Tangle - SNAP funding expires.

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

On Saturday, the ongoing government shutdown caused federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to lapse. The funding gap will delay scheduled payments to many program beneficiaries who use the money to help cover food costs, putting the roughly 42 million people receiving benefits at risk of food insecurity. On Friday, two federal judges ruledthat the government must keep the program at least partially operational using contingency funding and gave the Trump administration until Monday to respond to the order. 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.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What is your opinion on SNAP? 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.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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about SNAP benefits expiring, breaking down the latest on the, I guess the fallout from the government funding shutdown fight, which is now getting pretty real.

It is Monday, November 3rd. We're going to share some views from the left and the right on that story, and then, of course, I'll offer my take. Before we jump in, I want to give you a quick heads up on a couple things. First of all, a couple weeks ago I published that piece. Yes, things are really. really bad right now, highlighting concerns with the Trump administration's actions. And we initially made that piece available to paid subscribers only, but we dropped the paywall

on the following Monday after the piece was picked up by several other news organizations. On Friday, Associate Editor Audrey Moore had published a response to that piece, which was up on our website and our newsletter and also shared as a podcast here on our podcast feed. It too was paywalled upon release, but a few listeners and readers. pointed out the kind of unfairness of leaving a counter-argument gated behind a paywall, which is a good point. So in the interest of balance, we've also dropped the paywall on Audrey's piece, which you can now read in full on our website, readtangle.com, and we're also going to publish a non-gated version of the podcast that Audrey did

reading down her piece. All right, with that, I'm going to send over to John for today's main topic, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Hope y'all had a wonderful weekend. I'm just going to jump into last week's question, which was, what's something that you would like to experience again for the first time? We only had one response, but it was so special. It painted such a vivid picture that I wanted to read it to you here.

This one comes from Jalen, and it goes like this. Something I'd love to experience again, seeing a rocket launch in person. In the summer of 2014, I visited my husband, then-boyfriend, who was working an internship in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The first night that I was there, he took me to a little sandy area along the highway, where a bunch of locals had pulled off and parked. There was an ice cream truck selling treats to families. Kids were eating watermelon in the beds of trucks. Radios echoed updates from the launch site.

Everyone was buzzing with anticipation, praying that the launch wouldn't get scrubbed. Our eyes were locked in on the well-lit rocket that took. towered over the pad just a few miles away. Just some sand and a large marshy area separated us from the powerful engines. And sure enough, after all the checks, the countdown began. We saw the explosion of light first. The night sky erupted with brilliant brightness as the rocket ascended. It was angelic. And after a few seconds, we heard and felt the roar from the engines as it rippled across the water and slammed us in the chest. We stood in the sand stunned, watching the brilliance fade into small blinking light, feeling like it was disrespectful to move or speak until it was

completely out of sight. And in just a few moments, it was over. People piled back in their cars and everyone returned to business as usual. I hope I never forget how incredible that experience was. I would relive it in a heartbeat. And next time, hopefully, our little son can experience it with us. Jalen, thank you for that story. It painted such a bright and vivid picture in my mind. I have been telling it to friends and family just because I think it's such a beautiful moment. So again, thank you for sharing that with us. And now I've shared it with our audience. So I hope that's all right. But I'm just mesmerized by it. My question for you this week is, what's a change that you've made, whether recently or fairly recently, that has improved

your mental health? And if you haven't made a change, what is something that you've heard and would like to implement. Looking forward to hearing your answers. I think this is an important one that many people could get a lot of ideas and encouragement from. So if you have a moment and can take the time to write in, you can reach me at John J-O-N at reedtangle.com. All right, with all that said, let's get into today's quick hits. First up, tens of thousands of people are believed to have been killed by paramilitary fighters from the rapid support forces in Western Sudan after the Sudanese military withdrew from the regional capital, Elfasha. Survivors report that RSF fighters have opened fire on civilians

and satellite images appear to show evidence of mass killings across the city. Number two, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. may cut off aid to Nigeria and consider military action if the government does not protect Christians in the country, claiming Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Number three, defense secretary Pete Higsef announced that the U.S. military struck a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea, killing three people on board. It is the 15th confirmed strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean or Pacific since September 2nd. Number four, Head Start programs, which offer free early childhood development programs

and health care services for low-income families, began closing down as their funding lapsed due to the ongoing government shutdown. At number five, manufacturing company Kimberly Clark agreed to buy Kenview, the maker of Tylenol, for approximately $40 billion. The acquisition will create a global health and wellness company that includes major brands like Kleenex and Listerine. Really an unbelievable scene here in Houston, hundreds of people at risk of losing their SNAP benefits lined up for food.

