Tangle - Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Mahmoud Khalil's deportation rulings.

Episode Date: April 14, 2025

In the past week, U.S. courts have issued a pair of significant rulings on the deportation actions of the Trump administration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled without dissent to uphold a federal judge’s order that the government must facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Separately, on Friday, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that the government could deport Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and recent Columbia University graduate student, on national security grounds. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can 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 of the recent court decisions? Let us know!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, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place where you 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 a pair of rulings around President Donald Trump and his administration's deportations, one involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia that the Supreme Court handed down and another involving Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian student from Columbia University. Both pretty interesting, both going in slightly different directions. We're going to talk about exactly what happened and then, of course, share some views from the left and the right in my take.

Before we do, I want to address a couple things. First of all, we published on Friday our interview with Richard Hananya, which generated a good deal of commentary. We anticipated and responded to many readers from the left upset with us for interviewing Ananya given his past, but we did not anticipate that just as many readers from the right would write in frustrated with a purported lack of balance

because we interviewed a Trump supporter who regretted his vote. One commenter, for example, just to give you a sample, said, "'Are you going to interview someone who regrets voting "'for Kamala Harris or for Joe Biden, you know, "'since you claim to care about balance?' Just for the record, for those who are interested, we actually did share the voices of people

who regretted their support for Biden, most notably Representative Dean Phillips, the Democrat from Minnesota, whom we interviewed in October of 2023. So like six, eight months before Biden dropped out after he called on Biden to step down and announced he was challenging him for the Democratic nomination.

We had him on our YouTube show, invited him on the podcast just like we did with Ananya. Also, we published an entire Friday edition on why Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, which included many criticisms of her and her campaign from people who supported her. So just throwing that out there. Anyway, you can scroll back just a couple of days

in our podcast feed to find the Hananya interview. You can find a transcript of it on our website. The transcript is for members only, it's partially paywalled. And there's also a YouTube video, which we'll link to in today's episode description that you can go watch if you want. All right, with that, I'm going to send it over to John

for today's main story and I'll be back with my take. ["Spring Day"] Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Hope y'all had a refreshing and enjoyable weekend. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, China suspended exports of a range of critical minerals and magnets in response to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The materials are used as key components by automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor

companies, and military contractors. Separately, the Trump administration announced that electronic devices, such as smartphones and laptops, would be exempt from its individualized tariffs on China. However, the White House later said those products were still subject to the administration's baseline 10 percent tariffs and the original 20 percent tariff imposed on China in February. Number 2. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and his family were evacuated from their home after a fire broke out in the governor's mansion early Sunday morning.

Law enforcement officials announced that they had arrested and charged a suspect with attempted murder, terrorism, aggravated arson, and aggravated assault against an enumerated person. Number 3. American and Iranian officials reportedly held talks in Oman on the future of Iran's nuclear program. A second round of direct talks is expected to take place in Rome on Saturday. 4. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the United States had deported 10 more alleged

gang members to El Salvador. The deportations come as President Trump hosts Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele at the White House on Monday. And number 5. A Russian missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy killed at least 34 people and wounded 117, according to Ukraine's State emergency service. The attack is the deadliest in the Russia-Ukraine war this year. Tonight lawyers from Mahmoud Khalil vowing to fight his possible deportation. An immigration judge today finding the Trump administration can remove the Columbia grad

student using a rarely invoked provision of immigration law. The man mistakenly deported to El Salvador is now getting help from the Supreme Court. The justices said the Trump administration must facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He had a court ordered protective status preventing his removal. In a court filing, the government admitted it mistakenly deported him due to an administrative error. In the past week, US courts have issued a pair of significant rulings on the deportation

actions of the Trump administration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled without dissent to uphold a federal judge's order that the government must facilitate Kilmar Abrego-Garcia's return to the U.S. after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Separately, on Friday, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that the government could deport Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and recent Columbia University graduate student, on national security grounds. For context, in March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of non-citizens and alleged gang members to a detention facility in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798,

which gives the president the wartime authority to deport any foreign nationals of any enemy nation. Among those deported was Quilmar Abrego Garcia, a non-citizen who had been previously granted an order blocking his deportation to his home country of El Salvador due to threats on his life. The Trump administration cited an administrative error for his deportation, but said the court lacks the authority to order his return. Separately, on March 8, immigration authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil after the State Department

revoked his legal status. While a graduate student at Columbia, Khalil was a prominent pro-Palestinian activist who led protests against Israel's actions in the war in Gaza. Khalil has yet to be charged with the crime. However, the Trump administration is justifying his deportation order under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens if they are deemed to risk potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

