Tangle - Charlie Kirk's suspected shooter is apprehended.

Episode Date: September 15, 2025

On Friday, authorities said they had arrested a man suspected of killing Charlie Kirk, the conservative commentator and activist who was shot during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. Over the weekend, state and federal officials released new information about the suspected shooter that points to several potential motivations behind the attack. Meanwhile, Kirk’s death has prompted a range of responses from both sides of the political spectrum, including debates over his legacy and the reactions to his assassination. 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: What do you think motivated Charlie Kirk’s shooter? 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, 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. On today's episode, we're going to be talking about the latest in the Charlie Kirk investigation, what we've learned about the alleged shooter, and things that have just unfolded since last week. Before we jump in, I want to give a quick heads up that obviously, you know, especially if you're a podcast listener, I think you've been hearing some of the emotion in me around the news, this Charlie Kirk stuff. but really just the accumulation of everything that's been happening. I mean, you know, I just want to say this.

I think this is a good place to say this at the top of this podcast. I don't think that we are equipped to ingest the stuff that so many people, not just me doing this work, but all of you guys, I mean, following the news, you know, this woman is like brutally murdered on a bus in Charlotte. that another woman in Tulsa, Oklahoma has her throat slit, trumps deleting a boat full of people off the coast of Venezuela, and we're watching the bomb hit the boat, like a missile, a drone, whatever it was. Everything that's been happening in Gaza, in Ukraine, I mean, we just see these images,

we ingests all this stuff, and then it's like something like Charlie Kirk, just like watching this person get shot and killed. It's a lot. Frankly, I'm surprised, maybe a little worried that more people aren't reacting the way that I am

to just the accumulation of this kind of news. I would almost feel comforted if I saw more people having an emotional response like the one I had last week. I think we're so desensitized to all this stuff.

It's scary. So anyway, I had planned last week to put some goodness out into the world by writing and publishing this piece about my son and how the experience of having him has given me some hope in American society

and sort of run contrary to a lot of the stuff I read about how this was an anti-kid country and whatever. So if you're looking for a pick-me-up, that piece is out. We publish a podcast version of it. You can scroll back a couple episodes in the feed. There's also the Friday edition that went up in the newsletter and is on our website if you want to read it.

And I hope you do. and maybe can find some positivity there. I'm going to talk a bit more about my feelings on this Charlie Kirk stuff today and also later this week, as I think we're going to address some of the feedback and criticism to our coverage. But for now, I just want to point you in that direction.

Also, I want to shout out Will Kayback, one of our senior editors who did a phenomenal interview with a woman, I guess a young woman. I think she was only 16, who was in attendance at the Charlie Kirk rally when he was shot.

that post is also up in our feed. And yeah, for such a young person, she had some really moving, and I thought powerful insights that are worth hearing from somebody who witnessed this kind of thing. So maybe listen to that. Then you can listen to my piece

about my kid as a pallet cleanser. But we're going to keep covering this stuff. And I think, you know, as is one of our core values, we're going to try and be human about it. Like we're just, I don't think there's enough people just being people about this kind of stuff or covering politics with a human bent and we try to do that here. So that's my goal. I'm going to pass it over to John for today's main topic and some

arguments from the left and the right. And then I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. I will start off by saying that I hope as many of you as could have a joyful weekend were able to do so. Last week was obviously a challenging and scary and turbulent week for many. The responses have ranged across the emotional and political spectrum. I heard what was happening while on a plane to Mexico to be the best man at my best friend's wedding. While we got the information about Charlie Kirk, a woman sitting directly in front of us was crying and she had just found out that there was an active shooter at her children's high school in Denver. She had not heard from them, and there was very little information coming through.