The Houston Texans are partnering with the local food bank here, prepared to feed 5,000 families. It's just a fraction of the needs that, nationwide as the government shutdown now enters its second month. Here in Texas alone, more than 3 million people rely on these food stamps. Half of them are children. The message from the Houston Food Bank, this is a man-made emergency. You usually see scenes like this after a hurricane here in Houston.

It looks like something out of COVID. But this is a crisis of our own making. And as they urge Congress to act, right now it's neighbors helping neighbors. On Saturday, the ongoing government shut up. government shutdown caused federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP to lapse. The funding gap will delay scheduled payments to many program beneficiaries who use the money to help cover food costs, putting the roughly 42 million people receiving benefits at risk of food insecurity. On Friday, two federal judges ruled that the government

must keep the program at least partially operational using contingency funding and gave the Trump administration until Monday to respond to the order. For context, SNAP distributes grocery assistance to families who qualify based on an individual's or households gross monthly income. In fiscal year 2024, 12.3% of United States residents received SNAP benefits, or 41.7 million people on average each month. Benefits are dispersed through a prepaid card that can be used to purchase food items from a list of eligible products, including meat, produce, grains, snacks, and non-alcoholic beverages. This July's One Big Beautiful Bill Act added new eligibility restriction for SNAP, including stricter work requirements for adults without dependence.

Those new rules went into effect on Saturday. Ahead of the November 1st funding laps, the Trump administration said it would not use emergency funds to cover the shortfall. On October 24th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees food assistance programs, issued a memo claiming that it could only use those funds for emergencies that can come on quickly and without notice, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Furthermore, it advised that states should not expect to be used to be used to be reimbursed if they cover SNAP expenses during the shutdown.

Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration over its decision to allow SNAP payments to lapse, arguing the decision would cause deterioration of public health and well-being. District Judge Indira Talwani found that the states were likely to succeed in their challenge, while District Judge John McConnell said he would order the administration to disperse the government's contingency funds to extend the benefits as soon as possible. It's clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency's desire not to use contingency funds in case there's a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed, McConnell

Root. In a post on Friday, President Trump called the rulings conflicting, but said he had instructed our lawyers to ask the court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible. On Saturday and Sunday, food pantries, religious organizations, and other groups across the country gave away free meals and groceries to people impacted by the SNAP funding laps. SNAP recipients have expressed uncertainty about when and whether their benefit cards will be reloaded, though Judge McConnell said the Trump administration must begin to do so by Wednesday. Today, we'll explore arguments from the left and right about SNAP benefits expiring, and then Isaac's take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left criticizes Trump for leveraging SNAP benefits in shutdown negotiations. Some say the most vulnerable will bear the brunt of expiring benefits. Others suggest SNAP recipients are being inaccurately portrayed in the funding fight. In MSNBC, David A. Super argued the White House is holding SNAP funding hostage. That's cruel and illegal. Snap owes much to political leaders of both parties.

President Richard Nixon insisted that food assistance be available nationwide. Conservative Republicans have repeatedly partnered with liberal Democrats over decades to improve SNAP's efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, super said. Since adequate nutrition is essential for health and for the ability to seek and perform work, Congress insisted that SNAP shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application. Inclusion of sufficient funds to serve all households in annual appropriations bills has never been controversial. Even if SNAP contingency funds were not available, Congress has given the USDA broad authority to transfer funds among food assistance programs, Superwrote. As the child nutrition programs only spend about $3 billion per month, transferring funds to SNAP for November benefits would still leave enough in the child nutrition account to support more than half a year of those program's operations.

Claims that transferring necessary funds to SNAP would endanger school meals or access to infant formula through WIC are fearmongering at its worst, wholly unsupported by the actual numbers. In Bloomberg, Patricia Lopez said, Hungry Americans will pay the price for this shutdown. Snap recipients have become helpless pawns on a board they don't control. Who are these 42 million people? They're single parents and people with disabilities.

They're children. They are seniors who have outlived their savings. They are workers whose wages are so meager they still qualify for free food. More than one million are veterans. They are one in eight Americans who collect an average. average benefit of $187 a month for groceries, Lopez wrote.

The administration now asserts that contingency funds must be reserved for natural disasters and other emergencies. Apparently, 41 million people going hungry does not constitute an emergency. Trump has said repeatedly that he would use the shutdown to cut Democrat-oriented programs. It may be that he thinks letting SNAP funding run out is a clever way of hurting Democratic supporters, but Republicans also rely on SNAP. Rural areas, which tend to support Republicans, you snap at a higher rate than cities, Lopez said. Republicans are irrational to refrain from negotiating with Democrats, but Trump does not want to negotiate here so much as bully his opponents into submission.