Khalil is being held at the Central Louisiana Ice Processing Center while he challenges his removal. You can check out our previous coverage of the Trump administration's El Salvador deportations and Khalil's arrest with links in today's episode description. The Supreme Court's Thursday ruling found that U.S. District Judge Paula Zenez could require the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, but sent the case back to Zenez to clarify her wording. The administration had argued that the judge's order infringed on the president's power to conduct foreign affairs.

However, the court found that Zenez's order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The administration has yet to explain how it will bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States, but on Saturday, a State Department official filed a briefing that affirmed Abrego Garcia is alive and secure in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. However, the administration also argued that the court's ruling does not require them to help extract Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

Instead, the administration says it will satisfy the order to facilitate his return by removing domestic barriers should El Salvador release him. Separately, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamie Comyn's ruling that Khalil can be deported found that the government had met its burden of proof to remove him, giving Khalil's attorneys until April 23 to file relief applications. At a hearing on Friday, the government said that Khalil had misrepresented himself on his green card application, asserting that when he applied for permanent U.S. residency, he had willfully failed to disclose previous employment with the Syrian office in the British

embassy in Beirut or with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio submitted a letter to the court justifying Khalil's deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Khalil's case now moves into a relief stage, wherein his lawyers will argue for his right to stay in the U.S. If that effort fails, they may appeal to an immigration board and then a federal court before his deportation can take place. Today, we'll share perspectives on the two rulings and the latest in each case with

arguments from the right and the left, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca.

All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right criticizes the judge in Abrego Garcia's case, arguing she has not heeded the directive in the Supreme Court's order. Most support the immigration court's ruling on Khalil's deportation, saying the Trump administration's action is legally justified. Others argue the left is misrepresenting the Supreme Court's ruling. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about Trump, wrongful deportation, and the

courts. In an unsigned order, the justices said the administration must comply with Judge Zenez's instruction that it facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. But the court also said the judge's use of the term effectuate in her order was unclear and may exceed her authority, the board said. Judge Zenez seems to have read past the part about deference to the executive branch. Instead, she responded with an aggressive order that the government provide information about its efforts at 9.30 Friday morning.

The Justice Department asked to have until April 15th to respond. Now that Mr. Abrego Garcia is in El Salvador, the U.S. can't simply order the foreign government to send him back. This requires diplomacy, which is a foreign policy function reserved for the executive," the board wrote. This is a showdown nobody needs. The Supreme Court tried to balance the due process and executive power interests in the case, and Judge Zennis acted as if the Supreme Court had merely offered her counsel she didn't

need to take. She is needlessly courting a clash with the executive branch." In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said the immigration court gets it right on Mahmoud Khalil's deportation call. Khalil's activities and presence, Rubio assesses, undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the U.S. in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the U.S. in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the U.S.," McCarthy wrote.

Naturally, there has been an uproar, particularly from Islamists and leftists, because Rubio's determination does not rely on criminal allegations. There is, however, no legal requirement that exclusion or removal be based on criminal activity. The point of mandating that the Secretary of State personally make a determination is that the assessment is based on a reasonable government judgment, not a crime. The order granting removal was the right call, regardless of the caterwalling that has already resulted.

The President must be permitted to expel non-Americans who are pro-Hamas anti-Semitic agitators," McCarthy said. An alien, even a lawful permanent resident, is a guest in the United States, not a citizen of the United States. The Constitution does not command that we abide in our midst aliens who champion anti-American counter-constitutional programs. It is thus fitting and essential that Congress has vested removal authority in the Secretary of State.

In PJ Media, Matt Margolis suggested the Left missed a key detail in SCOTUS's ruling on Abrego Garcia. While liberal commentators rushed to celebrate the decision as a sweeping victory, they ignored key nuances in the Court's language that sharply constrained the ruling's actual reach. The Supreme Court issued an injunction regarding the deadline for his potential retrieval, ordering his return to the United States. However, this ruling comes with significant caveats that many on the left have conveniently ignored in their rush to celebrate, Margolis wrote.

