Tangle - Appeals court greenlights Trump's National Guard deployment.

Starting point is 00:00:00 From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the National Guard ruling in Portland. Actually, Ari is going to be sharing his take today on that. I've got a staff dissent to the position that Ari lays out. But a little more complication here in the legal arguments than maybe there were a couple weeks ago because the government kind of pivoted its argument.

Starting point is 00:00:54 And it's an interesting case, although I think a little bit scary. Speaking of scary, tomorrow I'm going to be releasing a podcast and newsletter that kind of zooms out on this current moment. And I got to tell you right now, it is not an optimistic piece. I'm wrestling with it, working on it now with our editors, going back and forth on, you know, some debates that we're having internally. But yeah, I'm a little worried about the moment that we're in, I think, justifiably. And I feel like it's worth putting a lot of this stuff down in one complete package, which I'm trying to do tomorrow. This will be a member's only piece as all our Friday editions are. So if you want to unlock the full thing, you'll need to subscribe. But I do think that it'll be worth it.

Starting point is 00:01:42 And we'll be a good reference point to look back on, you know, in a year or two to kind of see how some of it has aged. Finally, in lighter news, I want to remind you that tomorrow, it's happening. Our third ever live event is here. We are in Irvine, California already. The entire team now is on the West Coast. I'm going to be joined on stage by our editor at large, Camille Foster, Axios reporter Alexei, Alex Thompson, and the Young Turks co-host, Anna Casparian.

Starting point is 00:02:11 Tickets are still available, and you can grab them with a link in today's episode description. All right, with that, I'm going to pass it over to Will, who's going to break down today's main topic. And then Ari will be jumping in for my take, and I'll be back for the staff dissent today. All right, let's get into today's quick hits. Number one, the Trump administration reportedly lifted a restriction on Ukraine's use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies.

Starting point is 00:02:45 And on Tuesday, Ukraine struck a Russian explosives and fuel plant using a British-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missile. However, President Donald Trump denied that he had given this authorization. Number two, the North Carolina House voted 66 to 48 along party lines to adopt a new state congressional map that's expected to help Republicans gain an additional seat in the U.S. House. Number three, President Trump said the entire east wing of the White House will be demolished as part of the construction of a White House ballroom to host state dinners and other events. Before construction began, Trump said the east wind would not be impacted by the project. Number four, the U.S. military carried out an eighth confirmed strike against an alleged drug trafficking boat, killing two. The strike was in the eastern Pacific off South America, whereas previous strikes targeted boats in the Caribbean. And finally, number five, the Senate voted 54 to 46 on advancing a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the

Starting point is 00:03:54 government and end the ongoing shutdown, which failed for the 12th time to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass the funding bill. Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, also gave a nearly 23-hour speech on the Senate floor in protest of the Trump administration's perceived authoritarian actions. So this is a ruling. in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that says the Trump administration, as soon as right now, can send in members of the Oregon National Guard onto the streets of Portland. That's important because it's only the state of Oregon's National Guard.

Starting point is 00:04:35 The other states that the judge had also said can't come into Oregon, it was a separate ruling that had not been appealed, and so this appeals court only dealt with this. And they say it's all about presidential deference. They say the president has the power to do this, and judges cannot say that he does not. Now, there was one dissenting opinion here, which I thought was very interesting. And she says in the dissent, quote, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer. She's asking for an en banc review, which means the entire Ninth Circuit gets together and

Starting point is 00:05:07 redesign to this case. We'll see if that ends up actually happening. On Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled two to one that President Donald Trump can deploy Oregon National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon, finding it was likely that the president had, quote, lawfully exercised his statutory authority, end quote, in mobilizing the guard. The decision lifted District Judge Karen Imurgut's temporary block on the Oregon soldier's deployment, and the Trump administration asked the judge to lift a second order barring all federalized National Guard troops from deploying to the city.

Starting point is 00:05:43 Immigut gave the state and city of Portland 24 hours to respond to this request. On October 4th, Immigut, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order after Oregon and Portland sued to stop President Trump from deploying 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the city to maintain public order. Trump alleged that protests against federal immigration agents had become uncontrollably violent, a claim the city and state denied. Immigate ruled against Trump, finding that his characterization of the situation was, quote, simply untethered to the facts. Then on October 5th, Emmergut issued a second order blocking any National Guard troop deployments to Portland after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseff called up Texas National Guardsmen and attempted to send them to the city.

