Tangle - The federal funding freeze.

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

On Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescindeda memo that had paused trillions of dollars in federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs. The memo had called for agencies to perform a “comprehensive analysis” of their grant and loan programs to ensure compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive orders, but was broadly written and created confusion over the scope of the funding freeze. Prior to the memo’s rescission, a federal judge had paused its orders from going into effect after a coalition of nonprofits and businesses sued to stop its implementation. 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 tanglemedia.supercast.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 the president should reduce executive branch spending and employment, and through what methods? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer, Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. I'm your host, John Law, and today we are going to be talking about the federal funding freeze and the recently rescinded memo that came from the Office of Management and Budget. We'll share some opinions from the right about how the order could have been executed more effectively and how some Democrats may have misled the public about what the

order would have done. We'll also share some criticisms from the left about Trump's order and how it could be an executive power that might reshape the entire government. Before we get started, a quick note about tomorrow's Friday edition. As we're all experiencing right now, this is a very fast and furious pace at which the government is moving. And we simply just don't have the space to write about all of the Senate confirmation hearings and Trump's nominees in the newsletter. So tomorrow, we're going to get you all caught up to speed covering the hearings of Tulsi Gabbard, Cash Patel, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an extended edition of Tangle.

If you want to get this newsletter or podcast tomorrow, you need to be a Tangle Premium member subscriber, whether that's to the newsletter, the podcast, or both as a bundle. That membership comes with interviews, bonus content, Sunday editions, limited offers, so much. So if you haven't already, it's a good time to upgrade your membership. There's a link in today's episode description. Just follow that and you can get signed up. There was also a slight podcast issue the other day.

We had posted an episode on January 23rd about Trump's first days in office. That did go up, but for some reason it got deleted. I still haven't figured out how or why. While it is still up on the paid members page, for some reason it disappeared from the ad supported version. So I'm gonna be reposting that later for anybody who might have missed it.

Alright, with that out of the way, let's jump into today's quick hits. First up, a U.S. Army helicopter collided with an American Airlines passenger jet in mid-air as the plane was making its final descent toward Reagan National Airport in Washington D.C. Sixty-four people, sixty passengers and four crew, were on board the plane while three service members were on the helicopter. Officials said that they had recovered twenty-seven bodies from the Potomac River where the plane and the helicopter crashed and currently believe there are no survivors. Number 2. Former Senator Bob Menendez, the Democrat from New Jersey, was sentenced to

11 years in prison for bribery, fraud, and illegal foreign agent offenses. Number three, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum instructing the Pentagon to prepare the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay to house up to 30,000 unauthorized migrants who had committed crimes in the US. Separately, President Trump signed a settlement with Metta for roughly $25 million to resolve his lawsuit against the company for suspending his account on the platform following the January 6th Capitol riot. Number 4.

Confirmation hearings for Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard, Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and FBI Director nominee Kash Patel will be held in the Senate on Thursday. Kennedy appeared before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday for his first hearing. 5. Hamas released eight hostages, three Israelis and five Thai nationals, as part of the ongoing ceasefire agreement. Israel is slated to release 110 imprisoned Palestinians, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said their release is on hold until the safe return of Hamas's hostages is confirmed. Separately, the Syria Military Operations Command named Ahmed al-Sharah, formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jalani,

as Syria's president for a transition period. Al-Sharah led the militant group primarily responsible for ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December. And developing right now as well, the White House has ordered a freeze of several federal aid programs, including federal grants and loans, which could impact millions of Americans. According to a memo sent by the White House, the freeze on federal assistance is slated to take effect at 5 p.m. That memo specifies that the pause is not going to affect social security or Medicare benefits nor does it include assistance provided directly to individuals.

On Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget rescinded a memo that had paused trillions of dollars in federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs. The memo had called for agencies to perform a comprehensive analysis of their grant and loans program to ensure compliance with President Donald Trump's executive orders, but was broadly written and created confusion over the scope of the funding freeze. Prior to the memo's rescission, a federal judge had paused its orders from going into effect after a coalition of nonprofits and businesses sued to stop its implementation. OMB Acting Director Matthew J. Vaith sent a memo

to the heads of all executive departments and agencies on Monday, writing that career and political appointees in the executive branch have a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through presidential priorities. Vaith said the pause was intended to allow the Trump administration to review all federally funded programs, projects, and activities to assess their alignment with Trump's executive