And while he does that, millions of Americans are left to figure out where their next meal is coming from. In the New York Times, Elizabeth Austin wrote, $149.57, is going to have to feed my family indefinitely. barring an end to the government shutdown, snap benefits will not be paid out in November, leaving tens of millions of recipients wondering how they're going to afford food next month. My own remaining snap balance, $149, 57, was supposed to help carry my family until November 9th. Now it will have to stretch indefinitely, Austin said. In 2012, I was the mother of two children under three years old. That year, the father disappeared from our lives without warning, leaving me no way to feed them or myself.

To survive, I applied for SNAP. At the end of 2023, after my daughter had survived a nearly three-year fight with cancer, I lost my job. I applied for SNAP benefits again. Conversations around SNAP benefits are often fraught, dominated by the simplistic refrain that recipients should get a job. My experience illustrates why this response misses the mark. It took me time to find a job when I first needed SNAP, when I was raising two small children alone, Austin wrote. But our government is making the tired get-a-job refrain into policy. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included an estimated $186 billion cut to snap benefits through 2034, which could drastically reduce or eliminate monthly benefits for millions.

These expanded cuts, now compounded by a government shutdown holding food assistance hostage, will devastate families. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right criticizes Democrats for exacerbating the shutdown and putting the SNAP program in jeopardy. Some contend the Trump administration would be unwise to oppose funding in court. Others suggest now is the time for a privately funded SNAP alternative. In the Daily Color, Representative Austin Scott, the Republican from Georgia, criticized Democrats for using starving Americans as leverage.

Congressional Democrats calculated refusal to do their job and reopen the government puts these vulnerable Americans at risk of losing access to food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in November. These aren't just statistics. There are vulnerable population and hardworking families who depend on SNAP benefits to purchase groceries and ensure their households don't go hungry, Scott wrote. With Democrats continuing to hold the government hostage

and use American families as leverage over their demand for taxpayer-funded health care for illegal aliens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is now legally unable to distribute SNAP benefits for November. The SNAP contingency fund is a limited reserve that can only be deployed in response to natural disasters and other emergencies. It cannot replace regular funding for monthly SNAP benefits. Additionally, the contingency fund is not even large enough to cover a full month of SNAP benefits, even if the funds were accessible, Scott said. By shutting down the government, Democrats have forced hundreds of thousands of,

of federal workers into genuine financial hardship by depriving them of their paychecks, while simultaneously blocking the very safety net programs specifically designed to assist workers during times of need. In National Review, Dan McLaughlin wrote about the two rulings on funding SNAP. The claim accepted by Rhode Island Federal District Judge John McConnell and Massachusetts Federal District Judge Indira Talwani is that the executive branch has access to emergency funds, and the two judges believe that Congress thinks that SNAP benefits are a greater emergency in spite of not funding them than are other things that are currently not funded, McLaughlin said. I get that if the Justice Department thinks that this is a nonsense legal argument,

it is inclined to stand on principle. If so, more power to the DOJ. But it seems to me that this is not the best political strategy for the administration. The GOP posture toward a program such as SNAP, a long-time Democratic priority, should be to visibly demonstrate that the administration is willing to fund it, but it is being thwarted by Democrats. positioning things so that it is Democrats going to court to get SNAP benefits paid and Republicans fighting against paying them is not the best look, McLaughlin wrote. If Republicans want to make Democrats own the shutdown and to put more public pressure on them to come to the table, this seems not the best way to do it. In the Daily Signal, Tyler O'Neill offered a modest

proposal for SNAP. If this impasse continues, I'd humbly suggest that private charities and policy non-profits team up to replace the program with a privately funded alternative that also helps recipients go from dependency to self-sufficiency. Private charities are already starting this process, but conservatives should ban together to transform a private effort into a policy-shifting initiative, O'Neill wrote. The Food Stamp's program has long fostered dependence on government programs. The program ballooned during the COVID-19 pandemic, rising as labor force participation declined. Snap serves 4.3 million more people than it did before the pandemic. Congress can and should a

the program, strengthening work requirements and tightening eligibility to make sure that the truly needy receive the program and to incentivize self-sufficiency, O'Neill said. Yet, if private charities and policy nonprofits team up to meet the unmet needs during this government shutdown, they may find an unprecedented opportunity to replace a bloated federal dependency program with a smart, privately funded roadmap to self-sufficiency. Americans don't want 41 million people to go hungry, but we also don't want 41 million people to become perpetually dependent on the federal government for food assistance. 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. First, most Republicans and Democrats seem to genuinely want to keep SNAP payments flowing. The Trump administration is asking for a clearer direction from the courts on how to proceed while trying to pressure Democrats to fold on their Affordable Care Act funding fight. And Democrats seem to be hoping that any pause or delay in SNAP payments forces Republicans back to the negotiating table, sparking a quick resolution. Either way, both sides clearly recognize the moral and political risks here, which is a good start. Second, I'm not entirely sure withholding SNAP funding is actually legal. writers like David Super, under what the left is saying, have made this case pretty clearly,