My wife and I had prayed for her and for her children and tried to support her as best as we could, as did others on the plane. As we were leaving the plane, the tears continued to stream, but they were accompanied by a sense of relief as she had just heard from her kids that they were okay. Even in periphery was a scary moment and I think Isaac mentioned himself that there was a lot to process and that processing all that information all at once can be a lot even with the generosity of time it can still be hard to process. I was personally balancing the joy of watching my best friend get married and the abundance of love that was present in that situation and at the same time feeling guilt that so much tragedy was. unfolding. And so I just want to say that wherever you are in the moment, it's okay to feel what you're feeling and just know that many more people genuinely truly want to support one another than want to hurt one another. And if you're not sure about that, I personally feel that the best way to overcome that is to be that positivity, to be that support. Put yourself out there first and try to be as

supportive as you can for someone. And it will come back to you. This community is proof of that, I think. As an update, I did get a lot of emails from everybody about advice for my friend who's getting married, which I appreciate a lot. I did pass on a lot of that information. It was good. So thank you for continuing to write in. I think growing this community in the newsletter and especially in the podcast is an important thing for all of us to do, to remember that we're all human and that our experiences and our emotions and our responses to things can be vastly different, but it is that root of humanity that connects us all. So in the spirit of trying to find light in the darkness, my question for you this week is, what is a way that you can or have been

a source of inspiration to somebody? Maybe somebody you know well, maybe somebody you don't know at all. But what have you done or what can you do? If you feel like you haven't yet, it's definitely never too late, what can you do to be a source of inspiration to either one person or a whole community? You can reach me at John J-O-N at readtangle.com. I'm very excited to read your feedback and hear your thoughts. And as always, let's bring the best of ourselves to everything we do in the hopes that we spread our positivity and our inspiration and our love to all of those around us. And with that, I will read down today's quick hits. First up, authorities arrested two suspects believed to have been responsible for placing an incendiary device under a news media vehicle

in Salt Lake City, Utah on Friday. The device was lit but did not function as intended and no one was injured. Number two, President Donald Trump announced that he plans to deploy the National Guard to Memphis, Tennessee to address crime in the city. Number three, the Environmental Protection Agency said that it will end the greenhouse gas reporting program, which had tracked the quantity of greenhouse gases released by industrial facilities. Number four, Nepalese president Ramchangira Podell appointed former Supreme Court Chief Justice Sushilakarki as interim prime minister following days of large protests that forced the resignation of

the former prime minister. Podel also set March 5th as the date for new legislative elections. And number 5, Romania detected a Russian drone in its airspace on Saturday, but opted not to shoot it down. The European Union's foreign policy chief called the incursion a reckless escalation. Separately, President Trump said he was prepared to levy new sanctions on Russia if North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries agreed to do the same. On Friday, authorities said they had arrested a man suspected of killing Charlie Kirk, the conservative commentator and activist who was shot during an event at Utah Valley University

on Wednesday. Over the weekend, state and federal officials released new information about the suspected shooter that points to several potential motivations behind the attack. Meanwhile, Kirk's death has prompted a range of responses from both sides of the political spectrum, including debates over his legacy and the reactions to his assassination. A note that due to the well-documented contagion effect, Tangle's policy is not to name shooters or suspects in high-profile attacks. According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox, law enforcement identified the suspect after his family told a retired law enforcement official and family friend information that indicated he had

committed the shooting. The friend relayed the information to local police. The suspect's family said that he had become more political in recent years and had explicitly shared his dislike of Kirk. He was subsequently taken into custody on suspicion of aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, an obstruction of justice. In Utah, an aggravated murder conviction

carries the possibility of the death penalty. An affidavit filed on Friday stated that investigators recovered bullet casings with the suspected murder weapon inscribed with potentially political messages, including one that read, Hey, Fascist, Catch, and another that referenced in Italian,

anti-fascist song. The messages have been also used ironically by internet gamers. The suspect's intended meaning is unclear. Authorities also reviewed messages on the communications platform Discord that allegedly linked the suspect to the shooting. On Monday, FBI director Cash Patel announced they found the suspect's DNA at the scene and were aware of a note from the suspect declaring his intention to kill Kirk. Investigators are reportedly examining the relationship between the suspect and his roommate, who is transgender, as they seek to determine a motive for the shooting. The roommate has fully cooperated with authorities, sharing messages that appear to show the suspect discussing the location of the murder weapon. One official described the suspect's roommate as a

person of interest in the investigation. Federal and state officials are also exploring whether left-wing groups in Utah might have links to the suspect or could have been aware of his plans to target Kirk ahead of time. Amid the investigation, Kirk's family, friends and colleagues have eulogized him. On Friday, Kirk's wife, Erica, delivered a tribute to him saying, the movement my husband built will not die, adding that the evildoers responsible for his death have no idea would you have just unleashed across the entire country. Separately on Sunday, prominent members of the Trump administration and Congress attended a vigil in Kirk's honor in Washington, D.C. Some Democrats and commentators on the left have expressed alarm