Starting point is 00:06:31 During oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit panel, attorneys for the Trump administration contended that the deployment was necessary to address rising unrest and protect against future violence. The majority of the panel appeared sympathetic to this argument. Conversely, Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacey Chaffin argued that protest in the city did not meet the definition of a rebellion necessary to meet the legal pretext for National Guard deployment. In its ruling, the majority wrote, quote, some of these protests have been peaceful, but many have turned violent, and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers and the building, adding, quote, even if the president may exaggerate the extent of the

Starting point is 00:07:11 problem on social media, this does not change that the other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements, end quote. Judge Susan Graber dissented, writing, quote, the record contains no evidence whatsoever that immigration and customs enforcement was unable to either protect its Portland facility or to execute the immigration laws it is charged with enforcing, end quote. Judge Imurgut is expected to rule in the coming days on the Trump administration's second request to lift the temporary restraining order on all National Guard troop

Starting point is 00:07:44 deployments to Portland. Furthermore, Emmergut has scheduled a trial on the full lawsuit by the state and city for October 29th. Today we'll share arguments from the left and right on the Ninth Circuit's ruling, followed by managing editor Ari Weitzman's take. Here's what the left is saying. The left sharply criticizes the decision, suggesting the court was overly deferential to executive power. Some say the ruling is a blow to civil liberties. Others worry that the court is paving the way for more serious authoritarian abuses.

Starting point is 00:08:37 In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern wrote, Trump's crackdown on Portland is bad enough. One judge has a plan to make it worse. as bad as Monday's decision was, it could have been far worse. In a concurrence, Judge Ryan Nelson argued that the judiciary has no power at all to review or halt a president's deployment of the National Guard to suppress alleged domestic unrest, Stern said. In Nelson's view, Trump enjoys absolute discretion to send troops into American cities for any reason he deems necessary, and no court may stand in his way. It may be tempting to dismiss this argument as Nelson's audition for a Supreme Court seat, but it must be taken seriously because it is precisely

Starting point is 00:09:19 what the Trump administration is now asking the Supreme Court to embrace. And it is wrong from top to bottom, Stern wrote. Nelson wrote that the current statute uses similar language to its predecessors, disregarding Congress's deletion of a clause that gave more deference to the president. But as Judge Graber pointed out in dissent, today's statute includes careful limitations on the president's discretion. And those limits create a judicial responsibility for courts to rebuff the president when he deploys the guard in a situation far divorced from what Congress envisioned. In Washington Monthly, Garrett Epps criticized the court greenlighting Trump's Portland troop surge. The panel's per curiam opinion upholds a militarized response to this civic impudence

Starting point is 00:10:05 by noting that the Department of Homeland Security had to bring in some out-of-state personnel to handle the June demonstrations, Epps said. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the aim of the troop interventions in California, Chicago, and Portland is a massive shifting of these civil liberties goalposts. To this administration and its supporters, protest itself is violence and rebellion. Imurgat, a Trump appointee, contemplated facts and law and ruled against the administration, the way we teach in law school that a good judge must sometimes do. Her pains, however, Enter the accusation from Trump aide Stephen Miller of legal insurrection. Epps wrote.

Starting point is 00:10:47 Such rhetoric is undoubtedly part of the campaign to intimidate federal judges, Republican or Democratic. And of course, some judges are predisposed to obedience. Judge Nelson of the panel wrote in a separate opinion that, as far as he is concerned, no court has jurisdiction to review Trump's order ever, no matter what. In above the law, Joe Patrice said the appeals court laid a little more trash, on the authoritarianism express. This decision becomes another collectible in the White House's effort to string together stepwise court victories toward laying the legal groundwork for unilateral authoritarianism, Patrice wrote. That's really what's going on here. The administration is