arguing that the Trump administration is essentially denying its own authority to disperse the funds while waiting for clarity from the courts. I think Super is right. The law stipulates that contingency funding for SNAP is to be used when regular funding runs out and the funds are available and ready to use. The idea that Trump can impose tariffs on nearly every country in the world, refuse to spend congressionally authorized funding and find cash for the military during the shutdown but can't possibly find a way to fund snap without clear direction from a judge

is self-evidently absurd. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we may finally have a defining issue for this shutdown. A few weeks ago, I noted that one of the things that made this shutdown peculiar was that both sides didn't even agree on what issues they were trying to solve. Democrats have tried to make it about expiring Obamacare subsidies, but Republicans have so far waive that issue away. Republicans have tried to get Democrats to fold by threatening federal job cuts, but Democrats haven't taken the bait. And now, SNAP will be the issue. It's awful, obviously, that the poorest and most vulnerable Americans are being used as chess pieces, but a real off-ramp absolutely requires an issue like this that both sides find unacceptable

will create a public outcry and will force everyone back to the table. And the louder the public outcry, the more pressure for a resolution. All of that might be considered good news if you want to see SNAP funding continue, or a resolution to the shutdown come. The bad news, though, is basically everything else. Regardless of what you think the role of the federal government should be, that we are now staring down a desperate inability to serve the needy amid the world historic wealth we have in the United States is an utter failure of society and governance. Some food pantries are already experiencing huge lines. Philanthropic leaders say it won't be long before they can't meet the needs of the hungry, and in the meantime, our actual representatives, members of Congress, whose job it is to

solve this stuff, are sitting at home. The House is not met for legislative business in over six weeks, and the Senate is closed. I've also noticed that the commentary has suddenly shift to ways we might reform snap. Some commentators above have even started proposing ideas for changing the program, either by tightening eligibility further or aiming to call the number of people receiving benefits. Of course, SNAP, like any government program, isn't perfect, but what are we actually doing here? This shutdown is not about reforming SNAP.

There's no debate in Congress about reforming SNAP. Trump and Republicans already passed a bill that changed the program's eligibility. If people want SNAP reformed, great, Congress should get back to work and do that. It's also not something I'd view as a top priority. SNAP is a pretty incredible program. It is ballooned, yes, and of course we want fewer people on it. In a perfect world, the program wouldn't need to exist at all. But as long as people in our country live in poverty, we'll need programs to help them. Snap costs $100 billion a year. For context, veteran affairs medical care costs the federal government about $116 billion. Put differently, SNAP accounts for roughly one and a half cents of every federal dollar spent, with benefits coming out to about $6 per person per day. If you ask me what percentage of my tax dollars I would want to go

to keeping people from going hungry, I'd probably give you a number higher than 1.5%. A government program this large will always come with some fraud, but most people who use these benefits truly do need it. For the 41 million people living on SNAP, it's a difficult and frugal existence. The program is also efficient. 93% of its funds go to households, with the rest going to support admin and employment. In the world of philanthropies, that's really good. Snap also reaches nearly every corner of society. It benefits both working-class families and retirees, single parents, and the disabled, military veterans and children, and in red and blue states. These people deserve our sympathy and aid, especially at such an efficient cost.

So, now what? First and foremost, Trump should follow the law. He should act swiftly to shore up the funding lapse and keep dollars flowing to a program that helps the poorest Americans. It's not like he's been shy about flexing executive authority so far, and acting decisively here would be more legally supported than doing nothing. Second, Democrats and Republicans need to recognize that this standoff is now inflicting real pain on tens of millions of Americans. Snap benefits are in danger, travel is a nightmare, and the government's functionality is slowly but considerably degrading.

