Tangle - The court rulings on Trump's tariffs.

Episode Date: June 2, 2025

On Wednesday, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) blocked President Donald Trump’s global tariffs from enforcement, ruling that the president lacked the authority to impose the duties unilaterally. However, the Trump administration appealed the decision to a federal appeals court, and on Thursday that court paused the CIT decision while it considers its ruling. The CIT’s summary judgment was issued on two separate cases and is the first major legal challenge to President Trump’s tariffs, which he announced on April 2. 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: Do you think Trump’s tariffs are constitutional? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and Ari Weitzman, 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.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey, it's Christy from Canadian True Crime here to tell you about Gemini, the built-in AI assistant on Google Pixel. It really helps me with ideas and inspo. I just hold the power button on my Google Pixel 9 phone kindly sent to me by Google and talk or type. Gemini, what can I make for dinner with mushroom, cheese and spinach? Here are a few quick dinner ideas. Cheesy mushroom and spinach quesadillas.

Sold! Can you cook up for me? I don't have hands, but I can help you cook quick dinner ideas. Cheesy mushroom and spinach quesadillas. Salt. Can you cook up for me? I don't have hands, but I can help you cook up great ideas. Learn more about Google Pixel 9 at store.google.com. 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 gonna be talking about some of the court rulings on President Donald Trump's tariffs, some kind of stop and start court rulings, not unlike the way the tariffs themselves have been turned on and off a few times. It is Monday, June 2nd. Before we jump in to that story, though,

I wanna give you a quick update on Friday's piece. First of all, of all the feedback that I got to the piece, I think the one that maybe meant the most to me was a text message from a media executive who said that the comments are admirably measured so far, started a useful dialogue about a hard thing to discuss that must feel good. And it does feel good.

I think to me, the way people have responded to the piece so far is a testament to the Tangle community. It's a space that we've created together to tackle even the most difficult topics. So first of all, today, I just want to say thank you. I've been going through some of the feedback in my inbox. I've been reading the comments now more than 500 on the post that exists on our website and 98% of the people engaging are engaging in thoughtful and

respectful ways even and perhaps especially in disagreement which I really appreciate. Speaking of that feedback, one of the most consistent requests that we've got on Friday's piece was to drop the paywall on it. So it could be read or listened to or shared more widely. So we have now done that. We're going to make the podcast episode free. We have the article up on our website, which you can now read in full whether you are a member or not. If the piece moved you, you felt like it was important, a good conversation starter, whatever else, please share it. That would be the most helpful thing to do. I think we want to

get it out there so people can learn about what we're doing and the kind of conversations that we're having here at Tangle. I, of course, want my argument to be read and I'm curious to hear how it's received outside the Tangle community as well. So definitely encourage you to do that. And once again, just want to thank you guys all for listening or reading and engaging in thoughtful ways. We're going to do a follow-up.

I'm not sure exactly what that's going to look like yet. Maybe talking about it on the Sunday podcast with Ari and Camille and going through a bunch of the feedback we got. It might be running one of our editions. That's just a bunch of reader feedback, maybe publishing a counter argument response to the piece to just balance it out a little bit. Exploring all those options, I just don't know quite yet, but we will do something. So stay tuned. Okay, with that, I'm

going to send it over to John for today's main story and I'll be back for my take. ["Spring Day"] Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody. Hope you all had a refreshing weekend. It's a new week with new possibilities. So let's bring the best of ourselves to everything we do with the hope that the ripples of those actions bring about some positivity not just for ourselves, but for those around us and those we don't know.

Here are your quick hits for today. First up, eight people were injured after an attack in Boulder, Colorado against members of a Jewish community advocating for the release of hostages in Gaza. Police arrested a suspect who is accused of using a makeshift flamethrower and was heard screaming free Palestine, according to the FBI. 2. Ukraine carried out a series of drone strikes on Russian warplanes in an operation that reportedly took 18 months to execute.