orders, specifically those that advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and Green New Deal social engineering policies. Agencies were given until February 10, 2025, to submit information about their activity to the OMB. While the memo specified that Medicare and Social Security benefits would not be impacted by the pause, many organizations that receive federal funding expressed uncertainty about their immediate access to funds. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt held a briefing in which she stated

that any federal money going directly to benefit recipients would not be paused, though she could not confirm whether Medicaid was affected. A follow-up White House memo clarified that it would not be. However, multiple states reported that they had lost access to their online portal for disbursement of federal health funds on Tuesday, which the White House attributed to an outage. Access to the portals was restored on Tuesday night. The prospect of an extended freeze led many agencies and organizations receiving federal funds to warn about the impact of any disruption in disbursements, with some health care providers

saying that they would be forced to lay off staff and cut services within two weeks. Additionally, individual states worried that removal of access to federal funds would prevent them from providing services like assisted lunch, substance abuse programs, and low-income childcare services. In response to the order, many Democratic lawmakers argued Trump

was illegally blocking funds that had been appropriated by Congress, with some calling it a constitutional crisis. Republicans largely backed the order, framing it as a legal step to ensure appropriated by Congress, with some calling it a constitutional crisis. Republicans largely backed the order, framing it as a legal step to ensure that agencies were following the law. In a post on X, Press Secretary Levitz said that the decision to rescind the order was to end any confusion created by the court's injunction.

On Wednesday, Levitz said that while the memo had been rescinded, Trump's order of a full-funding review for all federal agencies would remain in effect. Today, we'll explore reactions to the order and its rescission from the right and the left. Then, managing editor Ari Weitzman will give his take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right supports Trump's order, but many say it could have been executed more effectively. Some say Democrats misled the public about what the order would have done. Others praised the order for introducing more scrutiny to federal spending.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about the spending freeze panic. And so ends the first resistance panic of the second Trump era. On Monday, the White House ordered a pause on federal grants to ensure that they don't promote Biden administration obsessions. Democrats and the press went into full constitutional crisis mode, and a judge halted the pause. Then, on Wednesday, the White House rescinded it, the board said. It's well within Mr. Trump's executive authority to pause disbursement of discretionary funds to ensure they comply with the law and his priorities.

But governing by chaos doesn't work. To succeed, his executive actions need to be nailed down and carefully explained, or they'll be torn apart by the courts and the agents of status quo. There's nothing wrong with an incoming administration that doesn't want to keep shoveling money out the door without first reviewing where it's going. Take the National Institutes of Health's first program, which requires grant recipients to use diversity statements for government-funded faculty," the board wrote. Mr. Trump was elected in part to stop

the willy-nilly spending blowout of the last four years. Non-defense discretionary spending has increased 45 percent since 2019, twice the rate of inflation. Democrats want to keep the party going, but Mr. Trump has the authority, pause or no pause, to scrutinize discretionary funds that still haven't gone out the door. In red state, Jennifer Oliver O'Connell criticized Democrats for lying about the impact of Trump's order. Despite press secretary Caroline Levitt's more precise outlining of what was and was not affected by President Donald Trump's executive order freezing funding for federal grants, loans, and other financial programs pending agency

review along with a memorandum from the Office of Budget and Management outlining the same, Democrats took this opportunity to rail against dictator Trump, fear monger, and have an absolute meltdown, O'Connell said. The supposed damage done by Trump's actions started resembling a game of telephone. Exhibit A, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who took it from Medicaid and SNAP benefits going away to hospitals shutting down and vital services crippled. Right on schedule, a Biden-appointed judge issued an administrative stay on existing funding while allowing the pause to remain in effect

as to any new spending, O'Connell wrote. Democrats are probably taking credit for the judge's quick action and they may have played some role in it, but the desperation is palpable. The old playbook is no longer working as effectively as it used to, and they know they have very few plays left.

The New York Post editorial board said, Trump's federal grant freeze is great news for America's taxpayers. Despite the howls of outrage and already-launched lawsuits from the left, Team Trump's pause on federal spending on most grants, loans, and more is a wise, perhaps necessary, move to ensure Americans' tax dollars are well spent and to keep up the battle against Biden inflation," the board wrote. The freeze doesn't impact programs that provide direct benefits to recipients. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps are all exempt.

Yet, the outlays now frozen pour into almost every corner of society and accounted for up to $3 trillion of federal spending in 2024. Is this approach coming into the admin via Elon Musk and the techie philosophy that underlies Doge? Certainly. It resembles zero-based budgeting, a fiscal strategy popular in the startup world for Uncle Sam. Under ZBB, past spending isn't automatically assumed to be justified during forward budgeting.