Congress needs to show up. in Washington, D.C. to talk to each other and get through the impasse. They need to do their jobs. Finally, we, the people actually need to step up. I rarely do this kind of thing entangle, but I struggle to imagine a better opportunity to put out a call to action. Remember, this program touches every kind of person you can imagine, from every political background in every state of every class, race, and creed. Snap has to exist because it's hard to get people to consistently support private solutions with any kind of reliability. If private and nonprofit efforts were enough, we wouldn't need the government. Right now, though, Americans can fill the gap. My son's daycare is

collecting donations to support local programs helping people whose benefits may lapse. I can almost guarantee there are food pantries in your area who need help. Find them. Donate if you can, volunteer if you can, and raise awareness among your community. In a nation of doers, we don't have to rely solely on our elected representatives to do the good work. Indeed, it's evident that we can't. Americans can keep the pressure on the president and Congress to sort this mess out, while also stepping up in the places we call home to support the people who need it. All right, that is it for my take. Our managing editor Ari Weitzman has a dissent, so I'm going to send it over to him, and I'll be back for your questions answered.

This is Tangles Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with the staff dissent for today. and disagree with Isaac on something specific and narrow, which is that I don't think both sides are showing they're genuinely interested in funding SNAP, at least not enough to vacate their high ground. If Republicans really cared about it, they wouldn't need a court to tell them to do it. And if Democrats really cared about it,

they'd have loosened some of their leverage on the ACA benefits to come to the table. Instead, both parties are showing a genuine interest in doing enough to say they care while keeping the issue open to blame the other party. All right, I'm going to send it back to a John for the rest of the pod. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, thank you, Ari.

That brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Judy in Greentown, Indiana. Judy said, explain the national debt. Who do we owe? How can we pay it off? and how serious are the consequences. Okay, so in simple terms, the national debt is the sum of the deficits the federal government accrues year over year. With interest and deferments, it's actually a little bit more complicated than that,

but that basic story effectively describes how the debt is accrued and who holds it. When the federal government needs more cash to pay its obligations, it borrows more to do so. The primary way to do this is through auctioning government bonds. The government sells promissory notes to investors who consider the United States government to be a safe bet to pay back its loans. Many different kinds of investors find that attractive. Approximately 24% of our debt is held internationally, 17% is held by private investors, 13% is kept by the Federal Reserve itself, and another 5% is held by financial institutions. However, another 20% of the debt the U.S. has is held by other parts of the government. Perhaps most notably, the Treasury often borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund

and has never failed to pay it back. Then another 5% are held by local or state governments. Accordingly, the only way to actually pay the debt off is to have adequate revenue each year with which to pay the debt down, i.e. not run a deficit. That may be a bit more difficult than it sounds. The United States government has run deficits over $1 trillion for several consecutive years, and since the national debt now stands at over $38 trillion,

dollars, servicing the debt is now the federal government's third largest expenditure behind Social Security and health care. If the government were to default, even temporarily on any of its debts, the implications would be enormous. In all likelihood, interest rates would spike, the government's credit rating would tank, the dollar would be devalued, the stock market would plunge, and general turmoil would ensue. And in such a scenario, the government would prioritize paying back its own departments and other governments. Some of the last people to be paid would be citizens who are owed a tax refund. So all in all, the people who would feel the consequences of the government not paying its debt back most acutely would be regular Americans.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. According to new data from the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index, the adult obesity rate in the United States declined from a high of 39.9% in 2022 to 37% in 2025. The adult obesity rate rose steadily between 2008 and 2022, but has now declined for the past three years. The decline has coincided with an increase of the use of GLP1 drugs, such as OZempic and Wigovi. In Q1, 2024, 5.8% of U.S. adults reported taking an injection for weight loss, while 12.4% reported doing

so in Q2 and Q3 of 2024. Gallup also found that the increased use of GLP-1 drugs aligned with lower obesity rates across sex and age groups. Gallup has the findings, and you can check that out with a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The percentage of USDA total food assistance spending in fiscal year 2024 that went to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is 70.2%. The percentage of SNAP recipients between the age of 18 and 59 is 42%. The percentage of SNAP recipients below the age of 18 is 39%. 21.2% of New Mexico residents received SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2024, the highest percentage of any state. 4.8% of Utah residents received SNAP benefits

in fiscal year 2024, the lowest of any state. Federal spending on SNAP in fiscal year 2024 was $99.8 billion. Federal spending on SNAP in fiscal year 2021 was $128.2 billion, the most of any year in the 21st century. And federal spending on SNAP in fiscal year 2000 was $28.5 billion. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Since moving from China to Monkton in New Brunswick, Canada, 14-year-old Cheng And Doe and his family have found their neighbors helpful and welcoming. To pay that kindness back, Doe and his mom, Gang Chen, have started picking up trash around the neighborhood. The duo has now organized eight community pickups, and they plan to do more. The power of individuals is small, but if we can plant the seeds of public welfare in

others' hearts, we may grow a true green forest in the future, Chen said. The CBC 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 retangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundle 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 Wall, signing off.

Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kback and associate editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.

To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com. Thank you.