Tangle - The global response to Trump's tariffs.

Episode Date: April 7, 2025

President Donald Trump’s decision to implement a baseline 10% tariff on all U.S. trading partners and additional, individualized tariffs on dozens of countries has prompted a range of responses from Republicans, Democrats, heads of state, and business leaders across impacted industries. With the individualized duties set to take effect on April 9, some countries have promised retaliatory countermeasures, while others have reportedly begun attempting to negotiate with the Trump administration (the administration has said that it will not postpone the start date). Meanwhile, steep drops in major indexes following the tariff announcement have continued into Monday morning trading. 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 believe the Trump administration will enact the announced tariffs on April 9? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit

of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saag. Today is April 7th. It's a Monday. We're liberated, I guess. This has been a head spinning morning. I'm out of breath from just watching the news and seeing what's happening. I'm pretty sure we just had $4 trillion of stock market capital move because of a fake quote about something Trump's economic advisor said. It has been totally nuts. But I think now as I sit here recording this around 11 in the morning, my take is up to date and probably won't age well because things are happening so fast.

But we're going to we're going to see and find out I guess. Two big plugs before we jump in to today's main topic, which again is going to be Trump's tariffs and the response to them, even though we just covered this on Thursday. First of all, in case you missed it, yesterday's Sunday podcast is free for everyone. These are typically members only podcasts, but we had Camille Foster on the host of the Fifth Column podcast. I'm a huge fan of Camille's. I'm really interested in bringing him on as a regular to this Hangul podcast.

And we talked about tariffs, Doge, he has a story, a personal story about someone impacted by Doge. And then that kind of philosophical conversation about the horrors of just consuming or reporting. We made this typically members only podcast free for everyone. So even if you're not a member, if you hear ads on this podcast,

that means you're listening to the free version of our podcast. You can actually go back and listen to the full Sunday pod from yesterday, which is a totally different format and different podcasts than what you typically get here during the week. And if you like it, you can subscribe and become a Tangle member

and then get those podcasts regularly. You can do that anytime by going to readtangle.com forward slash membership. Also in a members only Friday edition, a genuine members only Friday edition, I wrote about the importance of due process even, and perhaps especially for people who may not be American citizens. The post, the article newsletter version of this post has driven almost 400 comments. I got

tons of emails about it. It drew a lot of attention and conversation. So if you're interested in listening to a read down of that post that Will did for me, because I was traveling on Friday, you can find that in our podcast feed. or if you want to read the actual article, you can go to readtangle.com. The headline is about due process. All right, with those plugs out of the way, I'm going to send it over to Jon for today's main story, and I'll be back for my take.

Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. I hope you all had a refreshing and restful weekend, maybe some joyful moments that are going to help carry you through the week. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, a federal judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security to return Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia to the United States after the Trump administration acknowledged he had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Number 2.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration can proceed in its cancellation of roughly $65 million in federal teaching training grants. Number 3. The Senate voted 51-48 to approve a budget blueprint, which will allow the chamber to pass the eventual budget with a simple majority vote through the budget reconciliation process. The measure now goes to the House, which is expected to consider it next week. Number 4. President Donald Trump issued a 75-day extension to the deadline for the social media app TikTok

to sell its U.S. operations or be banned. And number five, the U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in March, exceeding economists' expectations. Additionally, the unemployment rate rose to 4.2% from 4.1% in February. Reliance on tariffs to bring wealth into the United States and manufacturing jobs to the American people kicked in this morning with 10% baseline levies on just about every import coming into the US. Far steeper tariffs on trading partners like China, Vietnam, India and the European Union are set to begin next week.

The market's reaction clear and jarring. The S&P 500 plunging 10 percent in two days. Major banks like JPMorgan now forecasting a recession this year, even as the president today posted encouragement saying this is an economic revolution. President Donald Trump's decision to implement a baseline 10% tariff on all U.S. trading partners and additional individualized tariffs on dozens of countries has prompted a range of responses

from Republicans, Democrats, heads of state, and business leaders across impacted industries. With the individualized duties set to take effect on April 9, some countries have promised retaliatory countermeasures, while others have reportedly begun attempting to negotiate with the Trump administration. The administration has said that it will not postpone the start date. Meanwhile, steep drops in major indexes following the tariff announcement have continued into Monday morning trading. You can check out our coverage on last week's tariff announcement with a link in today's

episode description. On Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Letnick told CBS News that the administration was not open to negotiation with other countries about the duties. The tariffs are coming. President Trump announced that, and he wasn't kidding, Lutnick said. Meanwhile, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the immediate term won't be easy,