Ukraine claims it struck 34% of Russia's strategic bombers, though the extent of the damage has not been confirmed. Separately, Russian and Ukrainian officials held a second round of direct peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. The talks ended after just one hour. 3. President Donald Trump announced he would increase tariffs on steel imports from 25% to 50%. 4. At least 31 people were killed and 170 wounded

in a shooting near a food distribution site in southern Gaza. While some witnesses claimed that Israeli Defense Forces soldiers opened fire on the gathering, the IDF denied these claims. 5. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can terminate the protected status of approximately 500,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan immigrants while a legal challenge to the cancellations plays out. The federal court has just blocked the bulk of President Trump's sweeping global tariffs from going into effect. The ruling comes from the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan. It's a unique and relatively low-key division of the federal judiciary, but tonight it is

flexing its authority in a big way. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of an injunction against the tariffs which have roiled worldwide financial markets in recent months. On Wednesday, the United States Court of International Trade blocked President Donald Trump's global tariffs from enforcement, ruling that the president lacked the authority to impose the duties unilaterally.

However, the Trump administration appealed the decision to a federal appeals court, and on Thursday, that court paused the CIT decision while it considered its ruling. The CIT's summary judgment was issued on two separate cases and is the first major legal challenge to President Trump's tariffs, which he announced on April 2nd. For context, the CIT is a specialized federal court that typically considers disputes over customs duties and trade restrictions. In April, the Liberty Justice Center filed a challenge to the tariffs on behalf of five

small businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties. The suit agrees that President Trump improperly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, to impose the tariffs, as the administration's justification, a trade deficit in goods, is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat. Additionally, a group of 12 state attorneys general, led by Oregon, filed a separate challenge to the tariffs. The Court of International Trade addressed both cases in a summary judgment. Worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the president by

the IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders. The challenged tariff orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined, the CIT panel wrote. In addition to pausing Trump's tariffs, the judges also blocked the administration from modifying them in the future. In its Thursday ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted

the administration's request for a stay on the tariff block and gave the plaintiffs until June 5th to respond. Separately on Thursday, a federal judge blocked the government from collecting tariffs on a pair of Illinois toy importers while the case is litigated. The order applies only to the two companies challenging the tariffs. White House officials suggested the administration will find alternative ways to impose the tariffs if the appeals court or the Supreme Court upholds the CIT ruling. "'Even if we lose, we will do it another way, trade advisor Peter Navarro said on Thursday. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also suggested

the president was not planning to extend his 90-day pause on some tariffs, which are slated to expire in July. Today, we'll explore the tariff rulings with views from the left and the right, and then Isaac's tape. We'll be right back after this quick break. Hey, it's Christy from Canadian True Crime, here to tell you about Gemini, the built-in AI assistant on Google Pixel. It really helps me with ideas and inspo.

I just hold the power button on my Google Pixel 9 phone kindly sent to me by Google and talk or type. Gemini, what can I make for dinner with mushroom, cheese and spinach? Here are a few quick dinner ideas. Cheesy mushroom and spinach quesadillas. Sold. Can you cook up for me? I don't have hands, but I can help you cook up great ideas.

Learn more about Google Pixel 9 at store.google.com. Alright, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left praises the CIT's ruling, and many say Congress should also seek to rein in Trump's tariff power. Some suggest the administration still has ways to impose tariffs if the court rules against them. Others push back on the notion that the CIT overstepped in its decision.

The Guardian editorial board wrote, The courts have drawn a line. So must Congress. If one thing is more challenging to the rule of law than a genuine emergency, it is the invention of a phony one. Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has upended global trade and international relations, wiping billions off the stock market in the process

by imposing tariffs that he claims are a necessary response to an emergency. Yet, that emergency does not really exist except in the manner that Mr. Trump himself has created, the board said. Congress, which normally has the responsibility to decide U.S. trade policy, was thus wholly ignored. Statutory consultative arrangements, traditionally an essential preliminary, went out the window too. The good news is that the president's plans

to impose tariffs on almost every country on the planet will now be subjected to something approaching the legal and constitutional scrutiny that they should have been in the first place. The rule of law, thankfully, has struck back, at least for now, the board wrote. The bad news is that Congress still shows no sign of reining Mr. Trump in as it should.