The order explicitly highlights limitations on district court authority and emphasizes executive branch discretion. In other words, the Supreme Court has stepped in to curb overreach by district judges. The court's decision focuses more on procedural aspects than establishing any permanent right to remain in the country. While the court maintained parts of the district court's order,

it specifically struck down the deadline requirement and called for clarification on implementation, Margolis said. The ruling underscores a fundamental truth. Even seemingly straightforward Supreme Court decisions often contain crucial details that completely changed their practical impact, and the left celebrated way too soon. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left supports the jest of the Supreme Court's ruling, but says it remains ambiguous.

Some are disappointed by the Khalil ruling, but say his fight against deportation is not over. Others criticize the administration's legal argument for deporting Khalil. In Vox, Ian Milheiser wrote, Trump defied a court order. The Supreme Court just handed him a partial loss. On Thursday evening, the full court lifted Judge Zenas' block in what appears to be a 9-0 decision. Sometimes justices disagree with an order but do not make that dissent public.

Still, Thursday's decision does not allow Abrego Garcia's immediate release and return to the United States, Milheiser said. The Supreme Court concludes that the lower court's order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. But it adds that the intended scope of the term effectuate in the district court's order to facilitate and effectuate his return is, however, unclear and may exceed the district court's authority.

The word facilitate suggests that the government must take what steps it can to make something happen, while the word effectuate suggests that it needs to actually make it happen, Milheiser wrote. However, the ruling does suggest that a majority of the justices are open to the possibility that the U.S. government will request Abrego Garcia's release, that the Salvadoran government says no, and at some point the courts will not be able to push U.S. officials to do more. In Jacobin, Chip Gibbon said Mahmoud Khalil's battle is not over. Friday's ruling is part of a broader crackdown on free speech rights related to Israel's

assault on Gaza. According to Irene Kahn, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the war in Gaza has unleashed a global crisis of freedom and expression," Gibbons wrote. Khalil's battle is not over. His habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of his detention is still a live issue that will be considered before a federal court. The federal court has ordered that Khalil's deposition be stayed until he can rule on

the habeas petition. Even in immigration court, Khalil still has options. Having been found to be removable, Khalil can request relief from deportation. He can also eventually appeal the judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. But the ease with which the Trump administration has been able to have Khalil abducted, whisk him away to a private prison in Louisiana, and have an administrative judge ratify a legal assault on the First Amendment rights of a U.S. permanent resident is troubling, to say the least.

For now, Khalil remains a political prisoner in the United States. In The Guardian, Mostafa Bayoumi argued, the case against Mahmoud Khalil is meant to silence American dissent. Let's be absolutely clear about how outrageous this decision is. The judge, Jamie Cummins, had given the Trump administration a deadline to produce the evidence required to show that Khalil should be deported. In a functional state, such evidence would rise to the standard of extreme criminality necessitating deportation," Bayoumi said.

In response to the judge's order, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio produced a flimsy one-and-a-half page memo that admits that Khalil engaged in no criminal conduct. The government was saying that Khalil's views, including his future views, were sufficient grounds for his deportation. It would seem that Rubio believes the phrase, freedom and equality for everyone, undermines U.S. foreign policy interests. He may finally be right about something, but he's wrong about Khalil, who is clearly not anti-Semitic, Bayoumi wrote.

The attempt to deport Khalil is meant primarily to discipline the people of the United States into silence and conformity. For that reason alone, the government's actions must be resisted. Healthy societies are based on free thinking and dissent. Unhealthy societies mobilize fear and intimidation to regulate opinion and manufacture consent. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. ["My Take"] All right, that is it for with the left and the right are saying which brings us to my take.

So I'm a big fan of accountability and journalism. It's part of the whole ethos of what we do here at Tangle. And the recent proceedings in these two cases actually offer an interesting opportunity for us. They give me a chance to reevaluate some of my writing in the wake of new information. So let's start with Mahmood Khalil. The gist of my take when we first covered his case was that the administration was not applying immigration law normally.