at the right's response to Kirk's assassination, suggesting that it could be used as a pretext for crackdowns on free speech. Defense Secretary Pete Higgseth has reportedly directed his staff to identify members of the U.S. military who have mocked or endorsed Kirk's killing online, while conservative influencers have launched campaigns to seek disciplinary measures for others who have engaged in similar behavior. Today, we'll share views from the left and the right

on the response to Kirk's assassination and suspected shooter, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First of, let's start with what the left is saying. Many on the left say the suspect's identity doesn't align with the right's assumptions. Some argue that the right's response to Kirk's death has worsened the situation. Others explored the relationship between the suspect and internet codes. culture. In USA Today, Rex Hupke said Charlie Kirk's shooting suspect doesn't fit Maga's reckless

political narrative. In the days since Charlie Kirk's tragic shooting death, Republican lawmakers, influencers, and President Donald Trump have been wildly and irresponsibly predicting and posting online with great certainty that the shooter must be a radical leftist, Hupke wrote. Predictably, the grotesque pre-judgment has fallen flat and the actual suspect in no way fits the right cynical political narrative. Shell casings were covered by authorities were engraved with references to internet memes and online gaming. The suspect shows up in a family Halloween photo in a Trump-related costume.

Neighbors said he grew up in a church-going Mormon family. Narrative chasing is absolutely a bipartisan problem. There were liberals, myself included, who pondered if the shooter might be a maga loyalist seeking to create a regstag fire-like situation that would allow Trump to blame the left and take more authoritarian control of the country under the guise of safety, Hupke said. The magnairative machine regarding Kirk's killing, on the other hand, blew past facts faster than I've ever seen in a high-profile shooting. There was no suspect in quite literally zero evidence of a motive,

and the right, from the precedent on down, leaned fully into howls about liberals. In Vox, Eric Levitz criticized the right's vicious, ironic response to Charlie Kirk's death. For almost all of our species history, to hear a person speak on a near daily basis, was to know them intimately. Countless Republicans, therefore, experienced Kirk's death as though it were the loss of a friend. For liberals, meanwhile, Kirk's killing constituted an appalling assault on political liberty, Levitz wrote. Kirk's assassination was thus an assault on the Democratic project, on our capacity to collectively govern ourselves through the exercise of reason. It was also alarming, obscene, and ironic in the grimmest possible sense. The right's response proved to be much of the same.

Within hours of Kirk's shooting, the most powerful Republicans in the country, from the president to Fox News hosts to megabillionaires, were agitating for authoritarian repression and justifying it with incendiary lies, Levitt said. A conservative movement committed to Charlie Kirk's ostensible ideals to free speech and open discourse would respond to his assassination by decry trying political violence in all of its forms and rejecting the pernicious notion that the government must suppress certain ideas to keep the public safe, but such a movement does not exist. In the New York Times, Nathan Taylor Pemberton wrote about Charlie Kirk's killing and our poisonous

internet. The only thing that can be said conclusively about the suspect at this moment is that he was a chronically online white American male. The internet's political communities and the open-source sleuths currently scrambling to place him into a coherent ideological camp certainly won't be content with any of this, nor will they be satisfied with the other likelihood awaiting us, that the suspect, the son of a seemingly content Mormon family probably possesses a mishmash of ideological stances, Pemberton said. They also will not be satisfied that this horrific, society-changing act of violence was most likely committed both as an ironic gesture and as a pure political statement. The combative

ragebait style that Mr. Kirk pioneered has become the dominant mode for the right. And it's probably more accurate to say this is how many young Americans as a whole exist on the internet today, trolling and provoking anyone who crosses their paths, Pemberton wrote. That this killer might have been in pursuit

of a similar moment of viral conflict as a grim encapsulation of the nightmare cesspit we've entered. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right says the suspect appears to have been radicalized by extreme anti-conservative rhetoric on the left. Some accused the left of a double standard when discussing political violence against conservatives. Others push back on efforts to punish people who criticize Kirk in response to his death. In the New York Post, Michael Goodwin wrote,