Ironically, the IEEPA was originally a Jimmy Carter-era legislative attempt to boost congressional oversight of presidential emergency powers. Under Mr. Trump, that role has been trashed. In The Washington Post, Gary Winslet said Trump's trade war isn't over yet. The court noted that Trump's imposition of these tariffs actually responds to an imbalance in trade, and therefore they fall under the narrower balance of payments authorities outlined in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This is bureaucratic legalese for saying Trump was using emergency powers to address routine

trade deficits, which are what Section 122 was designed to handle, Winslet wrote. Under the IEEPA, Trump could wake up on a random Tuesday, declare a trade emergency for some random reason, and impose 50% tariffs that day. This ruling says that behavior was always outside the bounds of the law. The Trump administration has three options from here.

Defy the court, pivot, or take the gift. Trump could simply ignore the ruling, which top aide Steve Miller called a judicial coup, and continue collecting tariffs, daring someone to stop him. The Trump administration's second option is still bad from a trade policy perspective, but does at least avoid the constitutional crisis of the first. Pivot to Congress, SCOTUS, and Section 232-122, Winslet said. Finally, there's a third option that might appeal to Trump's political instincts, embrace victimhood while privately celebrating the outcome.

In the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf argued striking down Trump's tariffs isn't a judicial coup. Administration officials quickly challenged the ruling's legitimacy. Rutherstorff argued striking down Trump's tariffs isn't a judicial coup. Administration officials quickly challenged the ruling's legitimacy. It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. But their objections are dubious, not because the judiciary never overreaches, but because at least three features of this dispute make the argument for judicial overreach here especially weak, Friedersdorf wrote. First, the Constitution is clear.

Article 1 delegates the tariff power to Congress, and Article 2 fails to vest that power in the presidency. So, the Trump administration begins from a weak position. Second, the plaintiffs in this particular lawsuit include the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont, all democratically accountable entities in a federal system where states are meant to act as a check on unlawful exercises of federal power, Friedersdorf said. Third, when Congress created the Court of International Trade and later defined its

jurisdiction, its precise intent was to create an arm of the judiciary that would exercise authority over trade disputes. That the administration seeks to delegitimize even this ruling suggests contempt for any check on the power of the presidency, not principled opposition to judicial overreach. Alright that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the CIT's ruling, with many arguing the court advanced a flawed understanding of the IEEPA. Some praised the decision as a well-reasoned explanation of why Trump overstepped his authority.

Others say Congress should move to clarify the president's tariff power. In the Wall Street Journal, George E. Bogdan wrote about where the trade court's tariff decision went wrong. Mr. Trump's policy of using reciprocal tariffs to advance U.S. interests isn't a new or radical idea and isn't a necessary one. The U.S. Court of International Trade was wrong to rule on Wednesday that the administration had exceeded its authority in imposing these tariffs," Bogdan said. The ruling overlooked history, statute, precedent, and national interest. It was a misreading of the International Emergency

Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and a misinterpretation of America's bipartisan tradition of using trade policy to defend national economic resilience. The trade court's reading of the IEEPA contradicts the statute's text and history. IEEPA's independent emergency authority allows the president to regulate, prevent, or prohibit the importation of property in which foreign countries or nationals have an interest.

The language mirrors that of the earlier Trading with the Enemy Act, which President Richard Nixon used to impose a universal 10% tariff in 1971," Bogdan wrote. Further, the court errs on implicitly inviting itself to review the sufficiency of the President's emergency declaration. IEEPA requires only that the president declare a national emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat arising outside the US, which is exactly what the executive order does.

In the Atlantic, Ilya Sobun called the CIT's ruling a victory for separation of powers. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a national emergency that amounts to an unusual and extraordinary threat

to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat," Soman said. Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades. The court also cites the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing the executive to make decisions of vast economic and political significance.

According to the Major Questions Doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertion of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IE EPA is not a major question, nothing is, some enroute. The legal fight over the IE EPA tariffs will continue, but these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers undermining the Constitution and starting ruinous trade wars. In the New York Post, Jonathan Turley said Trump needs Congress to save his tariffs and

his trade strategy. Rejecting Trump's authority under the IEEPA does not mean he lacks all authority for tariffs. The administration is correct in arguing that Congress has repeatedly deferred to presidents on tariffs, granting them sweeping authority. For example, the ruling does not affect Trump's sector tariffs under the Trade Expansion Act, which imposed 25 percent levies on steel, aluminum, and auto imports," Turley wrote. Likewise, the court acknowledged that Trump has the authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address fundamental international payment

problems, including trade deficits. But Congress may have to act if it wants to allow the Trump administration to continue to use tariffs as a trade strategy. A court just removed the stick Trump used to force other nations to the negotiating table, Turley said. Absent Congressional action, it may even be possible for companies to seek reimbursement for past payments under the Trump tariffs. Both the suspension of tariffs and the risk of reimbursement could exacerbate the current deficit. Congress will need to demonstrate that it is nimble enough to operate effectively in this fast-paced market. It will also have to decide whether it wants to give Trump time to close his deals. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

