Tangle - Appeals court rules most of Trump's tariffs illegal.

Episode Date: September 2, 2025

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7–4 decision that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing tariffs unilaterally, upholding a lower court decision. The appeals court’s decision targeted the tariffs Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including the “reciprocal tariffs” Trump imposed on all U.S. trading partners, but does not apply to the industry-specific duties that the president invoked under a different authority. Additionally, the court did not rule on whether the IEEPA justified any presidential tariffs. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We’re excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you’re in the area (or want to make the trip), we’d love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets 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, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: How do you think the Supreme Court will respond to the administration’s appeal? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered 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, Kendall White, 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 the 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 tariffs ruling, breaking down the fact that a federal appeals court just said Trump's tariffs are legal, or at least many of them are. We're going to explain exactly what happened, share some views from the left and the right, and then of course my take. It is Tuesday, September 2nd, and there's a lot of news to catch up on after the long weekend. Before we jump in, though, a couple quick notes about some stuff happening here at Tangle. First of all, On Friday, we republish an essay that I wrote about the shooting in Uvaldi, Texas, given the recent mass shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We felt the original piece was once again relevant, unfortunately, so relevant that sadly we could basically run it again in the exact same form that it was written three years ago.

I did a redown of that piece over the weekend for the podcast. You can check that out. If you haven't yet, it's just an episode or two. to back in our feed, and I also published the piece on our website. We can go find it right now if you'd like. Second, I want to give you a heads up that today we're debuting something. A new blurb, something we're going to try and do in the newsletter and the podcast pretty regularly called staff dissent. One thing Tangle readers rarely get to see is the diversity of thought that exists among our staff. For a long time, it was just me writing this newsletter, but now there are 12 people

who work here full-time, about half of whom are on the editorial side. So today we're launching a new blurb in the my take section called staff dissent. We're going to use this blurb to occasionally feature a few sentences from a staff member who disagrees with me on a particular element of my take. Because of space constraints, we won't do this every day or every time there is some dissent, but we hope to make it a regular feature to highlight the viewpoint diversity on our team and to articulate criticisms from our audience that are often argued internally, but never seen.

So we actually have one today. We decided we were going to start it this week, and even though we were like, we're not just going to force the issue and do this every day, we ended up having one today, which is not surprising because our team argues with each other all the time. So Will's going to show up on the podcast to dissent on a particular element of my take today, which I'm excited for.

All right, with that, I'm going to hand it over to John. on for today's main story, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Hope you all had a wonderful three-day weekend. Hopefully you got to get out and party with some friends, or maybe you just had a nice quiet time, just enjoying some solitude. Either way, I hope it was fun or relaxing or whatever it is you were looking for.

Real quick, I just wanted to say thank you to those of you who have written in with your Monday morning routine, teens. There was a question that I asked a few podcast episodes ago, and I've gotten some really great responses, some really encouraging and inspiring activities that I think I might want to implement myself. One listener named Charles wrote in saying that every day he assesses and intentionally recalls any dreams that he had in as much detail as he can and then feeds those details into AI to get feedback and dream research and all sorts of stuff. I think that's a really fascinating and clever idea. That's something I might want to try too. I'm starting to do this more

to open up a dialogue between me and all of you and try and get to know each other a little bit more. I think there's a lot of heavy issues that we're all dealing with in our personal lives and not to mention in politics in general, in the U.S. and globally, and it's nice to have these moments where we connect as human beings. So if this is something you want to skip over, totally understand. Just hit that fast forward button and go straight to quick hits. And if it's something you're enjoying, I've got another prompt for you. What was the last thing that you can remember being really excited about? I bring this up because my best friend is getting married next week,

and that's got me pretty excited. So I'm just wondering what everybody else is excited about. You can go ahead and write into me at John J-O-N at reedtangle.com. I'd love to hear from you. And as always, remember to bring your best positive self to the week. You never know who you're going to impact in what way. So the more positive energy and encouragement we bring to each other, the better this world can be.

All right, with that out of the way, let's jump into our quick hits. First up, President Donald Trump said pharmaceutical companies must justify the success of their COVID-19 vaccines and release more information about their efficacy in response to a slew of resignations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Number two, a federal judge temporarily blocked the deportation of unaccompanied minors from Guatemala who aren't subject to a finalized removal order. The Justice Department later confirmed that 76 children had been returned or would soon be returned to often be returned to offer Office of Refugee Resettlement Custody.