Khalil's due process rights were being violated and green cards shouldn't be revoked for actions like those Khalil was accused of, mostly being pro-Hamas and organizing student protests against Israel, even those that ended with accusations of Jewish students being harassed. I also allowed that my position could change if the administration charged him with a crime

or revealed new information, but that the evidence I had access to at the time indicated the Trump administration was attempting to arrest and deport someone for peacefully saying a bunch of things they didn't like. Now for the new information. The State Department's two-page memo, uploaded on April 9th, which you can read, justifying Khalil's deportation, does not describe or allege any criminal conduct, but argues that it doesn't have to in order to justify his deportation.

Instead, Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserts that Khalil's legal conduct would undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States. This argument was apparently enough for Judge Jamie Comans, and even legal commentators like Andrew McCarthy. I've been boosting McCarthy when we agree in recent weeks, so it's only fair to note that we're on opposite sides of this one. Perhaps my core beef here is with the existing law that the Secretary of State can issue a personal declaration like, Khalil is a threat to foreign policy because of anti-Semitism, and then deport a non-citizen based not on evidence of a crime, but on their alleged beliefs.

Even if we're accepting the power Rubio has, the administration choosing to stretch a narrow application of immigration law to its limits strikes me as unreasonable. The fundamental claim in Rubio's memo is that Khalil has acted in anti-Semitic ways or promoted anti-Semitism, which is not an argument I've seen buttress by facts. Many proud Jews share the exact criticisms of the Israeli government that Khalil does. However, the administration's newest accusations were much more notable. During his green card application, Khalil improperly omitted work he did with the Syrian office in the British embassy in Beirut and with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency

for the Palestine refugees. That new information is closer to the kind I suggested could change my mind, and if the administration were deporting him on those grounds, I think they would be on much firmer footing. But their primary accusation seems to continue to be that he's fostering anti-Semitism in America and thus undermining U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps you believe that Khalil has or is likely to have some abhorrent views and associations. I do. Perhaps you believe that the protests Khalil was involved in left

Jewish students feeling intimidated and frightened on campus. I do. Perhaps you believe Khalil has even expressed sympathy for a terrorist organization like Hamas. I've yet to see strong evidence of this, nor has the government produced it, but sure, it's possible. Even so, do you really think his presence in the United States has potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country, as Rubio claims? Do you think this one man, a legal permanent U.S. resident with a U.S. citizen wife who is pregnant and set to give birth this month, deserves to be sitting in a Louisiana prison for over a month with no end in sight?

Or that he needs to be sent back to Syria, a country he says he fled because of its civil war? These propositions continue to strike me as ridiculous, but I also have to acknowledge some weakness in my initial take a few weeks ago. At the very least, I underestimated how much latitude this little used immigration law gives Secretary Rubio to single out and deport a person like Khalil. That power

is, at least according to some judges and scholars, quite well-vested in the Secretary of State in our country. I can understand why we have this law. If the U.S. government credibly suspects a person of actually planning to perpetuate terrorism, it should be able to deport them. I just think the notion that Khalil is that person is completely bonkers. And I'm hopeful that a federal judge in New Jersey or future challenges bear that out. Now onto Abrego Garcia's case. In a Friday edition earlier this month,

I made the case for due process for anyone on American soil. Simply put, I argued that the Trump administration should not be deporting people, even non-citizens here illegally, to a maximum security prison in El Salvador without first accusing them of any crimes, proving they were actually not here legally and deporting them due process throughout. I argue that this is both morally repugnant and also probably illegal.

What's happened since then only makes me more confident in my initial writing. The Vice President of the United States spent the week after Abrego Garcia was deported mocking reporters on the internet for misunderstanding immigration law, only for the Supreme Court to issue a 9-0 decision affirming a district court's order to bring Abrego Garcia home. Although the term gaslighting gets overused, administration officials like Stephen Miller pretending this was a win for the Trump administration is a perfect example of it. That being said, Miller would have been right to suggest that the people celebrating this ruling as a total defeat for the Trump administration were also out over their skis.