but the end result will be historic, framing the move as an economic revolution to revitalize American jobs and industries. Many Republican lawmakers remain aligned with the president. Representative Byron Donalds, the Republican from Florida, said that the tariffs coupled with new tax policy and regulatory reductions would be a boon to America, while Senator Josh Hawley, the Republican from Missouri, said his constituents were absolutely thrilled with the tariffs and saw them as a means to get

a fair deal for our products. However, several Republicans have publicly questioned the tariff strategy. Most notably, Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican from Iowa, co-introduced legislation with Senator Maria Cantwell, the Democrat from Washington, on Thursday that would mandate congressional approval for new tariffs and empower Congress to end any tariff at any time.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been uniformly critical of the tariffs. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called them a tax hike on the American people, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned that the tariffs could usher in a recession. Additionally, on Wednesday, Senate Democrats, with support from four Republicans, passed a resolution sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia, to repeal the emergency declaration Trump used to place tariffs on Canada. However, the resolution is unlikely to be taken up by the Republican-controlled House. Foreign leaders have also criticized the tariffs, and the European Union is reportedly planning

to approve a set of retaliatory tariffs on up to $28 billion of U.S. imports. On Friday, China announced it would levy a 34% tax on all U.S. imports, the same rate that Trump recently announced for Chinese imports. Additionally, Israel, Taiwan, Cambodia, and Vietnam pledged or enacted cuts to their tariff rates on the U.S. According to Commerce Secretary Lutnick, roughly 50 countries have reached out to the Trump administration

to discuss the tariffs, though Lutnick maintained that the U.S. would not negotiate at this time. Major companies in industries like banking, air travel, aerospace, and agriculture experienced significant losses on Thursday and Friday, while Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla lost a combined $1.8 trillion in market value over the same span. On Thursday, U.S. markets had their largest one-day decline since 2020, with the S&P 500

falling 4.8%. The markets opened further down on Monday morning, with the S&P 500 showing 3.5% in losses, the Dow Jones down 3.2%, and the Nasdaq dropping another 3.7%. Today, we'll explore reactions to the latest on the tariffs from the right and the left, and then Isaac's tape. We'll be right back after this quick break. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz.

Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. All right. First up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right remains mixed on the implications of the tariffs, though many argue the left and the media are misunderstanding Trump's strategy. Some say Trump's execution of the tariffs may undercut his end goal. Others praise the policy, but say the administration should communicate its rationale more effectively. In Fox News, Tanviratna wrote about what Trump is really up to with the high-stakes tariff gambit.

When most people hear tariffs, they think about price hikes and trade wars. But the Trump administration's latest tariff rollout is not merely a knee-jerk projectionist move. It is part of a far broader strategy. What is actually in play here is a high-stakes effort to build up leverage and resources to manage America's debt, reset its industrial base, and renegotiate its standing in the global order," Ratna said.

In 2025, the U.S. government must refinance $9.2 trillion in maturing debt. Some $6.5 trillion of that comes due by June. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bissant, each basis point, one one hundredth of a percent drop in interest rates, saves the government roughly one billion dollars per year. By introducing sweeping tariffs, the administration is creating precisely the kind of economic uncertainty that drives investors towards safer assets such as long-term US Treasuries. When markets are spooked, capital exits risk and equity assets, as we see with the stock

market collapse, and piles into safe assets, primarily the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond. That demand pushes yields lower. Some have called it a detox for the overheated financial system, and it appears to be working, Ratna said. Turfs serve as an ignition switch. By making imports more expensive, they create space for American producers to step back in. The objective is not to punish trade partners.

It is to make domestic industry viable again. In the New York Post, Isaac Schor suggested Trump's tariffs may not deliver the American Golden Age he's promised. Even the most ardent free traders can see value in the U.S. responding in kind when governments implement protectionist policies that make it harder for American goods to be sold abroad. That Israel dropped its tariffs on U.S. products in anticipation of Liberation Day is evidence enough that there's merit to these tit-for-tat strategies, Schor said.

Unfortunately, the program Trump unveiled in the Rose Garden this week failed to deliver such a thoughtful vision. As countless economists, business leaders, and other experts have observed, the rates at which Trump has proposed taxing imports are, in most cases, far higher than those at which most other countries are taxing American exports. As with those meager NATO budget contributions, Trump believes America is being played and only he, and he alone, can redraw the rules of engagement. Liberation Day reflects the president's penchant for full-scale assaults as opening salvos,

yet with reasonable room for revisions later on. Note his latest TikTok extension on Friday, Shore wrote. Leverage is the real goal here, and to gain it, Trump must convince trading partners to actually accept what he has made so apparent, that he genuinely believes tariffs are an economic panacea and will need significant concessions not to move forward with them. In Understanding America, Orrin Cass explored the strategy behind the tariffs. Trump's focus on trade deficits and the need for balanced trade indicate a focus on proportionality rather than outright reciprocity.