Number three, a 6.0 magnitude earthquake struck eastern Afghanistan, killing at least 1,411 people and injuring more than 3,000 others, according to the Taliban-run government. Number four, in Israeli airstrike in Yemen's capital, Sana' killed the prime minister of Yemen's Houthi government and several other top officials. And number five, President Trump revoked former Vice President Kamala Harris's Secret Service protection, rescinding a memorandum signed by former President Joe Biden before leaving office that extended Harris's protection for an additional year beyond the six months that former vice presidents typically receive.

We're getting reaction in from President Trump just minutes ago on truth social. We just got this ruling from the appellate court, deeming that most of his tariff policies are illegal. Now, the court is keeping them in place, and they're waiting for the Trump administration lawyers to respond. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing tariffs unilaterally, upholding a lower court decision. The appeals court's decision targeted the tariffs Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including the reciprocal tariffs Trump imposed on all U.S. trading partners,

but does not apply to the industry-specific duties that the president invoked under a different authority. Additionally, the court did not rule on whether the IEEPA justified any presidential tariffs. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. For context, in April, President Trump invoked the IEPA when issuing his Liberation Day tariffs against most U.S. trading partners, claiming that the trading practices posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. The law allows a president to take a range of economic actions in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat related to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United

States. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump did not have the authority under the IEPA to impose the tariffs. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in July. We covered the initial Court of International Trade ruling, and you can check that out with a link in today's episode description. The appellate court's majority wrote that the IEEPA bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax. Furthermore, they said tariffs are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration, and thus

beyond the authority delegated by the president by the IEPA. The four dissenting judges argued that the IEEPA's language, as confirmed by its history, authorizes tariffs to regulate importation, adding, IEEPA embodies an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign affairs realm, which unsurprisingly extends beyond authorities available under non-emergency laws. President Trump criticized the decision in a post on truth social writing, a highly partisan appeals court incorrectly said that our tariffs should be removed, but they know that the United States of America will win in the end.

If these tariffs ever win away, it would be a total disaster for the country. In a separate statement, the White House said the tariffs remain in effect and that it looks forward to ultimate victory on this matter. Today, we'll explore the reactions to the court's ruling from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left agrees with the ruling, arguing the court properly checked Trump's power to impose tariffs through executive action alone.

Some suggest the saga is far from over. Others say Trump brought this outcome on himself. The Washington Post editorial board argued Trump must go through Congress if he wants his tariffs to remain in place. The Supreme Court will sooner or later decide whether President Donald Trump has the power to set tariffs for every country in the world on his own. With a legal victory far from guaranteed, why doesn't the administration just ask the compliant, Republican-controlled Congress to endorse boundless authority for the president to impose taxes on imports, the board wrote? In April, Trump unilaterally reset tariff rates on virtually every country in the world, and the move was immediately met with legal challenges. late Friday, a third federal court ruled that Trump, like all other presidents, lacks the power to single-handedly dictate tariff rates.

The Supreme Court is the next and final stop in this legal saga. Trump has warned that if his power is limited here, it will literally destroy the United States of America. If the stakes are that high, he can make the case to the institution that has explicit authority over tariffs. Congress, the board said. Tax rates can be changed on a party-line vote. It is telling that the Republican Party's most dominant figure in a generation is taking his chances at the high court rather than working to win over senators and congressmen who have so far shown nothing but loyalty to this president's agenda.

In the Financial Times, Muhammad El-Irion explored the real significance of the U.S. court ruling on tariffs. I suspect that, ultimately, this ruling will not fundamentally alter the administration's propensity to use tariffs to pursue multiple objectives. The approach is integral to the efforts to the efforts to. to rewire the international trading system and also the domestic economy, Elie on route. Already, tariffs are raising budgetary revenues, enticing some manufacturers to consider returning to the U.S., and pressuring those countries and companies that refuse to agree to deals.

As far as the administration is concerned, the approach is working and warrants a multifaceted defense that not only challenges directly the appeals court's decision, but also seeks workarounds. This is not to say that tariffs will have no detrimental. effects on the American economy. Over time, they will distort the efficient allocation of resources and undermine the efficient operation of parts of the U.S. economy. Their price effects, while contained thus far, could increase sequentially and unevenly, Ellie around said. The key question is how much the courts will serve as a lasting check on an administration committed to materially reshaping the domestic and international economic orders. This issue is likely to be tested many times in the coming

months and years, with an answer that has significant consequences for many around the world and remains uncertain. In his substack, Paul Krugman wrote about the tariff mess. The court didn't say that tariffs per se are illegal. It said that the procedure Trump used to impose tariffs, declaring an economic emergency, then setting tariff rates without so much as consulting Congress, let alone passing legislation, is illegal. If Trump wants to pass a tariff bill, the same way he passed his one big beautiful bill, okay. I mean, terrible policy, but legal. But just saying I'm the tariff man and here are my tariffs isn't okay, Krugman said.