Instead, every dollar slated to be spent requires an actual reason," the board said. Regardless, the memo and the out-of-whack response are strong reminders. Those trillions do not belong by rights to nonprofits or defense contractors or research universities. taxpayer. Alright that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left criticizes Trump's orders, arguing that it was a blatantly illegal act. Some say Trump is advancing a radical idea about executive power that could reshape the

entire government. Others suggest the battle over federal funding has only just begun. In the Los Angeles Times, Erwin Chemerinsky called Trump's order patently unconstitutional. The order could affect trillions of dollars of federal spending that has been approved by Congress and appropriated by federal statute. The president has no authority to do this under the Constitution, under which the legislative branch holds the power of the purse, Chemerinsky wrote. Indeed, presidential interference with Congress budgeted spending violates a federal statute,

the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. When a federal statute has been adopted that appropriates money, the president has no authority to refuse to spend it. The law forbids presidential impoundment of funds, but under certain circumstances allows a brief delay and gives the president means to ask Congress to reconsider an appropriation, also known as a rescission. If the president wishes to rescind spending,

he must send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission, the reasons for it, and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission," Chemerinsky said. Trump has not made the required notifications to Congress, and so his order this week to halt spending is patently illegal. In Politico, Aziz Huck wrote about why Trump's power grab

on spending was so radical. The memo identified no source of constitutional or legislative authority for the president to pause any, let alone all, domestic grant programs, but it is animated, at least implicitly, by a striking claim. Not only can the president freeze all funding amid a review, but he must also then be permitted

to permanently eliminate items from appropriation statutes at a whim, Huck said. It's a move that threatens not only a radical curtailment of Congress's authority, but imperils the separation of American civil society from the partisan tides of the White Hubs. There is also a breathtaking discontinuity between the reasons for the funding pause and its reach. The OMB memo points to the never-enacted Green New Deal and to a Marxist agenda that is a figment of the MAGA imagination, Huck wrote. Exactly like the line item veto invalidated by

the Supreme Court in 1988, the claimed impoundment power is de facto power to selectively edit duly enacted laws. This claimed non-enforcement should elicit whiplash among conservatives. After all, it was red states such as Texas aided by Trump's advisor Stephen Miller that once excoriated the Biden administration for negating federal laws on immigration via non-enforcement. In the Atlantic, David A. Graham said there is a strategy behind the chaos. The great federal grant freeze of 2025 is over, but don't expect it to be gone for good. This episode resembles the incompetent fumbling of the first Trump administration, especially its earliest days.

But this was no fluke and no ad hoc move. It's part of a carefully thought out program of grabbing power for the executive branch, Graham wrote. The abortive grant freeze is an example of the second Trump administration's strategy to drastically deploy executive power as part of a bigger and somewhat paradoxical gambit to shrink the federal government as a whole. The court injunction yesterday was a nuisance, but what really seems to have gone in the freeze was the backlash. Not so much from the public, but from state and local officials, including many Republicans

who were outraged about the withdrawal of funds and lack of communication. The political team won this round over the ideologues, but there will be more, Graham said. Having to back down for political reasons tends to make the internal battles only fiercer. Trump's attempts to decimate the civil service and clear out career bureaucrats are well-known, but Project 2025's authors reserved special

animus for those they expected to be on their side during the first Trump administration. All right, that is it for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to our take. Today's take was authored by managing editor Ari Weitzman, and I'll be reading it in the first person. So if your head is spinning over all of this, I don't blame you. In the middle of an incredibly tumultuous period of American history, within an absolutely jam-packed first two weeks of a new administration. We get this confusing saga of executive orders and memoranda and press conferences and leaks.

It's a storm inside a maelstrom inside a hurricane. Let's slow down and spell it all out, starting with the timeline of events. Note, this timeline covers news about the spending freeze and government employment updates, because I think those are the two things that are closely related. January 20, President Trump authorizes a hiring freeze, telling the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management to work with the Department of Government Efficiency to submit a plan to reduce the size of the federal government's workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition,

with the exemption that nothing in this memorandum shall adversely impact the provision of Social Security, Medicare, or veterans' benefits. Separately, the President signs the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order, which includes the directive all agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. January 21, the OMB issues a memo to clarify the language of the Unleashing American Energy Order, stating that this puzzle only applies to funds supporting programs, projects, or activities that may be implicated by the policy established in Section 2 of the order, which