Reciprocal tariffs designed simply to mirror foreign tariff rates would have had little relationship to the problem he was targeting, and countries could have evaded them simply by dropping their own formal tariffs to zero and relying on other forms of trade distortion, Cass said. If what Trump cares about is trade imbalances, and he wants to use tariffs to force other countries to reduce those imbalances, what makes sense is to scale the tariff to the size of the imbalance. This is what he did. If this is correct, the Trump administration needs to do a few things.

Number one, communicate the goals and rationales much more clearly. The American people, markets, and allies all need to understand what is happening, Cass wrote. Number two, legislate the permanent elements. The credibility, stability, and legality of the permanent tariffs would all greatly improve if Congress codified them. Finally, Liberation Day needs to be the start of a much larger program of reindustrialization, not a one-and-done action that effectively leaves the troops stranded on a narrow beachhead. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left continues to oppose the tariffs, and many say Congress should rein in President

Trump. Some say the administration is offering contradictory reasoning for the move. Others note the tariffs' positive reception among the working class, but suggest Trump's strategy won't improve their situation. The Boston Globe editorial board argued that Congress should rein in Trump's tariff obsession. Presidents can't just impose taxes because they want to. They need to get permission from Congress. Tariffs on foreign goods, as every American with a 401k learned over the past

24 hours, are an unfortunate exception to that rule," the board wrote. That needs to change. Tariffs may sometimes be warranted, but given the enormous economic impact markets plummeted Thursday and manufacturers immediately began making layoffs, presidents shouldn't have the power to just impose them on a whim. There are sometimes justifications for tariffs, to protect an industry vital to national security, for instance, or in response to egregiously unfair trade practices by other countries. But in every case, they represented a trade-off between the interests of domestic consumers

and domestic manufacturers, and such balancing acts should be considered carefully," the board said. Given the impact tariffs can have on Americans' 401Ks, consumer prices, and job security, and the clear evidence that this president is using those tariffs heedlessly, Congress should have a say, just as it does in most other economic policies with this much economic importance. In the Atlantic, Jonathan Chait said Trump has already botched his own bad tariff plan. Donald Trump had a plan.

It was not a good plan, or even a plausible one. But it was, at least, a coherent plan. By imposing large trade barriers on the entire world, he would create an incentive for American business to manufacture and grow all the goods the country previously imported," Chait wrote. The key to making it work was to convince businesses that the new arrangement is durable. Nobody is going to invest in building new factories in the United States to create goods that until last week could be imported more cheaply unless they're certain that the tariffs

making the domestic version more competitive will stay in place. Trump's aides grasped this dynamic, but not everybody got the idea. Asked by reporters whether he planned to negotiate the tariff rates, the president said, "'The tariffs give us great power to negotiate. They always have,' Chait said. However, there is a principle at work here called no-backsees. Once you've said you might negotiate the tariffs, nobody is going to believe you when you change your mind and say you'll never negotiate.

To be sure, signaling openness to negotiate on tariffs is also a plan, but it's a very different plan than attracting massive investment into domestic production. In Jacobin, Andrew Elrod wrote, tariffs aren't enough to protect good auto jobs. The president's approach to the auto industry offers an opportunity to clarify the goals of U.S. trade policy. To understand what is really in the interests of working people, we have to separate the president's political whims from the changing contours of global capitalism, El Radzad.

For politicians and auto executives, at stake is whether the U.S. auto industry will be an appendage of a global market, or a North American continental market, or a national market. But for the 12 million workers in U.S. manufacturing, the question is whether it is possible, under this administration and in this moment of 21st century capitalism, to create a pro-worker, pro-union trade policy. The Trump administration's focus on tariffs obscures the nature of this problem. Despite the accumulated traumas of waves of partial restructuring, the U.S. auto industry has spent most of the last 16 years growing.

When jobs last peaked in spring 2023, there were more than one million workers producing motor vehicles and their parts inside the nation's borders. Yet most of this growth is in non-union jobs, Elrod wrote. Whether Trump's tariffs game will lead to a further growth of jobs ultimately depends on the level of demand in the economy, on whether people are buying cars. But it's not difficult to understand why his call for change has been received with enthusiasm among many auto workers. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

["Sweet Home"] All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So this is not off to a great start, I think is maybe a fair thing to say. One of the most remarkable things that I've observed about President Trump is how so many people project their own values and viewpoints onto him and then they assume that he holds them too. Few things I think have illustrated this idea as much as Wednesday's earth-moving tariff announcement. It has been fascinating to watch billionaire Wall Street guys like Bill Ackman suddenly realize that they do not view this issue the same way that Trump does.

