matters worse, and that's why, you know, many of these detainees just feel

like this is all intentional, that the system is, unfortunately, working as the Trump administration wants it to, which is maximized. enforcement, minimizing judicial process, and as a result, just trying to inflict as much cruelty and pressure upon these detainees as possible, which I certainly feel. But, you know, if they're able to release, you know, these people that I've, you know, we've shown a lot shine the light on, like, how can they justify what they did, and locking up some of these people for months and months and months, and then just on the whim deciding, okay, let's let them out.

And then we can handle that outside of this walls of doing all. Right. So I think just to say it back, I mean, just to make sure I think, and I think I understand your position here, it's, you know, we don't have to hold all these people in a detention center like this. We can release people who are in a threat to the public. We can increase funding for the judges and the adjudication of these immigration cases. keep the people who are a threat to public safety in a place like detention,

and in a place like Delaney Hall, and basically just, you know, work to reduce the number of people being held in a place like that and increase the amount of adjudication that's happening. Yeah, we have over 3 million case backlog. And look, that has compounded over time, but there can and needs to be a solution to that in terms of hiring of more judges, again,

to do it in a fair process. And understanding that, like, a lot of this can be remedied if we're able to process judicial cases in a matter of weeks rather than months and years, which is what we're seeing right now and causing so much of this pressure upon our system. I want to get one last question in before. I know you have to run. Secretary Mullen made a comment. I'm curious to get your response.

to. He said that the two of you have had a good relationship in the past and that it was unfortunate you were spreading lies about Delaney Hall and accused you of political theater for what happened there. And of Delaney Hall, he said this isn't a holiday inn. Illegal aliens are at this detention facility because they broke our nation's laws. Ice has arrested brutal criminals in New Jersey, including murderers, rapists, sex offenders, child predators, and drug traffickers. They're provided medical treatment, a clean place to sleep and three meals a day plus commissary. I'm wondering how you respond to that? Well, look, first of all, I'll just say,

you know, Secretary Mullen and I are continuing to talk, and I'm going to continue to share with him what I see and what I hear at Delaney Hall, as well as some of my thoughts on how we can try to move forward. My job is to govern. His job is to govern, and I hope that the two of us recognize that we need to push forward You know, the people at Delaney Hall, they need remedy now.

They can't wait for some new Congress. They can't wait for some new president. You know, I'm just going to continue to push hard on that front. I obviously disagree with his characterization of what's happening at Delaney Hall. And I think everyone in there recognizes that, and he's recognized that they're not going to be getting four-star treatment. But it's just a matter of just a baseline of dignity and decency. in this country and how people, human beings should be treated.

I believe that human beings should be treated as human beings. And especially if they have medical needs and concerns, when I go there and last time around, they refused to let me talk to any detainees. DHS, ICE is clearly in, you know, they're clearly in damage control mode right now and refusing to let me talk to any deputies over. and I see women in the women's unit

waving their hands frantically to get my attention and point towards a woman in the back who's curled up fetal position in her bed. Like, you know, and clearly, you know, and in the medical attention she needs, they refuse to let me talk to her. Now, basically, we were able to follow up

and we have her name and we're pushing for her to get medical treatment. I'm trying to see what to get her medically released. Like, those are real problems. It's like that and things that we can and should be trying to address. So, you know, all of those that he talked about

like this, violent criminals, as I said, that's not the Lany Hall. People have the Lainty Hall. The staff are specifically told me they cannot handle those types of people. They do not have the kind of

facility to be able to secure against people who are violent criminal selling of or for drug trafficking and other things like that. So you have, you know, hundreds of people at DeLaney Hall, the vast, vast, vast majority of them,

no criminal record at all. You know, people like this 18-year-old high school senior, we can do better. And frankly, it would be a lot cheaper for the American people. When we're looking at just the sheer volume of cost that this has Delaney Hall nearly a billion-dollar contract to do this on. And again, that also just highlights the brokenness of this process

when you have this for-profit effort that, you know, the new head of ICE, you know, when was his job before he started at ICE last week, he was a senior executive at COEO group, which is the company that runs the Lainty Hall. And, you know, just see this revolving door corruption, and that's something that we need to stop. Senator Kim, thank you so much for the time.

I appreciate it. Yeah, absolutely. Stay in touch. I mean, a lot that we're still pushing on this. And I'm also really just showing that Delaney Hall is not just some, it's not one bad apple. It's a systemic failure. And I've been lifting up, you know, the problems that are happening at a lot of these other detention facilities around the country. You know, yesterday I was with the YouTube show host, Miss Rachel, highlighting what's happening down at Dilley Detention Center, which is detaining lots of children, you know, all the things that are out there.

So we'll keep you posted as I'm trying to show that this is a problem all over the country, not just at Delaney Halls. Awesome. I appreciate the time a lot, and we'll be in touch. Thank you. All right, bye-bye. All right, that's my interview with Senator Kim. Thank you guys for tuning in. I'm going to send it back to Audrey for the rest of the pod.

Thanks, Isaac. Next up, we have our This Day in History segment. On June 10, 1926, Spanish architect Anthony Godi passed. away at age 74. Goddy left an enormous impact on the field, and specifically on the city of Barcelona, which is home to many of his distinctive buildings that eschew straight lines and feature organic shapes and surprising symmetries. Upon his death, however, his greatest work was left unfinished. La Sagrada Familia. Work continued on the church for over a century due to its intricate details and complexity. Godi designed the church's internal pillars to resemble a stone

forest, and its exterior to feature 18 spires, the tallest of which would be 566 feet, making it the tallest church in the world. Now, 100 years after Godi's death, today will be known as the day the Sagrada Familia reached its final height. The church's four-armed cross was placed atop its central spire two days ago, and Pope Leo XIV will bless the completion of the Sagrada familia later today. Although internal work is expected to continue on the church, the crane that surrounded Gaudi's dream are no longer a feature of the Barcelona skyline. Gadi, who is buried at the church, can rest a little easier now that his dream has become reality. Last but not least, we have our Havn Ice Day story.

The ancient Croatian city of Dubrovnik has garnered social media fame and drawn visitors from all over the world for its robust stray cat population. Cats have been a staple in the city since its founding over 1,400 years ago, and they have long played an important role in controlling the rat population. Now, residents go out of their way to care for their feline compatriots, and an organization called SOS-Dabrovnik cats collects donations, coordinates medical care, and arranges foster homes for the cats. The organization has also set up a social media campaign to capture images of the cats for a charity postcard collection.

Nice news has the story and pictures of the cats, and you can find them in the show notes. That's all we have for today. If you would like to support our work, head over to reetangle.com, where you can grab a newsletter subscription, a podcast subscription, or a bundle subscription that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. In the meantime, for Isaac and everyone else, this has been Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead. Signing off. Have a great day and peace. Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by

managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editor's Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.