The Supreme Court's ruling, despite being 9-0, does leave open the possibility that the Salvadoran government can inform the United States that they can't get Abrego Garcia home, in which case the lower court's ruling is unenforceable and the government can say it complied with the order. In other words, it's possible the Supreme Court orders the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia. The Trump administration says it can't influence El Salvador's government and the Supreme Court can only accept that outcome. For all intents and purposes, that would mean the administration just got away with illegally

sending a potentially innocent person to an El Salvadoran prison with no due process for, potentially, the rest of his life. The Supreme Court's order and the ruling in Cleo's case, along with the last few weeks of court rulings on immigration cases, tell us two things. First, the Trump administration appears to have wide legal latitude to deport immigrants here on visas, even for speech that would be constitutionally protected for American citizens. Second, while they might be able to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport non-citizens they

accuse of being here illegally, we'll get more clarity on that soon, they must afford those non-citizens due process. That's the current state of play. The Trump administration is now back to promising it will be deporting a million immigrants, a goal it is so far lagging well behind on, but I think it's safe to assume the immigration battles are about to ratchet up.

We'll be right back after this quick break. We'll be right back after this quick break. You're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at Fizz.ca. All right. That is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from an anonymous reader who said, there's a lot of information going around right now about the fact that all of Donald Trump's children were born prior to their mothers gaining U.S. citizenship, and that if you were to pass this law repealing birthright citizenship, it would void all of their citizenships as well. However, with Donald being a citizen, I'm curious how that would play out.

The short answer is no, but I think it's worth explaining why this particular brand of conspiratorial thinking that frequently goes viral on the left is nonsense. To clarify, the administration is not attempting to repeal birthright citizenship through a law or a constitutional amendment, but instead by issuing an executive order that tries to reinterpret an amendment to the constitution. On January 20th, President Trump ordered that the 14th Amendment would no longer be interpreted to extend birthright citizenship in all cases, arguing that the phrase subject to the jurisdiction does not apply to non-permanent residents or illegal aliens.

Specifically, the executive order states that birthright citizenship should only be granted to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. So first, the order does not technically apply to anyone right now. The order was challenged in U.S. district courts where judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state blocked the administration from enforcing the order.

In March, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the Supreme Court to partially block those orders, but the court has not issued a ruling yet, leaving the challenges standing. Second, Donald Trump's children would not be subject to this order for the simple fact that their father is a US citizen. So open and shut case closed there.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the order would not revoke citizenship from any person to whom it had already been granted. The executive order is supposed to go into effect 30 days after it was issued on January 20th, 2025. All right. That is it for our listener question today. 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.

On Thursday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law a bill banning the purchase, sale, and manufacture of most semi-automatic firearms without background checks and training. The law requires individuals to pass a background check and receive an eligible card from their county sheriff, after which they must pass a 12-hour safety course or a four-hour course for those who have previously completed Hunter's training. Afterward, licensees are entered into a state database of those eligible to purchase a semi-automatic firearm contingent upon passing another background check at the point of sale. While state residents can avoid the regulations outright by buying a gun in another state,

the Colorado State Shooting Association says the law is unconstitutional and plans to sue. CBS News Colorado has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The number of days since Mahmoud Khalil's arrest is 37. The percentage of likely U.S. voters who believe Khalil should be deported is 45%, according to a March 2025 Rasmussen Reports survey. The percentage of likely U.S. voters who disagree with Khalil's deportation is 38%.

The percentage of likely U.S. voters who say they are unsure about whether Khalil should be deported is 18 percent. The number of days since Quilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador is 30. The number of non-citizens and alleged gang members deported to El Salvador on March 15 was 238. And the approximate percentage of those deported who did not have a criminal record in the United States is 87% according to a Bloomberg analysis. And last but not least are Havanay's Day Store.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS, take over 1,000 years to decompose, which is why they're often referred to as forever chemicals. PFAS have been found in food, water, and many domestic products, and they have been linked to multiple serious health conditions. However, 16 states and the Environmental Protection Agency have adopted policies to limit the use of these chemicals in everyday consumer products, including apparel, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetic products, and menstrual items.

This is a landmark decision that will save countless lives," Dana Kohl-Ahan, a co-facilitator of the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, said. Good Good Good 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 Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will K. Back and associate editors Hunter Tasperson, Audrey Morehead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Knuth, 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. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with FIZ. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at FIZ.ca.