Tangle - The government shuts down.

Episode Date: October 1, 2025

On Wednesday at 12:01 AM ET, federal funding lapsed, shutting down non-essential government services. The shutdown follows weeks of protracted negotiations between Republicans and Democratic leaders — and President Donald Trump — to pass a bill to extend funding; the sides were unable to reach a deal before the midnight deadline. Democrats conditionedtheir support on extending healthcare subsidies and reversing cuts to Medicaid and other health programs, while Republicans have so far declined to support these changes. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Who do you think is most responsible for the government shutdown? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by 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, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools, and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and silencing local voices. It shouldn't be this way. Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms because smaller classes would make a big difference for our kids. Go to Building Better Schools.ca.

A message from the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. The Hulu original series, Murdoch, Death and the Family, dives into secrets, deception, murder, and the fall of a powerful dynasty. Inspired by shocking actual events and drawing from the hit podcast, this series brings the drama to the screen like never before, starring Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette and Jason Clark. Watch the Hulu original series, Murdoch, Death in the Family, streaming October 15th on Disney Plus. 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, executive producer John Law. And today we are going to be talking about the government shutdown, where Republicans and Democrats are at on this one and President Trump.

And today's take was written and recorded by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman. There's also a staff dissent from associate editor Lindsay Canuth with some assistance from a guy you might know, Isaac Saul. But before we get into all that, a quick heads up about this week's Friday edition. Now, you may have heard about some Trump leaders like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Scott Besant, Christy Nome, but others, not so much. In the first nine months of President Trump's term, we've fielded frequent questions from readers and listeners about the cabinet secretaries whose activities often go underreported but touch on key issues like agriculture, energy, housing, and the environment. On Friday, we are publishing a deep dive on 10 agency leaders, what they've already done, what people

are saying about their tenure, and their goal for the next three years. A reminder that Friday additions are for members only, so if you are not yet a member, now is a great time to sign up. All right, with all that said, let's move on to today's quick hits. First up, a bit of breaking news. The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump cannot immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Cook will remain in her position at least until the court hears oral arguments in the case in January. Number two, the White House withdrew President Trump's nomination of E.J. Anthony to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The decision reportedly followed Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski's refusal to meet with Antony about his nomination.

Number three, President Trump announced plans for a government-run website called Trump RX that will allow consumers to buy drugs directly from manufacturers. Trump also said that pharmaceutical company Pfizer would offer all of its drugs to Medicaid at reduced most favored nation prices in return for a three-year exemption from tariffs on its products. Number four, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry requested up to 1,000 National Guard members to be deployed to the state, claiming federal support was needed to address crime rates and law enforcement personnel shortages. Number five, a federal judge found that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by targeting non-citizens for deportation based solely on pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel speech. And number six, at least 69 people were killed in a 6.9 magnitude earthquake that struck the Central Philippines on Tuesday night.

rescue efforts are ongoing. The U.S. government is now officially shut down, partially. Congressional leaders and President Donald Trump failed to reach a deal or pass a short-term funding bill that would have kept the government running. A shutdown could lead to the furlough and firing of a large number of federal workers. On Wednesday at 12.1 a.m. Eastern Time, federal funding lapsed, shutting down non-essential government services. The shutdown follows weeks of protracted negotiations between Republicans and Democrat leaders and President Donald Trump to pass a bill to extend funding. The sides were unable to reach a deal before the midnight deadline.

Democrats conditioned their support on extending health care subsidies and reversing cuts to Medicaid and other health programs, while Republicans have so far declined to support these changes. For context, Congress is required to pass a series of 12 appropriations bills by October 1st to fund the government for the next fiscal year. Alternatively, they can pass a short-term funding bill called a continuing resolution. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage in the Senate, but a funding bill requires 60 votes to pass the chamber, and so far, none of the 12 appropriation bills have been passed by both the Senate and the House. When the government shuts down, some services stop. Paychecks for many federal employees are suspended, and federal

employees deemed non-essential may be furloughed. However, other programs, such as as Medicaid and Social Security benefits, continue to operate, as do essential services like air traffic control and law enforcement. