Tangle - PREVIEW - The Friday Edition: Your questions, answered.

Episode Date: March 14, 2025

As part of the Tangle ethos, we solicit reader questions about politics and our work every day in our newsletter. And every few months, so many questions pile up on the back end that we decide to answer a bunch of them at once in a members-only reader mailbag. Today is one of those days. We think this is a healthy exercise that not only allows us to critically examine some of our own writing, but also provides readers with more perspectives that help us fulfill our core mission. If you want to read more about what we’re building here, two weeks ago we wrote about the whole point of Tangle. As always, we want to thank those of you who write in with thoughtful questions or raise challenging criticisms that help us improve. We hope you enjoy today’s mailbag!This is a preview of today's special edition that is available in full and ad-free for our premium podcast subscribers. If you'd like to complete this episode and receive Sunday editions, exclusive interviews, bonus content, and more, head over to ReadTangle.com and sign up for a membership.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 also give the gift of a Tangle podcast subscription by clicking here.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 is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and Jon Lall. 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.

BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw. Relax your shoulders. Take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. For a limited time, visit BetterHelp.com slash random pod for one free week of online therapy.

No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax. Time's running out to take advantage of Wealthsimple's best match offer yet. Relax. March 15th is your last chance to make the most of your recent contributions. Minimum $15,000 transfer. Additional terms apply. Learn more at Wealthsimple.com slash match. With the FIZ 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 Fizz.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. And welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take.

I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, we're doing a reader mailbag. It's been a little while since we did one of these, but we got a huge fat stack of listener and reader questions that have just been sitting in our inbox, in our little spreadsheet where we organize them. And so we wanted to clear that stack a bit. I'd also just like to contextualize this in relation to the last few weeks. A couple of Fridays ago, we wrote and published a podcast about the whole point of Tangle. And as we wrote in that piece, we're not here to just stand on a

soapbox or to call balls and strikes and tell you who's right and who's wrong. We want to present the best arguments as we understand them and let you make your own determinations, all while trying to give you our best read on what's going on in the news from the day today. So you'll see us grappling with the topic at hand forming a narrow opinion on issue and over time we assume you are forming your own broader viewpoints. We do not want to make you see things our way. We want to provide some deep political analysis that helps you see things your way with more clarity. And as part of that ethos, we solicit reader questions about politics and our work every day entangled.

So many questions pile up on the backend that we just decide to answer a bunch of them at once in these member only reader, listener, mailbags. So today's one of those days. I think it's a very healthy exercise that just allows us to critically examine some of our own writing, but it also provides us with more perspectives

that help us fulfill our core mission. So as always, we wanna thank all of you for writing in. A reminder, you can do that by writing to our staff inbox, staff at readtangle.com. Somebody always reads those emails. There's also a form in our newsletter that you can click into to fill out a question and we read them.

We really do. We go through and we think about ones we want to tackle in the podcast or the newsletter. Because today's piece is quite big and because there were a lot of questions, you're going to hear a few different voices on the podcast. I'm going to be reading some of these responses, but Will and Ari are also going to drop in to read the responses that they answered. I answered a few listener questions. They answered a few listener questions. So when you hear their voice, that's why. All right. With that, I'm going to kick things off with a question from John in Rockville, Maryland. John said, much of the start of this new administration feels well planned and thought out. Isn't much of what Trump has done so far right in line with Project 2025? If not the people

behind Project 2025, who are the planners and thinkers that have gotten this administration off to such a fast start? Thanks in advance for any thoughts. So since Trump came into office, I've actually gotten a lot of questions from Tangle readers about our explainer on Project 2025 that we published before the election. In that piece, I put forward a few key arguments. Number one, Project 2025 was an expansive plan for taking over the government and it represented a lot of fringe conservative views. Second, on net, given how radical some of the proposals were, I did not support the document as a whole, though I pointed out some ideas that I liked. And third, I expected Trump to adopt some of the policies, leave others behind, and try but fail to adopt others.

Since Trump has come into office, those Tangle readers have been suggesting that I was wrong about Project 2025, that it was the plan, it is the plan, and we are seeing Trump adopt it wholesale. To be sure, they have some pretty good arguments. For one, Trump immediately made Russell Vaught, a Project 2025 author, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, which administers the federal budget and coordinates policy initiatives across executive agencies. Also conservative commentators like Matt Walsh and Steve Bannon immediately joked after Trump won that yes, Project 2025 really is the goal. But going back and reading our writing, I actually think our coverage of Project 2025 has aged really well.

Trump is also doing exactly what I said he would. He's taking some ideas, abandoning others and failing to incorporate some. For instance, one of the biggest areas of concern we highlighted in our piece was attacking the federal civil service. Indeed, Trump and Doge have gone after the federal workforce with layoffs. Trump did not enter office with a plan to bypass Biden-era regulations that made it harder to implement Schedule F, which would strip civil servants of protections from being fired, but they're now gearing up for a fight. Trump is trying to wind down the education department,

but he's already delayed signing one planned executive order over fear of backlash. At the same time, Project 2025 advanced plenty of policy prescriptions that Trump hasn't even attempted. Most notably, he has not adopted any of the platform's recommendations on abortion. In fact, he has continued to push for expansion of IVF and has tried pulling Republicans to the center on the issue. He's not invoked the Insurrection Act, though there is reporting the administration is still mulling it. He has not conducted mass deportations.

Deportation levels were lower in February than they were during Biden's last full month in office. He has not disbanded the Department of Commerce. In fact, he is trying to expand its power and core functions under Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He also has not disbanded but instead empowered the Department of Homeland Security. Like I said in our initial piece, Trump was lying when he claimed to know nothing about Project 2025. He was glad-handing with many of its authors and has since brought a few of them into the administration.

He always had deep connections to its organizers, but he also hasn't bound himself to their plans. Trump's agenda and Project 2025s were not the same and they still aren't the same. Next up is a question from Jacob in Boston, Massachusetts. Jacob said, my personal favorite tango piece you've ever done is seeing ghosts, which I actually re-read last night to lower the temperature for myself. But how do we know when the ghosts are real? I get how tired and overblown the Hitler comparisons are, but there is plenty of

room for innovation on human and civil rights violations. What could a political candidate that could undermine American democracy or its protection of citizens to bring America its own Tiananmen Square or Holocaust or some other fresh horror look like? Would there be warning signs? And how would they be different from the warning signs Trump is currently showing us?

Okay, so first of all, thanks for highlighting that piece. It's one of my favorites I've ever written. It's one I'm thinking about expanding on down the road. I encourage people to go read it again. It's called Seeing Ghosts. Second, let me give you one example of why I might chuckle at relating the Holocaust or the Tiananmen Square massacre to Donald Trump.

As I was thinking about your question, I literally got a push notification from the Wall Street Journal that a well-respected federal judge had just ordered Trump to reinstate thousands of fired workers. The lawsuit was brought by a group representing tens of thousands of federal employees across six agencies fired by the Doge crew and Russell Vaught. They sued and they won.

I don't know what will happen next. Maybe Trump will challenge this ruling up to the Supreme Court. Maybe he will comply and let it be. I suspect the former. But to explain my point in a quippy way, some people are worried about Trump becoming the next Hitler when he can't even fire federal workers. I really don't mean to be glib, but this is genuinely what I think when I see this stuff. The truth is, I just have a lot of trust in our systems, in our courts, our people, and yes, even our Congress to the degree they are good at jamming each other up. It's possible that one of my most conservative or conservative-coded views, because I increasingly

struggle to know what is conservative or liberal anymore, is a general reverence for our founding fathers and a continued wonder at how much their theories of government have continued to apply to our modern era in a way that preserves democracy. Thankfully, I think the worst instincts of Trump, the people in his orbit, and past presidents like him are all checked pretty well by the system we have. It's truly remarkable. At the same time, it's not impossible to conceive of things becoming increasingly more dangerous.

Genuine danger signs for me would include these five things. 1. The DOJ or FBI actually attempts to prosecute or imprison Joe Biden or prominent Democratic leaders, especially those potentially running for office in 2028, presuming the charges aren't accompanied by material evidence. For instance, Democrats like Bob Menendez and Eric Adams deserve to be charged. Trump supporters would, of course, suggest this already happened to Trump. But my view is that Trump actually did deserve to be charged for election interference

and the theft of classified documents because there was material evidence. Given the publicly available information, I'm not surprised that he got charged, though I would reserve judgment on his guilt until those cases were actually complete. Of course, they weren't. Number two, using the military, especially with excessive force against peaceful protesters. I do not mean clearing out a single small protest in Washington, D.C., but actually deploying soldiers against demonstrators who were assembling peacefully against some action he took in office. Number three, genuinely restricting or chilling speech. Good examples might be banning newsrooms from reporting on the White House because they don't use the White House's preferred language, powerful figures in the administration threatening newsrooms with

jail or the arrests and deportation of legal permanent U.S. residents for speech. In case you're not catching my drift, yes, I think this one is actually already happening. As I've said, I think it's one of the most disturbing developments yet. Number four, the eroding or ending of free and fair elections. I'm fairly certain that Democrats will win back the House in 2026, and I think they have a good shot at the White House in 2028. If we've learned anything these last 20 years, it's that Americans love change, and I don't see the MAGA movement maintaining its force after Trump leaves office.