Trump himself keeps saying that the economy is in wonderful shape, booming without inflation, and any claims to the contrary are fake news. So how can things be both terrific and an emergency calling for drastic action? Trump is facing a completely self-inflicted disaster here. He probably could have gotten Republicans in Congress to vote. vote for insane trade policy. But he was impatient and he wanted to start ruling as a dictator right away, Krugman wrote. I see that Scott Bassent is saying that ruling that Trump's illegal tariffs are in fact illegal will embarrass the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but last I heard,

you weren't allowed to act illegally if obeying the law would be embarrassing. Anyway, let's be clear. It won't embarrass America. It will embarrass Trump and Besant. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the ruling, with some questioning the majority's logic for striking down the tariffs. Others argue the court correctly found that Trump's rationale was insufficient to justify the duties. Still, others say that the Supreme Court may side with the Trump administration based on recent precedent. In town hall, Rachel Alexander criticized the rogue federal appeals court for its decision.

The ruling upheld an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade, but went further. The lower court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gave Trump some authority over tariffs, but stated it was not unlimited. While previous presidents have not invoked the IEPA to implement tariffs, they have used it to issue sanctions, Alexander wrote. The majority took a tortured, twisted interpretation of the IEEPA to come to its decision. The court said that since the IEPA did not use the precise word tariff or similar word,

that the law could not be interpreted to include them. The IEEPA grants the president authority to regulate importation of any property under specified conditions, Alexander said. A previous version of the U.S. Court of International Trade held that the president was authorized to impose an import duty surcharge because imposing duties can be to regulate the importation of the items on which duties are imposed, Alexander. wrote. In Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin, SNG, Inc., the nation's highest court held limiting the president to use the quotas would effectively and artificially prohibit him

from directly dealing with some of the very problems against which the statute is directed. In National Review, Dan McLaughlin said the court got it right. Trump supporters have argued that Congress has delegated broad authorities to the president to set tariffs under a variety of statutes, but each such delegation has different conditions and limitations. What matters is that these tariffs have been justified and defended in court as national emergencies under the IEPA, McLaughlin Group. The courts have been unpersuaded that we live in a state of permanent national emergency that is global in scope and decades long in duration, requiring swift action on the theory

that Congress could never assemble in time to address the issue. Nearly half of the 127-page length of the opinion was taken up with the views of the four dissenters, who agreed that the court could properly hear the case, but vigorously disagreed with its view of the legality of the tariffs. The dissenters argued that the tariffs meet the preconditions the IEPA sets for the exercise of the presidential authorities that the IEEPA grants, McLaughlin said. The dissent is a grab bag of justifications that will deserve more extended discussion another day, but it is grasping its straws to justify an open-ended national emergency power

of the sort that should be disfavored in our laws unless it is granted in terms far more explicit than these. In the Wall Street Journal, Jonathan H. Adler suggested the Supreme Court could uphold Trump's tariffs. VOS selections would seem a textbook case for applying the major questions doctrine, which provides that policies addressing questions of vast economic and political significance require clear authorization from Congress. Thus, in Biden v. Nebraska in 2023, the Supreme Court concluded the power to waive or modify regulations governing student debt didn't encompass the power to forgive such loans altogether.

By this logic, the power to regulate imports shouldn't include the power to tax them. While Congress has offered delegated authority to set or revise tariffs, it typically does so explicitly, Adler wrote. This argument is strong, but it isn't a slam dunk. Were the justices writing on a clean slate, one would expect them to draw clear constraints

on presidential authority, but the slate is far from clean. Congress has been delegating tariff authority to the president, since the 18th century, and the Supreme Court has long held that delegation concerns are less constraining in the foreign affairs and national security context, Adler said. Legislative abdication creates a vacuum that the executive branch inevitably seeks to fill. The court has seen fit to force Congress's hand in the domestic sphere, but that doesn't necessarily

mean it will do so here. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the writer saying, which brings us to my take. I've always had a hard time buying the argument that these tariffs are legal, and reading about this ruling and the commentary surrounding it only reinforces my skepticism. When we first wrote about the United States Court of International Trade's decision to block the global tariff enforcement in June, I admitted a little embarrassment that we hadn't yet explicitly said these emergency tariffs were illegal because, in retrospect, they obviously are.