includes a series of directives to encourage energy exploration and production. January 22, the administration clarifies exemptions in the hiring freeze for Department of Defense civilians, positions required for the disbursement of veterans, Medicare, and Social Security benefits, and any position related to essential activities. Separately, the Senate holds the confirmation hearing for Russell Vought as OMB head. Note, Vought wrote the chapter proposing policies for the executive office of the president in Project 2025's mandate for leadership. January 27, the OMB's acting director, Matthew J. Vath, issues a memo directing all federal agencies to temporarily pause all activities related

to obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, non-governmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the Green New Deal social engineering policies," emphasis added. Separately, the OMB and OPM co-issue a memo requiring all employees to report to work in person while the agencies come up with a plan to comply with the president's memorandum requiring in-person work, with exemptions as department heads deem necessary.

Anonymous reports from OPM employees begin to emerge, claiming that the agency is reporting to and issuing communications from Doge staffers. Two anonymous government workers sue the OPM for allegedly breaking privacy laws and sharing employee emails with a former staffer to Elon Musk. January 28, broad wording in the EOs and memos creates confusion about its scope. Medicaid payments are reportedly disrupted. White House Press secretary Caroline Levitt initially cannot say whether the disruption was intentional,

then says Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not affected. Later, the OPM offers a buyout to any federal employee who decides to resign instead of committing to four pillars, return to office, performance culture, more streamlined and flexible workforce, and enhanced standards of conduct. That evening, a federal judge pauses the federal hiring freeze for one week to allow judicial

review. Immediately thereafter, 22 states and D.C. challenge the order's legality in court, claiming that all already committed funds must still be dispersed. January 29, the OMB rescinds the memo, but clarifies that all funding freezes as specified by existing OEs are still in force. January 30, the Senate Budget Committee will vote on Russ Vought's nomination for OMB head. So here are some observations. After laying it all out, three things are immediately clear based on the agendas of the people involved.

One, Donald Trump wants to temporarily suspend outgoing federal money so his office can evaluate what funds are going to initiatives he finds counterproductive, namely DEI, gender, and climate initiatives, and put a stop to them. This is based on reporting from The Washington Post's Jeff Stein, who has been all over this story. Trump is doing this in the most Trump way possible. Turning off the government, trying to keep as much of the things he doesn't like turned off, and then turning it back on again. Two, Russ Vought and presumably acting director Vath wants to couple OMB with the president's agenda as much as possible.

We know that because Vought said as much for Project 2025. Quote, the director of the OMB must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the president's mind as it pertains to the policy agenda while always being ready with actual options to affect the agenda within existing legal authorities and resources. This cannot be performed adequately if the director acts instead as the ambassador of the institutional interests of OMB and the wider bureaucracy of the White House." 3. Elon Musk wants to cut the federal workforce, fire ineffective workers, and maximize the output of the remaining employees. We know that because he's been appointed to head an advisory group on government efficiency, obviously, and because that was exactly his playbook

when he took over Twitter. We can also be pretty sure he's involved with operations at the OPM. There's simply too much smoke about this for there not to be fire, and the January 28 deferred resignation email titled A Fork in the Road has his fingerprints all over it. Musk sent essentially the same message

in an email to Twitter employees also titled A Fork in the Road. Here are some reactions to this, with different messages from people who voted for Trump and people who did not. If you voted for Trump, you're probably a little conflicted. The good news for Trump voters is that he assumed his office with a machete in each hand, and things he's put his sights on are exactly what he said they'd be. Immigration, DEI, and government spending. The bad news is that this whole saga has been a total mess.

I think any objective overview just has to admit that. Trump has always said he wants to run government like a business, but I wouldn't want to work with this company. Poorly written directives that effectively pause all operations, then confusing clarifications that seem to unpause them, then complete reversals of those orders, but with the caveat that you do what those overly broad orders enforced, actually. All the while, important operations are thrown into limbo while confused department heads are unsure what they're supposed to do.

The United States government has the most expenditures of any organization in the world. It employs, contracts, or funds the jobs of over 9 million people. If you're reading this newsletter, you almost certainly personally know somebody who works for or with the federal government. It manages everything from care for seniors to research initiatives, health policy to national infrastructure projects, and the most powerful military in the history of the planet. The president can't just shake it like an Etch-a-Sketch without some people justifiably freaking out and markets feeling it.