I don't think this was foreseeable, Ackman said on X last night in his most public break with the president to date. I assumed economic rationality would be paramount, my bad. It's worth recalling here that Trump spent an entire campaign season, about a year and a half, promising the biggest, broadest, most historic tariffs one could imagine.

He spent his entire first term pushing for major tariffs on allies and adversaries alike. He spent his entire career as a real estate developer advocating for more tariffs. Kamala Harris, his opponent, warned Americans that Trump was going to institute major tariffs and cause a recession. Saying Trump's tariffs were not foreseeable is actually hard to wrap your head around. Jason Calacanis, another wealthy technocrat and political analyst, insisted that Trump would fold this week because he wouldn't be able

to stomach the stock market sell-off. Instead, Trump spent the weekend golfing, hosting a million dollar plate fundraising dinner, deploying his top trade advisor, Peter Navarro, to the Sunday shows to stress this strategy is not a negotiation tactic and telling reporters himself that he won't back down from the tariffs. I understand why people project their own wants and worldviews onto Trump.

I'm guilty of this too. I agree with a good deal of Trump's stated motivation that other countries often take advantage of the United States on trade and that our middle class has been decimated over the last 40 years. But Trump hasn't been communicating a coherent end goal, making it easy to project a plan onto the president that looks or sounds like my beliefs. Last week, I referenced economists like Orrin Katz

or Stephen Moran or Bob Lighthizer to explain the potential upside of Trump's tariff approach. Each has spent years writing about the complex relationships between trade, government revenue, manufacturing, the offshoring of jobs, consumers, and interest rates, sharing theories about broad tariffs and how they could be a part of a better plan to position ourselves in all of these areas.

I read their thinking and then articulated where I agreed and disagreed, tying it all back to Trump's plan. And then Trump was interviewed, and he explained a very simple and also absurd view. He believes that a deficit is a loss, and therefore he wants to be even or have trade surpluses with every country. It's worth pausing here to explain how nonsensical Trump's actual position is. The United States is the richest nation on earth, with the most prolific consumers in the world.

In most cases, that makes us net buyers of other countries' products, but in some cases, countries want more of our own exports. For instance, we lump our trade policies with Germany's and Netherlands into one broad policy on the European Union, but we have a trade deficit with Germany and a trade surplus with the Netherlands. Why?

As a council on foreign relations primer explains, we love German cars and machinery, and the Netherlands loves American medical equipment and pharmaceuticals. Dynamiting this free beneficial exchange with Germany to make the trade balance look the same between the two countries, as Trump apparently wants to do, it doesn't make any sense.

Now, for the first time in Trump's second term, I'm starting to see some genuine cracks in the president's approval. Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress have proposed bills to take away Trump's tariff powers. Hours after Trump said, we are not gonna lose a trillion dollars for the privilege of buying pencils from China,

Elon Musk shared a famous clip of Milton Friedman explaining how free trade allows pencils to be made in the first place, the first real break I've seen him make from the president. Prominent conservative writers like Richard Hanani are now saying they regret voting for Trump. Even Alex Berenson, the COVID vaccine skeptic who skyrocketed to fame by criticizing Biden

has said Republicans would be right to impeach Biden if he had done what Trump is doing now. Others like Batya Ungar Sargon are doubling down. They suggest that the reaction to tariffs is only a rich person problem and that Trump is the first president to put American workers above Wall Street. I find this suggestion ridiculous. Even if most market wealth is held by the richest Americans, 62% of U.S. adults own stocks.

Tens of millions of middle-class Americans have 401Ks and stock portfolios that contain their life savings that they rely on to make ends meet or retire, including members of my own family. More to the point, though, a cohesive industrial policy would be good for American workers, but a major stock market crash and recession would not. Obviously. Tens of millions of American workers are in the services industry that could be crushed by these tariffs. If you manage a business that involves importing parts for construction, you are also in very big trouble.