The law allows the president to dictate some tariff policy, but Congress's authority over taxation has always been far broader, more explicit, and constitutionally foundational. The central question of this ruling is what the president can claim to be a national emergency. Remember, Trump is using this declaration to impose the broad sweeping tariffs under the IEEPA that he could not impose otherwise. This has been Trump's go-to method to exercise power. He's claimed an emergency over 30 times in his first seven months, roughly four times more than Biden had over his first seven months. Trump has used those emergency declarations to unilaterally enact immigration policy, foreign policy, environmental policy,

energy policy, economic policy, and more. To get an idea of how personal and powerful these declarations can be, consider that Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil by declaring that its prosecution of Jer Bolsonaro, its former president, and an ally of Trump's, constituted a threat to U.S. national security. This is antithetical to the roles of the executive branch as described by the Constitution, and it's also pretty novel. Most presidents would try to sell Congress on this tariff plant. The House Majority Leader would whip votes to pass a comprehensive bill into law. The Senate would rewrite the bill to pass with support from some members of the opposition party, and then that bill would go back to the House for final revisions.

It's not that hard to imagine Democrats rallying around a cohesive tariff policy given that many are supportive of more restrictive trade. During Trump's first presidency, he threatened to impose a few tariffs that led to negotiations, and he enacted some large but specific tariffs without an emergency declaration. But this time around, the president is simply ignoring Congress, and the authorities it has been explicitly granted, opting instead to impose his tariff power as broadly as possible and then fighting it out in the courts.

There is no national emergency on trade. To me, this story is as simple as that. Our trade policy is the product of decades of congressionally approved decisions made by a succession of past presidents, including Trump, from both sides of the aisle. While it's fair to question if these policies have hollowed out American manufacturing, made us more relying on foreign countries for essential goods and offshore jobs, saying the current state of affairs the greatest economy in the world constitutes a national emergency is absurd. Full stop.

I stand by my prediction from a few months ago. If this ends up before the Supreme Court, Trump will lose. I do not see how the court could possibly decide a president has the unilateral power to tariff hundreds of nations without Congress after the same court has ruled that presidents cannot unilateral. cancel student loans or regulate greenhouse gas emissions as it did under Biden. And for what it's worth, I think it's a good thing for the courts to reject all of these executive power grabs. If you need any more convincing, consider this. In 1952 during the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order to seize and operate the country's steel mills. The court held that even in times of war, a genuine objective emergency,

the president cannot grant himself powers that are not explicitly granted by Congress or the Constitution. This bedrock principle has been reinforced in the decades of jurisprudence since. Now, Trump is trying to seize the emergency power granted by the IEPA to regulate the import of any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person. Even if Trump could legitimately claim a national emergency, he may still not have the power he's attempting to exercise. The power to regulate is different from the power to tax or tariff, which is why the Constitution distinguishes between the two. Perhaps more to the point, Congress has passed specific statutes limiting the tariff authority of presidents.

Trump's argument is that this broad emergency statute, which never mentions tariffs, allows him to tax imports from any country he wants to any degree he desires for an indefinite amount of time without congressional approval. It is self-evidently outlandish, and the Supreme Court should say so in no uncertain terms. But again, no such emergency exists. None of this is a judgment on the policy itself. I've passed those judgments already, and my position remains the same. Time will tell.

I thought the negative impacts of tariffs would be far more obvious by now, and tariffs not triggering a quicker spike in inflation was one of the five things I said I got wrong about Trump so far. The good news is that the government is raising substantial revenue from the new tariffs, not as much as Trump says, but a lot. Plenty of countries are coming to the table for new trade deals, and some companies have already started to reshore jobs. jobs. The bad news is that the price spikes are starting to show up, and policy uncertainty has

already crushed many small businesses who can't operate in a world where import taxes are either A, rising, or B, unpredictable. You can love or hate the tariffs themselves. That isn't the issue here. The narrower point I'm making is that this ruling is correct. Trump doesn't have the legal authority to do any of this. The power is granted to the president in the rare instance of genuine national emergency do not cover what he says they do, and he does not have any cause to declare an emergency now. I expect the Supreme Court to affirm that. All right, that is it for my take. Will is going to drop in for a brief staff dissent, and then I'll get to your questions answered. Hi, this is Will Kayback, one of Tangle's senior editors. As Isaac mentioned at the top of the show,

we're going to be rolling out a new feature for the my take section, where we highlight an area of staff dissent to some aspect of Isaac's take, or in some cases maybe the take entirely, I have the potentially dubious honor of being the first such dissenting voice today. I'm not disagreeing with Isaac's take on the whole, but one specific aspect of his argument, which I'll get into now. I disagree with Isaac that it's easy to imagine Democrats rallying around a cohesive tariff policy to such an extent that this Congress could codify some version of Trump's reciprocal tariff policy. While it's true that some notable Democratic lawmakers have said tariffs in the abstract can be an effective trade policy tool,