But if Republicans meaningfully erode or end free elections through legislation in the next two years, or begin to seriously entertain the prospect of Trump 2028, we'll call that out early and often. And I don't just mean gerrymandering, which is a bipartisan crisis, or voter ID laws, which I support. I mean an actual electoral restructuring that prohibits Democrats or Democratic groups from being able to participate in elections. And number five, I'd look out for Democrats folding. By folding, I mean complete submission to Trump and MAGA. A defining characteristic of authoritarian regimes is their utter lack of any meaningful opposition. For instance, countries like North Korea or Russia have

no real opposition party. Every election is a sham. In countries like Hungary, opposition exists but it has been totally defanged and weakened. The United States still has a genuine and capable opposition to Trump, and Republicans represented a genuine and capable opposition to Biden. I don't love the duopoly, but that makes me much less nervous about any kind of authoritarian takeover. We'll be right back after this quick break. Better Help Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now wherever you are to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right?

That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. For a limited time, visit betterhelp.com slash random pod for one free week of online therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax. With the FIZ 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.

Next up is an anonymous reader from Laguna Niguel, California. They said in your take on Trump establishing cryptocurrency reserves, you indicated that you had bought and made profit from cryptocurrency. It seems to me that cryptocurrency is a giant Ponzi scheme as you only make a profit if someone buys your cryptocurrency. What am I not understanding? I'm very puzzled. Okay, so first of all, if you define Ponzi scheme as you only make a profit if someone buys your asset then yes, I suppose it fits pretty nicely, though I think that definition would also apply to stocks or a home, which I don't think are Ponzi schemes. Genuine Ponzi schemes are investment schemes in which early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones

in order to encourage more and bigger risks, often when no underlying company actually exists. That being said, I think your general instinct touches on something that is very true, and basically a joke at this point. Cryptocurrencies continue to struggle to find purpose. Some cryptocurrencies really do seem like giant Ponzi schemes. I wouldn't put Bitcoin or Ethereum into this category, but there are a lot of meme coins that hinge entirely on being able to convince more people to buy.

The reality is crypto was not supposed to just be an asset. Crypto was built on a digital ledger system known as the blockchain, which keeps a log of transactions in a peer-to-peer network of computers. The idea was that this ledger was indelible, which would allow it to be used for all kinds of things like contracts or business deals that could never be undone or tampered with. For a long time, vast blockchain use cases were promised up and down and the technology was supposed to change the future of transactions. That has not come to pass and instead cryptocurrencies have just been bought and sold like assets. I think that gap for a lot of people has created the impression that it is just like a Ponzi scheme. All right. Next up is a question from Laura in Arlington, Washington. Laura said, regarding

your time at the border and the folks you've met who have been here illegally for a long time, since they have been here for a long time, why have they not applied for citizenship? Is there an immigration track for folks who are already established and contributing to society or is everyone automatically slated for deportation if they attempt to remedy their legal status? No one I know seems to have an understanding of this. Okay, first of all, this is a great question. As I mentioned in our coverage of Trump's pushed and birthright citizenship, I have

spent a lot of time near the US Mexico border. I actually own some property down there and over time I've spent a lot of time near the US-Mexico border. I actually own some property down there. And over time, I've met a lot of people living here illegally, though I've met those people in New York City and Philadelphia as well. The people I've talked to there have been living in the US for decades. They have houses and jobs and American children and feel a stronger allegiance to the US than Mexico. Your question is geared toward this class of immigrants and you're not alone in wondering why, if their lives are so established here, they don't simply apply for American citizenship. It's definitely not for lack of a desire to naturalize. The short answer is that whether an immigrant has been here without authorization for two

months or two decades, there is no clear track for them to apply for a green card, the first step toward US citizenship. To qualify for a green card, the first step toward US citizenship. To qualify for a green card from the US citizenship and immigration services, you must be eligible under a specific category. These categories often don't apply to people living here illegally. For example, if you're a person