Starting point is 00:11:28 fully aware that they don't need the National Guard to secure ICE from eight hippies, but they're counting on judges like Nelson and Bade to write opinions establishing that Trump's subjective assessment of danger justifies military deployment. After paying lip service to recent Ninth Circuit precedent, clarifying that the White House can't make unfounded declarations to justify sending troops, the majority strung together a series of anecdotes that amount to little more than, quote, there was once a protest, regardless of whether it actually prevented law enforcement from functioning, and said that's enough to make Trump's decision colorable, Patrice said. That's not legalism, it's epistemic control. The right to define what counts as a threat, what counts as a

Starting point is 00:12:11 rebellion, and what counts as the ability to execute laws. And now here's what the right is saying. The right supports the ruling, saying Trump has sufficient grounds to deploy the guard. Some note the historic rationale for this executive authority. Others say the left's view of deployment power is hypocritical. In the Washington Examiner, Byron New York said the court's ruling shows why Trump is right about the National Guard. The anti-Trump world celebrated earlier this month when a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump from federalizing National Guard troops in Portland. Of course, the White House appealed, and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Imerga, giving the president another victory in the courts.

Starting point is 00:13:05 York wrote. The new ruling rests on very clear reasoning. There have been extensive and frequent attacks on an immigration and customs enforcement facility in Portland. The president of the United States has the authority to protect federal installations. So Trump can order National Guard troops to protect a federal installation that is under attack.

Starting point is 00:13:24 It's a ruling so based in common sense that it should be non-controversial, York said. The key part of the decision, is the judge's recitation of the factual background of the case. Quote, as a result of the destruction caused by protesters and threats to the building, the opinion said, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to close the facility for more than three weeks from June 13th to July 7th, end quote. That, of course, significantly impeded the work of the federal government.

Starting point is 00:13:53 In hot air, Ed Morrissey wrote about the Ninth Circuit overturning the lower court. For the second time this year, the Ninth Circuit has had to reverse a lower court on presidential authority to protect federal buildings and personnel. Earlier this year, Gavin Newsom got handed a defeat over the National Guard troops in Los Angeles, Morrissey said. Unlike the June ruling in Newsom, today's decision was not unanimous. Today's two to one ruling did, however, tread the exact same ground as Newsom, specifically the presidential authority of section 12406. The court went all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion and Chez Rebellion to conclude that an insurrection need not be armed nor organized for the direct overthrow of the government.

Starting point is 00:14:37 Judge Nelson offers the historical perspective in his concurrence. The Whiskey and Shays rebellions demonstrated the need for presidential authority to stop insurrections before they grew larger. They also provided a model for proportionate response that Trump's deployment clearly followed in its small and time-limited mission, Morrissey wrote. Nelson's clarity puts the Portland rioting into that historical perspective, which then demonstrates that Trump has done nothing that even the founding father presidents did to maintain federal authority and enforcement. For the Civitas Institute, John Yu asked, does federal law extend to Portlandia? In Title X, Congress delegated the president, the authority to call out the National Guard

Starting point is 00:15:20 in cases of invasion, rebellion, or resistance to federal law. Portland and Chicago naturally claimed that the law only applies to cases of invasion, rebellion, you said. But these Democrats conveniently ignore the third ground to call out the National Guard. Congress allows the President to federalize the National Guard when he is, quote, unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, end quote. As the Ninth Circuit decision found, protesters in Portland have been launching riots to stop ICE and DHS agents from carrying out their duties since early June. Trump critics in Portland and Chicago cannot claim that presidents lack the authority to call out the troops to protect the national government and enforce

Starting point is 00:16:02 federal law. Presidents have used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s, after Brown v. Board of Education, and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose. You wrote, if critics want the federal government to have the power to enforce civil rights laws against resistant states, They also must concede to President Trump the authority to enforce immigration laws against rioters in the cities of Portland and Chicago. All right, now I'm going to pass it over to managing editor Ari Weitzman to give his take. Ari, over to you.