I don't think these comments have been consistent or substantive enough to suggest they would actually support this policy if it came to a vote. Even setting Trump aside, party leaders have shown no interest in a tariff policy this broad ever before, and I have a hard time believing that they would throw their support behind, say, elevated tariffs on allies like the United Kingdom and Canada. All right, that is it for today's staff dissent, and I'll send it back to John and Isaac for the rest of the newsletter. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for the staff dissent from Will, which brings us to your questions answered.

This one's from Drew in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Drew said, Trump's recent executive orders on banning certain unions and union activities impact his blue-collar base? Honestly, pretty well, probably. I mean, I don't really know. It's always hard to predict public opinion on stuff like this, but the orders Trump signed don't directly impact workers in blue-collar industries. They stripped collective bargaining rights away from a good deal of public sector unions. So I don't want to just say public sector employees are not blue-collar in many respects some of them are. But just to be clear, here's what happened. On March 27, President Trump

signed an executive order stating that many federal agencies or subdivisions have roles vital to national security and as such are not required to respect collective bargaining agreements and ordered them not to. This order affected the State Department, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, as well as subdivisions within other departments like the CDC, Food and Drug Administration, the Coast Guard. Labor unions representing government employees challenged that order winning a temporary injunction. In August, however, an appeals court lifted that injunction. Then on August 28th, Trump extended the order to apply to other agencies, including the International Trade Administration, the National Weather Service, and NASA. After the order was originally appealed, a union

representing public employees estimated that Trump's order would apply to 950,000 government employees. At the VA alone, the order impacts the previously negotiated benefits of 395,000 workers, reducing their guaranteed 16 weeks of parental leave to 12. Obviously, none of that sounds like something pro-union voters would support. However, the order only affects government employees and does not affect the two largest public sector unions, which are teachers and police. According to the Department of Labor, roughly half of all union employees work in the public sector, something that Even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decried. Yes, public support for unions is very high,

but that polling doesn't specify sentiments on federal white-collar employee unions, which subjectively feel very different from Teamster or PipeFitter unions. And again, given that Trump continues to enjoy popular support among his working-class base, I believe that many of those same supporters approve of this action.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. The Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4th creates a new tax deduction for workers who receive tips as part of their wages, also known as no tax on tips. On Monday, Axios shared the 68 jobs that the Treasury Department has reportedly specified will qualify for the deduction. The jobs fall under eight categories. beverage and food service, entertainment and events, hospitality and guest services, home services, personal services, personal appearance and wellness, recreation and instruction, and transportation and delivery.

Jobs within those categories include bartenders, musicians, concierges, home electricians, pet caretakers, makeup artists, golf caddies, and valets. The list will be made official after the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service publish it in the Federal Register. Axios has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right. Next up is our numbers section. Democrats appointed six of the judges who were in the majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision, while Republicans appointed one. Democrats appointed two of the judges who were in the minority of the decision, and Republicans also appointed two. It is now 42 days until the October 14th deadline for either side to appeal the court's decision to the Supreme

court. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, as of August 28th, the amount of gross tariff and certain other excise tax revenue brought in by the United States in 2025 is $159 billion. The amount of gross tariff and certain other excise tax revenue brought in by the U.S. in the same period in 2024 was $63.7 billion. According to the Tax Foundation, 69% is the estimated percentage of U.S. goods imports affected by President Trump's second term tariffs. 16% is the estimated percentage of U.S. goods imports affected by President Trump's second-term tariffs if the duties levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are struck down. And according to an August 2025 Pew Research poll,

38% of U.S. adults approve of the Trump administration substantially increasing tariffs on goods imported from most U.S. trading partners, while 61% disapprove. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. When the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in 2021, they placed a ban on education for women beyond sixth grade. As a consequence, 24-year-old pharmacology student, Sodaba, one of approximately 2.5 million school-aged Afghan girls in 2023, was forced to go online to learn. There, she found a coding course taught by an Afghan refugee living in Greece in her language, Dari. Sodaba, who has begun learning computer programming and website development, said she believes a person should not be bowed by circumstance, but should grow and get their dreams through every

possible way. The Associated Press has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. 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, 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 reetangle.com. You know,