with no permanent US relatives, immigrating for economic reasons and have a job that an American citizen could feasibly perform, you're out of luck. To your second question, even those who do qualify under one of the listed categories must comply with a statute known as the three and ten year bars, which requires that undocumented immigrants must leave the United States to apply for their green card abroad. But as soon as they depart, they are immediately

barred from reentering the country for a period of time. In other words, unauthorized migrants seeking green cards have to leave for three years if they were in the U.S. less than a year, or 10 years if they were here longer. It's a catch-22. That's why millions of immigrants here illegally are living in legal limbo. It's not necessarily that they haven't tried, but that there's no simple way to get in line for citizenship once you've crossed the border illegally. Almost all the people I've spoken to in this position have a story that falls into one of the above complications. All right.

Next up is a question from Isaiah in Mechanicsville, Virginia. Isaiah said, in the point 11 of your take on Trump, you claim that Trump and his supporters might want a recession. I looked at your Twitter post, but still don't really understand the claim. Would you mind explaining? Okay, a few things. First, I do not think Trump supporters want a recession so much as I was just preparing people for the fact that they're going to justify one if we get it. My point was more about how people were not really ready for the talking points that were going to come out if there was a recession,

those talking points that didn't come out, where Trump supporters were defending the economy, taking a hit. That being said, the argument that Trump might want a recession is really about two things. One, inflation, two, interest rates. Again, looking at Trump's public comments and hearing from some people in his orbit,

the idea is essentially this. Our economy is propped up right now by a lot of government cash. Inflation has been stubborn, the Fed chair has been shooting for a soft landing and has had some success, but Trump could view a simple way out of inflation as entering a period of negative growth, or a recession. This theory holds water because we know Trump desperately wants interest rates to go down and he also would love to see inflation recede. On top of that, he has long been a proponent of tariffs, almost obsessively so, and he's proving right now that one short-term impact of tariffs is markets contracting. So if he can get the Fed to lower interest rates, reduce inflation, and get his preferred trade

policies, is that all worth it for a recession? If he can blame the conditions that he inherited from Biden, which he is already doing, then I think the answer is yes. Naturally, the obvious counterpoint is that a recession would almost certainly be politically disastrous for him, as it would be for any politician. I'm just not totally sure he cares, especially if he earnestly believes that he can turn things around in this term. It's a radical theory, sure, but I'm just looking at his actions and words and trying to put things together.

We'll be right back after this quick break. BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad to remind you right now wherever you are to unclench your jaw. Relax your shoulders. in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. For a limited time, visit betterhelp.com slash random pod for one free week of online therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax. With the FIZ 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. at phys.ca. Hey everybody. Managing editor Ari Weitzman here grabbing the next question. Tori from Los Gatos, California asks, you've said before that Trump won the majority of votes. Not true. It was a plurality. That he has a positive approval rating.

Not true. It's under 50%. And that he has a mandate on crime and immigration. How can he possibly have a mandate if he was barely elected? Let's take each of these in order. Yes, you're right. Trump did not win a majority of votes. He won a plurality. We got this wrong in January and can only blame it on conflating winning the

popular vote with winning a majority of votes. That was sloppy on our part. As for the approval rating, it's actually a misconception that a positive approval rating is the same thing as having over 50% approval. Instead, a positive approval rating is one where more people approve than disapprove, which disregards those who are unsure or who have no opinion. Still, depending on when you're looking at Trump's approval rating and who was doing the polling, our claim was still arguably wrong. We put a good deal of trust in the polling from Pew Research Center, and in their first

approval rating poll of Trump's current term from back in February, the president was indeed underwater at a net negative four. We also put a lot of trust in Gallup, and they've also yet to show Trump with a positive approval rating so far in his second term. However, real clear politics, whom we should probably trust the most based on their recent success in the 2024 election, had Trump polling at over 50% approval until February. I want to give a brief pause here to address these first two fact checks. It's fair and very much appreciated to ask us to be careful and to be accurate.

We never want to put a word wrong in anything we publish. This isn't to make excuses and it isn't to minimize this pushback, but I do want to say that the thrust of the claims we've been making about Trump's popularity is still true. A great deal of people liked what Trump sold them in the campaign, and they now believe he's delivering on what he was selling. As for the mandate question, I don't think there's a more subjective statement you can make in electoral politics than saying somebody was given a mandate. However, we haven't said that President Trump was given a blanket mandate in a sweeping election, but it's also not like he was barely elected either, like you're saying.