And he shouldn't have to. Republicans control Congress. If you did not vote for Trump, I'm sure you're freaking out. Yes, someone who literally wrote part of the book for Project 2025 is about to become the OMB head and be given the executive branch's wallet. Yes, the OPM has signaled that they'll try to reclassify many people under Schedule F, one of two things we said we were most concerned about Trump doing when we covered Project 2025. Yes, long-term continued operation for major sources of government funds, like student

loans and the National Institute of Health, is uncertain. But be sure to respond to what is actually happening now. This is not the president being a king. It has nothing to do with executive immunity, and it is not fascism. It's Trump doing everything he can to pursue his agenda, and then the court's checking him, which is him being the guy a majority of Americans voted for and our democracy working to balance his actions. Legal challenges are already underway,

and I don't expect the courts to allow the executive branch to decide not to continue funding grants and loans it has already approved. In the immediate term, the government will continue to function, and these whirlwind upheavals are about to slow to heavy winds and work their way through our courts and our legislature. So, what do we watch for next?

Well, speaking of Project 2025, the OMB is about to be led by Vought, barring any unexpected last-minute changes of heart from Senate Republicans. We know what he wants to do. Tightly couple the agency's directives with the president's agenda, likely by directing the OMB to underspend some of the budget Congress has allocated to strangle out initiatives the president doesn't favor. Doing so would violate a 1974 law requiring congressional approval, but a recent report by Ashley Parker in the Atlantic

suggested the White House is preparing to challenge that law in court. Keep an eye out for a new debate over the constitutional limits of executive power with the key words, deferral and rescission. Deferrals are pauses in federal funds the president's office can enact unilaterally, and rescissions are spending cuts the president cannot enact without Congress. If Congressional approval for rescissions is indeed challenged in court, that would be a significant and worrisome attempt to shift power from the legislative branch to the executive.

The OPM looks like it's working pretty closely with Doge, which could well be illegal, and I'd wager that those whistleblower lawsuits are going to seriously limit Musk's reach within that office. But I also think the big move out of the OPM is still yet to come, Schedule F reclassification for many federal workers. It may go without saying, but depending on the scope, that would also be significant and worrisome. Either way, this isn't the end of the story. It's a prelude. President Trump is bringing significant changes to how the executive branch and the offices of personnel management and management and budget are going to be ground zero for those changes.

We'll be right back after this quick break. Alright, that is it for our take today. We are skipping today's reader question because we got a little lengthy in our take, but if you have any questions, you can always write to us at staff at readtangle.com. Alright, next up is our under the radar story. A new study on the relationship between cannabis use and brain function found that 63% of heavy lifetime cannabis users exhibited a statistically significant reduction in brain activity during working memory tasks, which require retaining and using information. The study is the largest ever of its kind, surveying 1,000 people aged 22 to 36 and using

brain imaging technology to evaluate subjects' ability to follow instructions or solve problems mentally. There are a lot of questions we still need answers to regarding how cannabis impacts the brain. Large, long-term studies are needed to next understand whether cannabis use directly changes brain function, how long these effects last, and the impact on different age groups, Joshua Goen, this study's first author, said. The University of Colorado has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright, next up is our numbers section. The year the Bureau of the Budget was redesigned as the Office of Management and Budget was 1970.

The year the Office of Personnel Management was established was 1978. The approximate number of federal programs identified by the OMB for review under President Donald Trump's executive order is 2,600. The approximate percentage on average of state revenue provided by the federal government is 30 percent, according to Federal Funds Information for States. The number of federal employees is 2.3 million. The percentage of federal employees that the White House expects to accept its offer of pay through September in return for their resignation by February 6th is 5 to 10%, according to Axios.

And the current cap on voluntary separation incentive payments for federal employees is $25,000. Alright, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Bugsy Saylor made a New Year's resolution to see every sunrise of 2019. During this time, he fell in love with the pursuit. It's my moment to reset every day. It's my moment to be present in nature," Sailor, aka the Sunrise Guy, said. Since he made his resolution, he has seen and photographed over 2,039 sunrises. I think more sunrises makes for a better world, Sailor said. CBS Sunday Morning has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for 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 readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. You could also go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up for a premium podcast membership, which gets you ad free daily podcasts, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content, and so much more. As I mentioned at the top, there's going to be a special Friday edition covering the hearings of Tulsi Gabbard, Cash Patel, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

That'll come out tomorrow for premium newsletter and premium podcast subscribers as well. We've got a special Sunday edition coming up for you, which the whole team will be a part of, so we will all talk to you then. In the meantime, this is John Law signing off. Have a fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by Duke Thomas.

Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will Kavak, Gail Esau, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bikova, who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website at reedtangle.com. That's reedtangle.com.