Starting point is 00:16:55 I'm going to go straight to the root of this issue. When President Trump issued his June 7th memorandum authorizing the use of the military to support immigration enforcement, I immediately and since have found that logic just absurd. Here's the reasoning the President marshaled in that memo, and I quote, to the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. This choice of words is significant and ultimately self-defeating. The president wants to say that any protest of the government

Starting point is 00:17:32 constitutes a legitimate rebellion against the authority of the government. And this simply isn't true. Even violent protests don't generally have the aim of overthrowing the U.S. government. And in case you think I'm being hyperbolic or unfair about the administration's use of the term rebellion, I assure you I'm not. I'll refer you to the arguments made. by White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, who has been constructing the case for use of the military

Starting point is 00:18:00 and supporting the administration's deportation actions that hinges on this definition of rebellion, along with definitions for the words, invasion and insurrection. There's no reason to be coy about this. This is the administration's strategy. Since at least 2023, Miller has argued that Trump could use the military domestically

Starting point is 00:18:20 by defining illegal immigration as an invasion, and civil disobedience as a rebellion. Now, Trump is attempting exactly that argument, and he's running into roadblocks because, again, these terms just don't fit. A wave of illegal immigration is not an invasion, and civil unrest or mass protests are not the same as an insurrection. Judge Immigate saw all of that

Starting point is 00:18:46 when she issued her initial temporary restraining order blocking deployments of Oregon National Guardsmen earlier this month, and she did it again when she subsequently blocked any deployments to Portland under this line of argument, because this line of argument simply fails, full stop. But in the recent appeal, the government did something interesting. They pivoted their argument to something different and more legally defensible. And in their recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit judges seemed to find this new argument convincing. The majority's pure curiam opinion said that the president can deploy the National Guard

Starting point is 00:19:22 if he can make a reasonable claim of any of these three things, an invasion, a rebellion, or violence that inhibits the execution of the laws. That is to say, the government doesn't have to prove any one of those things to show that the facts provide a colorable basis to support just one of them. Furthermore, the president does not have to prove exactly what he claimed in his memo that disrupting law enforcement constitutes a rebellion. this would make his more bombastic statements about Portland burning down or being a war zone immaterial. Here's what the 9th District's opinion said, and I quote. All three statutory prongs

Starting point is 00:20:03 are the same as to whether prior events may be considered, and the president is entitled and indeed duty-bound to evaluate the entire context of events leading up to a decision to invoke statute 12406 as part of the constitutional command to take care that the law is be faithfully executed. Considering the totality of the circumstances, there is a colorable basis for the president's determination that he is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Second, the district court erred by placing too much weight on statements the president made on social media. The district court interpreted President Trump characterizing Portland as war-ravaged as the equivalent of the president ignoring the facts on the ground. As such, the district court

Starting point is 00:20:48 relied on those statements to disregard other facts that do reflect a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment, end quote. That leads to the question. Do the facts on the ground reasonably support the president's attempt to deploy the National Guard? Remember, it's not the judge's job to give a definitive yes or no to whether they would call on the guard. Just whether or not these facts could reasonably support a determination that the city was unable to execute the law. In my opinion, a summary of the facts could easily support such a determination. Even Judge Immigate, and a somewhat understated telling described how protesters' actions affected

Starting point is 00:21:27 law enforcement by shutting down ISIS facility in Portland for nearly a month in June. Additionally, what the Department of Homeland Security referred to as riots several times in September provoked violent confrontations with protesters. Here's the Ninth Circuit summary of the evidence presented to them about the Portland Police Bureau, or PBB, and their ability to respond to incidents at the federal building. And I quote, in email summarizing these incidents, PPB officers report that no officers are available to respond to disturbances at the ice facility. Reference, September 16th email explaining PPB has no officers to go or call to respond

Starting point is 00:22:06 to disturbances at ice facility. September 19, email stating that the PPB had few to zero officers available to address a verbal disturbance in front of the ice building. September 20, email stating that PPB would not be able to address the call or make an arrest with the resources we have, end quote. After reading the new legal argument and the PPB statements from September, I found myself convinced that the Trump administration is on solid legal footing here. If Judge Emigate sends that appeal back to the 9th District for another review, or an en banc ruling, which seems likely, I expect that the judges will be relatively split between those who opposed appointments on the public arguments the president made and those who support it on the 9th