Winning the popular vote and running the table in swing states is a pretty decisive victory. We've only ever made specific and qualified claims about Trump having a mandate in two areas. One, that if he has a mandate on anything, it's immigration. And two, that his efforts to fire federal workers and inspectors general could be seen as part of a mandate to reorganize the federal government. This one comes from fellow Vermonter Mary, who asks, I'm struggling with how to be brave enough to have a conversation with someone who has a different opinion or reality from

mine. I'm referring to a person whose conversational style is to be loudly and verbally dominant with no intention of listening to the thoughts of a conversational partner who thinks differently. President Trump's interaction with Zelensky when Zelensky couldn't get a word in edgewise during the recent negotiations is an example.

Do you have any suggestions that would help to turn the conversation around so it can end without damaging a relationship? First of all, I appreciate the courage it takes to ask this question, so I'm sure that you have the bravery within you, Mary. But I also appreciate that sticking up for your own point of view is much harder than it sounds, especially when you have to consider maintaining a healthy relationship with the person you're

arguing with, or as the case may be, who's arguing with you. For myself, I've found these strategies to be really helpful when talking with someone bellicose. One, ask questions. More than anything else, when you're conversing with someone who likes to do the talking, prodding them with genuine curiosity can help you get your disagreements across quickly and tactfully. These can range from the benign, like, why do you think that?

To the borderline confrontational. Wouldn't that contradict your earlier point? 2. Don't do it all at once. One of the most helpful pieces of advice I've ever received was to be okay leaving a discussion on uncertainty or on the promise to think more about something and come back to it later. If you start planting seeds of doubt in another person's mind and get them to think, not only will they come back to you with a more considered viewpoint,

but they'll learn that you're a person who makes them think. As long as you can do that without being obnoxious, people tend to like talking with you, if you're a person that they think of as someone who makes them think. But be forewarned, you have to be willing to do the same. Conversation is a two-way street, even if the person you've been talking with has been sending all the traffic your way. If you're going to end a conversation by asking them to really consider a different point of view, you've got to be willing to do the same. Three, ask yourself if it's worth it. Sadly, some people are going to require

more time and patience to connect with than it's worth, and it may be the right strategy to just placate them and accept surface-level interactions with these people for the foreseeable future. As a quick anecdote, 10 years ago I was moving to another state and I had to sell my car somewhat quickly. I met someone at a party who had a friend who was looking to buy and I was all too happy to meet him at a notary to receive the money and sign the title over. I was less happy when I had to sit in my former car for 20 minutes while he drove me home. The whole way he was explaining to me how the bluish tint in some headlights was caused

by those cars moving more quickly towards us and compacting the amplitude of the headlights' wavelengths to make them appear blue. I tried to push back, but he told me that he read it in a book and asked, are you calling the science wrong? It was 15 minutes to my point. Hey everybody, this is John, executive producer for Tangle. We hope you enjoyed this preview of our latest Friday edition. If you are not currently a newsletter subscriber or a premium podcast subscriber,

and you are enjoying this content and would like to finish it, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up for a newsletter subscription, or you can sign up for a podcast subscription or a bundled subscription, which gets you both the podcast and the newsletter and unlocks the rest of this episode, well as ad free daily podcasts, more Friday editions,

Sunday editions, bonus content, interviews, and so much more. Most importantly, we just want to say thank you so much for your support. We're working hard to bring you much more content and more offerings so stay tuned. Isaac and Ari will be here for the Sunday podcast, and I will join you for the daily podcast on Monday. For the rest of the crew, this is John Wall signing off. Have a fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will K. Back, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bacova, who is also our social

media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. Can artificial intelligence be a force for good? At the University of British Columbia, we believe it can. Dr. Raymond Ng and team are using AI to harness crucial data within the healthcare system to help deliver care to patients faster. It's AI that puts our health first. At UBC, our researchers are answering today's most pressing questions. To learn how we're moving the world forward,

visit ubc.ca slash forward happens here. Fandu Casino Daily Jackpots, guaranteed to hit by 11 p.m. with your chance at the number one feeling, winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Daily Jackpots, a chance to win with every spin and a guaranteed winner by 11pm every

day. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Select games only. Guarantee void if platform or game outages occur. Guarantee requires play by at least one customer until jackpot is awarded or 11pm Eastern. Research and supply.

See full terms at canada.casino.fandome.com. Please play responsibly. BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw. Relax your shoulders. Take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care.

Imagine what you could do with more. For a limited time, visit betterhelp.com slash random pod for one free week of online therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.