Charlie Kirk's assassination is the result of a decade of anti-Trump rhetoric from the left. The accused killer of Kirk was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology, according to Utah governor Spencer Cox, Goodwin said. The suspect seems to have gotten drunk on the social media Kool-Aid about the evils of Trump, Kirk, and everyone who subscribes to any conservative principles. The pension for calling Trump the devil incarnate has put a target on his back and given would-be assassins a license to kill him and others in his circle. Charlie Kirk is a victim of that sickening campaign. Only an evil sect could see such a kind religious man and doting father as a worthy target for slaughter. The celebrations and approval online and elsewhere for the soul-shattering

murder are the equivalent of sewage coming to the surface. Supposedly reputable people, including medical and education professionals, along with some government officials, are giving their assent to public butchery because of political. disagreements. Such bile is defensible only if you believe murder is politics by another name, Goodwin wrote. It is also alarming that the alleged actions of the suspect bear a terrifying similarity to those of the men who tried and nearly succeeded in killing Trump during a campaign rally in Butler PA last year. In the Daily Signal, Eric Erickson called the response to Kirk's death a turning point. Over the past number of years, there have been more and more acts of violence in

politics. MSNBC operates an assassination fan fiction network, an assassin fire to President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The conversation on MSNBC, while the bullet was in the air, was on the need to stop Trump, who would otherwise be an authoritarian threatening our democracy, Erickson wrote. The day before Kirk's assassination, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy told Chuck Todd, our only chance to save our democracy is to fight fire with fire right now. Someone took up arms for that supposed war and fought Charlie Kirk's words with bullets. When Trump says things that the left believes are violent, they demand others denounce him. Any act of violence by anyone on the right is tied to Trump and right-wing sentiment.

But time and time again, when someone on the left acts out violently, the progressive American press, Democrats, the cultural elite, and Hollywood, always find an excuse to say it was not them, Erickson said. The left and Democrat leaders need to acknowledge that Democrat politicians and MSNBC hosts have been prodding progress. progressives towards violence. In Fox News, Jonathan Turley said Charlie Kirk wouldn't fire people who hated him. He'd win them over. Some on the writer calling for people who denounce Kirk or celebrate his death to be fired. That ranges from professors to public employees. The way to honor Charlie Kirk's life and legacy is not with hypocrisy and intolerance. That is what he died fighting against, Turley wrote. Kirk wanted unfettered debate. He wanted people to be able to express themselves

regardless of how the majority felt about their views. He was the victim, not the advocate of cancel campaigns. There are instances where hateful views may raise grounds for termination, those who use their official, academic, or corporate positions to espouse hateful messages risk termination, Turley said. However, many of these people were speaking as individuals outside their positions, and their hateful commentary is not necessarily compromising or conflicting with their positions. We cannot become those we have long fought against in the free speech community. More importantly, we cannot become those whom Charlie fought against up until the very moment of his murder. 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. So first and foremost, I want to acknowledge that our coverage of Kirk's killing has drawn a tremendous amount of feedback and criticism. We are planning to publish a members-only reader, listener feedback edition this upcoming Friday. I've already responded to some of that feedback in our Reddit community. If you're not a member of our Reddit community, but you're into Reddit, I highly recommend it.

The conversations there feel distinct and thought-provoking in a way that maybe social media commenting sections typically aren't. And I posted a lengthy response to some of the criticism there this week because I think the community is really cool and I wanted to engage. I also want to acknowledge that many of you heard me get emotional on the Tangle podcast last week and then reached out. I got so many messages via email, Twitter DM, whatever, text messages from people who know me. It's been a long few months, years of distressing news in this country, but I really appreciate all the support and some people just checking in on me. So thank you guys for that. Today, in my take, I'm going to try and

focus mostly on the immediate questions at hand. The day after Kirk was killed, I wrote about one of the fundamental presumptions I was making. I said, I know it's not wise to make presumptions about motive before we have a suspect in custody. For now, though, I'm going to make a presumption, one that I feel confident in, that in this era of political violence, someone killed Kirk for his political rhetoric. Since then, all indications still point to this being the case. I still do not have a clear picture of the shooter in question, but Utah governor, Spencer Cox, said the suspect was radicalized by leftist ideology and had a romantic relationship with his trans roommate. That claim remains unsubstantiated by publicly available evidence, but Cox tends to be someone who tries to reach across the aisle