All right, that is it for the left and the right of saying, which brings us to my take. So first, I have to say, I'm actually a little bit embarrassed. In retrospect, looking back on our tariff coverage, I should have centered the constitutional issues with tariffs a lot more. I actually talked about this on our Sunday podcast for those of you who listen to it, but Bloomberg's Matt Levine summed this up perfectly. He said, quote, the legal problem with President Donald Trump's tariffs is that the United States has a constitution and the constitution says that Congress has the power to impose tariffs and the president doesn't.

And well, yeah, that's right. For all the time we dedicated to explaining and predicting the on again, off again chaos of tariffs, how global levies would impact inflation, what reciprocal tariffs even meant, the way our relationship with Canada was changing, we never wrote in plain terms that this is illegal and will probably be struck down by the courts.

That outcome seems obvious now in retrospect, but is simultaneously narrow and temporary. Trump still has options. Most obviously, he can continue his trade war while the CIT's order is paused and the appeals court hears these cases. And although this summary judgment does undermine his negotiating position internationally, the Trump administration could still pursue new justifications for imposing tariffs, like Section 232 or 301 levies. It could also ask Congress to authorize tariffs, though I doubt enough Republican senators

would want to put their names on a new tax site for it to pass. Before trying any of those options, however, the Trump administration will probably fight this case out, and one way or another, I think it will head to the Supreme Court. Once there, I think Trump is very, very likely to lose, because, again, Congress gets to impose tariffs, the President doesn't, and Trump can't just invoke an emergency to do whatever he wants. Remember, Trump justified the tariffs by claiming that our trade deficits, the sum total of pretty much every trade deal we have, amount to a national emergency. These deficits

reflect decades of international trade policy that as a country we have sought out and made the norm, including Trump himself in his first term. Trump is now arguing that this is an unusual and extraordinary threat, which seems obviously untrue. Farcically so. It is worth pausing here to contextualize a few aspects of this case. First, the unanimous ruling came from a three judge panel of Reagan, Obama, and Trump appointees,

so it's hard to credibly accuse them of some kind of liberal bias. Instead, it's a reminder Trump is breaking the law with his attempts to collect never before seen levels of executive power, which observers of all political stripes should be happy to see failing in court. That includes conservatives, since any authority granted to the president here would also be granted to future Democrats.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it, this means a future Democratic president can't declare a climate emergency and wield tariffs to punish countries for CO2 emissions. Conservatives ought to cheer this restraint on one man rule. Second, the Trump administration continues to lose in court. Since February, judicial pushback to Trump has been bipartisan. His administration has lost in 72% of the rulings

issued by Republican appointed judges and 80% of rulings issued by Democratic-appointed judges. In May alone, federal district courts ruled against the Trump administration in 26 of 27 cases, a 96% loss rate. The law firms that fought back against Trump's targeted executive actions, rather than bend the knee, are now 3-0 against him in court. Immigration attorneys, who refused to accept abandoning due process have scored major victories. The universities singled out and targeted by the administration have been granted reprieves from some of the most aggressive actions of the administration.

Even in the instances where I agree with Trump's grievances, I've been happy to see boundaries of his power being drawn in bright bold lines. It is not a good thing for our country if the already great executive power is expanded any further. As I said, in the early days of the administration, Trump 2.0 looks to me a lot more like Trump 1.0 than many people account for. That is, Trump did not return to the White House with well-laid plans to move major legislation through Congress, or navigate the web of federal courts that act as a check on his power, or exercise his powers in ways that were more subtle or calculated.