Starting point is 00:22:49 district's recent ruling. Now, that isn't to say I think President Trump is right. First of all, it's pretty ridiculous that the administration's best legal argument is to ignore what the president tells us in public. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if we can't trust what the president is saying and courts are telling us not to trust what the president is saying, then that's pretty bad. Second, legally defensible isn't the same thing as productive. In Portland, protests had all but died down in August and September before the deployments, which then brought people back to the streets. National Guard deployments combined with the public statements that I guess we're supposed to ignore,

Starting point is 00:23:28 and immigration enforcement stunts are inflammatory, intentionally so. They often dance in the line of what is legal, and in Los Angeles and Chicago, they have provoked more unrest rather than bringing order to an unstable situation. Trump came into office obviously spoiling for a fight with the courts, with unauthorized migrants, and with protesters. So far, he's gotten all three. But now something interesting is happening in Portland. Protesters are also pivoting. Instead of giving Trump his fight, Portlanders are now showing up in front of federal buildings in ridiculous, inflatable costumes, and organizing an emergency naked bike ride. We've often criticized ineffectual protesters entangle, but I've got to say,

Starting point is 00:24:12 I love this. Protesters seem to be legitimately hampering ICE's ability to perform their functions, the summer, June, September. And that seemed to be an intentional tactic. Now that Trump is responding with force, they're pulling the rug, making the president's whole show of force look excessive and ridiculous. We hear Portland is burning and Antifa is trying to overthrow the government. Then the camera pans to a bunch of people dancing in Pokemon costumes. It just looks ridiculous. Trump is naturally gifted at controlling media narratives. But I can't remember a time that protesters have played a gambit that countered him so effectively. Tomorrow, Isaac's going to be publishing a sobering piece about the excesses of the current administration. And that's worth reading in full. But today,

Starting point is 00:24:56 I'm feeling pretty optimistic. The Trump administration is showing signs of abandoning Stephen Miller's ridiculous legal fancies. The courts are making justifiable rulings. And Portland is providing a template but for genuinely effective protest. Regardless of whether or not the National Guard ever does arrive in Portland, I'd be willing to bet that the worst moments of civil unrest in the city are already in the past.

Starting point is 00:25:20 That's just my take. I'm going to send it over to our executive editor, Isaac Saul, for his dissent and for the rest of the podcast. Talk to guests soon. All right, thanks, Ari, for the take. I have a staff dissent. Look, as you're going to see

Starting point is 00:25:38 tomorrow, I'm not optimistic at all. I think that this ruling is more alarming than anything else. Nelson's concurrence posits that Trump can deploy the National Guard without any judicial review from the courts, introducing an extreme view of presidential power with boundless opportunities for abuse. Even if the legal justification is easier to track now, I have a hard time imagining a future in which Portland gets calmer and things get less combative and less violent. I think the opposite's going to happen, honestly. And I worry deeply that that outcome is actually exactly what this administration wants to justify a harsher and harsher crackdown. We'll be right back after this quick break.

Starting point is 00:26:33 All right. That is it for my staff dissent, which brings us to your question's answer. This one is from Fran in San Miguel de Allende, Juano Alto, Mexico. Wow, that is really cool. I did not notice the location of this question until I just read that out loud. Fun fact, Fran, if you're listening, when I was 15 years old, I spent a summer in Juano Alto, Mexico. I drove down from West Texas to Juanoato in a RV with my cousins and then spent a couple months there and it was an incredible experience. I love one a lot though.

Starting point is 00:27:13 So thanks for reading and hello. To answer your question, in our edition covering the ongoing government shutdown on Tuesday, we stated that Doge's savings were close to $1.4 billion, which is a pretty striking difference from the $214 billion Doge claims to have sold. Doge's claim savings have always been somewhat of a moving target. Back in February, the Guardian reported that the agency was claiming savings from canceled contracts

Starting point is 00:27:39 that didn't actually save the federal government any money. It's not only erroneously reported that it has saved money that it hasn't, but reported the totals of its canceled contracts incorrectly. Most notably, Doge once reported an $8 million contract as actually being worth $8 billion, then still counted the incorrect amount towards its savings. Which is all just to say, the numbers that Doge puts out, in my view, are wholly unreliable. And as time has gone on, Doge has continued to make those wholly unreliable declarations, usually by claiming savings from contracts that were already paid,