and avoid bombastic claims. So if Cox is pushing that claim publicly without rock solid evidence, I would be shocked and appalled. Right now, though, we just don't have that much information. Meanwhile, a number of Internet sleuths have tried to pin the shooter as a far-right, quote-unquote, Groyper, a member of a group of alt-right white nationalist extremists most notoriously associated with the proud, racist, and anti-Semite Nick Fuentes. Fuentes hated and criticized Kirk for supporting Israel and for inviting too many people into the conservative movement, i.e. racial minorities and Jews. So this theory has some plausibility. However, the Internet sleuths pushing this potential motive have, pretty thin evidence, mostly a Halloween costume, the ironic online messages on the bullets, and rumors of discord posts that are now inaccessible because the shooter's account has been

suspended. There is a compelling theory that the shooter was motivated by a kind of nihilistic, anti-social worldview that is increasingly common for young men in our country, a worldview that is, in many ways, a political, or at least appealing across political lines. Certainly, there are just a lot of lonely, angry, hopeless kids out there who view other people's lives more like a character in a video game than fully human. What seems most plausible is that Kirk's assassin was a very online male with access to guns and some really, really extreme politics. This has been the case with other political shooters in Washington, Butler, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. It is a story we have seen over and over, and it is going to keep happening unless we actually do something different, not just by

addressing gun violence or mental health or extremist politics, but through all of the above. Again, I cannot emphasize enough that we are still learning a lot about the shooter, and many of the other initial reports about him have been proven wrong. What's taking place in the wake of Kirk's shooting is pretty alarming, too. On the left, there were some genuinely grotesque reactions to Kirk's death, and in my opinion, far too many of them. But these reactions are still the vast minority. The number of people who support or excuse political violence is still vanishingly rare when compared against every person posting on the internet, even if your algorithm is telling you otherwise. I am unaware of a single elected Democrat doing anything other than clearly and

unambiguously decrying Kirk's murder. This is true of most prominent liberal influencers, too. There are exceptions, but again, they are rare. Unfortunately, on the right, many influencers and audiences are being spoon-fed, a diet of these exceptions, and are told that this is the world the left wants, where people like Kirk are being murdered for their political views. Most importantly, President Trump blamed Kirk's killing on the radical left, falsely framed all political violence is the product of radical leftism, and promise to crack down on anyone who contributed to the murder, and to shut down organizations that fund or support it. This is a wide net to cast that telegraphs the president's intention to coalesce more power

and suppress more speech, which his administration has already been doing plenty of. Rather than turn the temperature down, I've seen dozens of other elected Republicans and prominent right-wing influencers doing everything from declaring war to calling for all-out assault on anything vaguely left or liberal to locking up or silencing critics of the right. President Trump seemingly endorsed the piece of Cold War legislation that could be used to censor and punish media organizations. While some people have been fired for good reason, random Americans across the country are losing their jobs or being targeted for not being sufficiently deferential toward Kirk's legacy. Meanwhile, a prominent Fox news host is holding on to his job after suggesting on live television that homeless people should be killed via lethal injection.

I fear there is a full-on assault coming toward the left and not the rhetorical kind, but one fundamentally aimed at destroying liberal organizations and suppressing speech from liberals all in Kirk's memory. This, today, is the immediate threat, and it is a sick and twisted irony that this threat follows the killing of Charlie Kirk. Again, Kirk was quite clear that he was doing what he was doing in an effort to prevent civil war and political violence. Yes, at his worst, he excused and subtly endorsed forms of political violence, but he never engaged in or incited it himself. While conservatives are trying to make the entire left responsible for the shooter's actions, Kirk was the one who said words are not violence. Only violence is violence. We cannot criminalize or suppress speech in an effort to solve political violence. We actually need to do the opposite.