Trump 2.0 is much more emboldened than Trump 1.0, and the issues he is focusing on are different, but a lot of the strategy looks pretty much the same to me. Move fast, flood the zone, break things. This can be effective at disrupting decades of institutional atrophy, but not as much at creating lasting change. A lot of Trump 2.0's results so far have been the same as Trump 1.02. Court rulings slow him down, he imposes half measures,

or he fails to institute lasting change through legislation. The whole Doge Saga provides the perfect example. Blustery new initiatives are defeated by the quiet consistency of bureaucracy and the reliability of the rule of law. Rock beats scissors and move fast and break things loses to go slow and don't break. And now the tariff saga is telling a similar story where Trump's weak need and court blocked approach has gotten so predictable it's earned an acronym, TACO, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. This now common sequitur comes from Wall Street betters

who are using it as a North Star to profit on the dips or disruptions caused by tariff threats that dissipate when Trump doesn't follow through. We'll see if that changes now that Trump has learned about the acronym, but I wouldn't expect it to. The reality is that Trump is pursuing a very risky policy push without the legal authority to do so. If negative political sentiment doesn't stop him

and market reactions and economic indicators don't continue to make people yippie, there is now a new variable of whether these tariffs will survive legal challenges. Time will tell how all that plays out with future tariff orders, but I think the broad-based, majorly disruptive Liberation Day plan that was promised is now on its deathbed.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from an anonymous reader in California who said, can you please dedicate a newsletter on the Trump administration's assault on science? I feel you've barely covered this and the long-term damage to our country will be something that affects everyone. So first of all, I think defining a concrete Trump vs. science storyline that we dedicate a single newsletter to is difficult.

However, you could argue that three separate stories show at least an apathy for scientific research as it's currently performed, all three of which we've covered in some parts. First, the Trump administration has pulled its funding for elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard, which we covered previously. We also published a reader essay about how this funding is distributed and how it helps advance scientific achievement just this past Sunday. While critics paint these actions as the government undermining science, the administration purports to be punishing these schools for failure to combat anti-Semitism.

Second, President Trump's management of the executive branch could be called anti-science. He did appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a person with more than a few questionable scientific positions, as head of the Department of Health and Human Services. And he has slashed funding for federal departments, including layoffs at Kennedy's ACHS. The Trump administration calls these efforts part

of a broader reform to make America healthy again, pointing to poor health outcomes and high costs as reasons for reform. Third, Trump is deporting holders of student feces, which critics argue will have a chilling effect on attracting international talent to the United States to conduct research. We covered former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil's deportation previously, and other deportations as well, but the administration continued its push this week, ordering Harvard not to accept international students and targeting a group of Chinese scholars for deportation. The government says these deportations are

pursuant to national security. So we wouldn't say we haven't covered these stories, just that we haven't put them under one anti-science narrative. It's also worth noting that the administration has encouraged more scientific innovation in the private sector in some areas, like pushing for investments into artificial intelligence and cutting regulations for building nuclear power plants. 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. On Thursday, a Defense Intelligence Agency employee was arrested and charged with attempting to pass classified information to a foreign government. The employee, Nathan Villas-Latch, allegedly offered to share classified information because he disagreed with the Trump administration's policies and was arrested after a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent posing as a foreign handler corresponded with

him for weeks. The recent actions of the current administration are extremely disturbing to me, Latch wrote in a March email. I don't agree or align with the values of this administration and intend to act to support the values that the United States at one time stood for. The Wall Street Journal has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The number of days since President Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs is 61.

The number of seats on the US Court of International Trade is 9. The year Congress established the CIT in its current form was 1980. The current number of court challenges to President Trump's tariff policies is 7. The number of states that have filed challenges to Trump's tariff policies is 12. The percentage of U.S. adults who favor and oppose, respectively, a proposal for Congress to vote to approve all tariffs is 61% and 39%, according to a May 2025 Marquette Law School poll. The percentage of U.S. adults who say tariffs hurt and help the U.S. economy, respectively,

is 58% and 32%. And the change in the percentage of Republicans who say tariffs helped the U.S. economy between March 2025 and May 2025 is plus 11 percent. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. A Dutch nursing home had a creative idea to help its residents and college students, offering free rent to students in exchange for 30 hours a month of companionship. Intergenerational friendships have been shown to have positive mental health benefits for

older populations and during a shortage in student housing, the solution seemed like a win-win. The director of the nursing home said the program is so simple, but the impact is so big. 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 great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Law. 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 Dyett75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com.