Starting point is 00:28:14 or claiming the totality of contracts that were partially paid. Our recent reference to the $1.4 billion in savings was backed by a very, very deep dive piece from Politico with some really fleshed out reporting that was basically like, what savings do we actually have receipts for? And the number that they came up with at $1.4 billion was actually pretty close to what the Wall Street Journal came up with, which was $2.6 billion if spending stayed flat, which it hadn't. And that number, the $1.4 billion, was actually pretty similar to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, which found real savings would be more like $2.6 billion of spending stayed flat, which it hasn't. So $1.4 billion might not be perfect. I think $1.4 billion is probably what we have really

Starting point is 00:29:04 rock solid evidence for. $2.6 billion is kind of in the vicinity of $1.4 billion. It's a lot closer to $1.4 billion than it is to $214 billion. So, you know, as a final note, I would just say none of the money is going to decreasing the federal deficit here, canceled contracts. They just go back to agencies that issued them, which are mandated. by law to spend the money that Congress is allocated to them so that money is going to flow back out in different ways. So yeah, I don't know exactly what the number is. Nobody really does because Doge made such a mess of the initial claims. But I think what we have really rock-solid evidence for is probably something more like in the one to three billion dollar range.

Starting point is 00:29:48 All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to Will for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. All right, jumping back in with today's Under the Radar Story. On Monday, Northwestern University's Medill School published its 10th annual state of local news report, which explores the local news landscape across the United States. This year's report found that local news sources are continuing to decline. Among the key results, it found that over 130 local papers shut down in the past year.

Starting point is 00:30:27 and close to 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished in the past two decades. Furthermore, news desert counties defined as areas that lack consistent local reporting, increased from 206 to 213 in the past year, leaving approximately 50 million Americans with limited or no access to local news. We'll put a link to the report in today's show notes. Now on to our number section. The number of arrests at the ICE facility in Portland, Oregon, between June 9, 2025 and October 2, 2025, was 128 arrests, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Portland Office. The number of active and pending FBI investigations into criminal activity at the facility is currently 27.

Starting point is 00:31:17 The approximate number of vandalism incidents in Portland in Portland in 2019 was 6,300, according to Portland Police Bureau data. The approximate number of vandalism incidents in Portland in 2022 was 12,000. And the approximate number of vandalism incidents in Portland in 24 was 6,800. The percentage of U.S. adults who say that the president should send armed troops only to face external threats is 58%. And the percentage who say the president should not only send armed troops to face external threats is 25%. And that's according to in October 2025, Reuters Ipsos poll. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the president should have the ability to send troops into a state, even if its governor objects, is 37%. And the percentage of U.S. adults who say the president

Starting point is 00:32:06 should not have this ability is 48%. And finally, the percentage of U.S. adults who say the U.S. military should remain politically neutral is 83%. And 10% say the U.S. military should not remain politically neutral. Finally, here's today's Have a Nice Day story. Over 2% of American children suffer from peanut allergies that can lead to dangerous symptoms like hives, respiratory distress, and in extreme cases, anaphylaxis.

Starting point is 00:32:37 However, a new study from Dr. David Hill at the Children's Hospital, Philadelphia, shows that since guidelines for introducing peanuts in infants were implemented in 2017, the rate of peanut allergies in years. U.S. children has dropped by over 40%. The guidelines date back to 2015, when a landmark study showed that introducing peanuts in infancy can greatly reduce the likelihood of developing an allergy. Quote, that's a remarkable thing, right? Dr. Hill said, I can actually come to you today

Starting point is 00:33:06 and say there are less kids with food allergies today than there would have been if we hadn't implemented this public health effort. The Associated Press has this story, and we'll put the link to it in today's show notes. All right, that is it for today's edition, signing off from Southern California. Super excited about our live event tomorrow and having a bunch of the team here in person together. We will be back tomorrow with our Friday edition and Isaac's essay on the state of the country about nine months into the Trump administration. And we're really looking forward to sharing this with you all. Until then, have a great day. And we'll talk to you

Starting point is 00:33:42 tomorrow. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer, is John Lull. 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 editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead,

Starting point is 00:34:01 Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. 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. Thank you.

Tangle - Appeals court greenlights Trump's National Guard deployment.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.