There has to be an off-ramp or a fleshed out plan for success. And there has to be a way to navigate the storm that's coming. But I don't get the sense we have that right now. As I've said already, it will be impossible to judge the outcome here in a matter of days or even weeks. It will really take months and years. Criticizing the risks of this strategy is easy and also my job, but it could still end up as the greatest economic trick of all time. If you really want to be intellectually honest, you have to acknowledge the possibility, however

slim, that Trump's tariff gambit induces better trade deals, raises billions or trillions in tariff revenue, refinances our debt, and helps us confront China on trade. Still, to help manage the immediate pain and uncertainty, the administration ought to set some parameters. What do success and failure look like? What deals are we hunting with adversaries in global trade? How much manufacturing investment do we want to bring home? How much tariff revenue do we want to raise?

Despite the lack of answers to these questions and what I said above, I hope this is all part of some larger plan to refinance the debt and invite better trade deals. But I also know I am projecting my wants onto this administration again. Instead, a good deal of reporting indicates that Trump's economic team spent months working on individualized tariff plans for different countries before he opted for a simple broad formula to apply to all of them. Treasury Secretary Scott Besson has said over 50 countries have already approached

him to make tariff deals. This is good news, as it could help us avoid a worst-case economic downturn. But simultaneously, the administration has insisted they aren't going to negotiate, and Axios reported on internal frustration within the administration over the lack of structure to even conduct such negotiations. We've seen this pattern with the Department of Government Efficiency, with deportations, and now with tariffs. Trump could be approaching of structure to even conduct such negotiations. We've seen this pattern with the Department of Government Efficiency, with deportations, and now with tariffs. Trump could be approaching popular ideas like efficiency reforms or reworking trade policies with fleshed out plans, but instead all the signals out of the White House show them shooting from the hip and figuring

out the mess as it happens. I don't know what will happen now. As I was writing today's newsletter in this podcast, the 10-year treasury yield started rising and bonds began collapsing, a complete reversal of what was happening last week, which was supposed to allow the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Then, Trump economic advisor Kevin Hassett said the president was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs and the stock market rallied. Then it dropped again when nobody could figure out where that quote had come from. A lot of people think Trump will blink as the market continues to collapse, but I'm not so sure. Despite Hassett's purported comments, Trump seems confident and unperturbed, and we know he is surrounded by yes-men. Republicans in

Congress could stop any of this at any moment if they wanted, but that would require defying the president. Meanwhile, Trump's base and the heterodox thinkers who support Trump unflinchingly believe this is another moment where the experts are hyperventilating and will be wrong again. The annoying truth though, is that the consensus is usually the consensus because it's accurate. If the experts are right here,

which I have an increasingly hard time doubting, we're headed for an economic storm I'm not sure people have totally processed yet. We'll be right back after this quick break. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. All right. That is it for my take today.

We're going to skip your questions answered because I was bloviating a bit. So I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and we'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. Following last week's layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services, in which approximately 10,000 jobs were cut, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that he planned to rehire

20 percent of the fired employees. Personnel that should have never been cut were cut. We're reinstating them, and that was always the plan, Kennedy said on Thursday. However, an anonymous source familiar with the administration's plans now says there is no plan to rehire any workers, adding to uncertainty about the agency's future as its remaining employees navigate the transition. It's been very difficult for people to understand

and emotionally process. Eric Spendenson, the recently laid off head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice said, Politico has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The projected amount of revenue without accounting for retaliatory tariffs that President Trump's tariffs will raise over the next decade is $2.9 trillion, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

The projected reduction in U.S. gross domestic product over the next decade as a result of the tariffs is 0.7 percent. The average U.S. tariff rate on imports in 2024 was 2.5%. The value of US exports affected by retaliatory tariffs issued or announced by China, Canada, and the European Union as of April 4th is $330 billion. The average US tariff rate on imports after Trump's tariffs take effect, will be 16.5%. The decline in Europe's Stocks 600 Index last week was minus 8.4%, its worst week in five years. The decline in Japan's Nikkei 225 Index on Monday

was minus 7.8%. And the percentage of registered U.S. voters who approve and disapprove, respectively, of President Trump's handling of the economy is 44% and 52%, according to a March-April Wall Street Journal poll. And last but not least are Have a Nice Day Story. Police work has been linked to high levels of stress, poor sleep, and mental illness.

So when Officer Ashley Carson rescued a bunny while patrolling, the Yuba City Police Department decided to adopt him, bringing him onto the team as a wellness officer. Sporting his police canine blue vest, Percy works tirelessly to reduce officer stress and promote a positive, healthy work environment for the officers. Nice News has this story and some pictures, 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 readtangle.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 Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all.

Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John 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 Kavak, and associate editors, Kaspersen, Audrey Moorhead, 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. ["Retangle"] With the FIZ loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with FIZ.

Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at FIZ.ca.