We need to endorse and promote speech, even if it is uncomfortable or confrontational, and we must ensure more Americans who hate each other's politics can actually get to know each other and find ways to connect on a human level in real life. I want to be clear that plenty of good actors are out there, too. GOP Senator James Langford from Oklahoma appeared on Face the Nation with his Democratic colleague Chris Coons from Connecticut to urge people

to step back from the brink. House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Republican from Louisiana, rightly said that we have got to stop framing simple policy disagreements in terms of existential threats to our democracy. While Trump was promising vengeance, Utah's Republican governor was demanding an off-ramp, insisting people log off, turn off,

touch grass, hug a family member. I genuinely appreciate and commend this kind of response, but I fear it's being drowned out by all the others. For now, the truth about Kirk's shooter is still unclear and probably will be for some time. What is obvious and immediate is that our political leaders can either continue demonizing the other side as an existential threat or start trying to build genuine political bridges to turn the temperature down. I was glad to see so many of Kirk's harshest critics respond to his death in a similar way that I did. This is a moment, in my view, for us to lean into our humanity and dig deep for some empathy that requires not just practicing this stuff ourselves, but also criticizing any politicians,

influencers, or peers who are inflaming tensions rather than addressing them. The current president is first in line, and so far he's off to a bad start. All that means is that the task is greater for the rest of us. We'll be right back after. this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Jerome in Schaumburg, Illinois.

Jerome said, in response to Isaac's critical issue to solve, how is affordable housing more solvable? Fixing rent or home prices would probably result in people unwilling to invest in rental or home properties and government subsidizing rent or housing has always been a disaster. How would you propose solving it? Okay, so to be fair, in my response to a reader question two weeks ago, I wrote that the issue of affordable housing is more solvable in the near term than health care.

Housing certainly is an intractable issue, but most people would probably agree that it's not as intractable as health care, which may be the single most pervasive large-scale problem the government is facing. But still, it's probably not productive to quibble over which incredible difficult issue is harder to solve. You're right. Price fixing has failed before and even well-intended proposals like inclusionary zoning can often lead developers to decide not to build new homes, which then makes the problem worse. Among our staff, we have a few different ideas for how to help fix the housing availability crisis involving a range of solutions on the spectrum of less government

involvement to more. Here are two such ideas on either end of that spectrum. First is reducing zoning requirements. All over the country, local ordinances restrict what kinds of homes builders can develop. Removing zoning requirements can allow for more high-density housing, which would increase supply, lower costs, and offer an attractive return on investment to developers, leading to more construction and even lower housing costs. This is similar to the abundance approach. Second is increased taxes on second homes. Providing a disincentive to wealthier landowners against owning multiple properties would also serve to create more supply by making existing homes and apartments available to others. Secondarily, revenue from these taxes can fund public services like

schools, police, and public transit that can raise standards of living for those in affordable housing units. 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. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. On Tuesday, results from the National Assessment of Education Progress showed that U.S. high schoolers continued to struggle on math and reading exams, adding to declines that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. 12th graders' scores dropped to their lowest level in more than 20 years,

with 67% scoring at least basic on the reading test and 55% achieving the same level on the math test. While the recent declines began during the pandemic, educators say school closures and rising, absenteeism are also contributing to the issue. These results should galvanize all of us to take inserted and focused action to accelerate student learning. Matthew Soldner, the acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics said. The Associated Press has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section.

The manhunt for the suspect in Charlie Kirk's shooting lasted approximately 33 hours, before authorities arrested a suspect on Friday. The suspect was enrolled in college at Utah State University for one semester in 2021. The FBI fielded 7,000 leads before arresting the suspect. They had also received 11,000 leads by the time they announced the suspect's arrest. The number of unspent bullets in the magazine of the alleged murder weapon was three.

According to a July 24, more in common, UGov poll, 71% of U.S. adults said they expected more civil violence in the U.S. in the year following the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump, while 29% said they did not expect more civil violence. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Nearly half of all renters in Madison, Wisconsin, spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and the city faces one of the lowest rental vacancy rates in the country. In response to this critical shortage, the congregate, at St. John's Lutheran Church in downtown Madison

has decided to transform its current worship space to include temporary shelters. The new complex will include a sanctuary, community event space, and 110 income-capped housing units, according to Reverend Peter Beeson. We really came together and realized that we could use our land and our building for good and flourishing our community, Beeson said.

Wisconsin Public Radio 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 reetangle.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, your editor Will Kback and associate editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, 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.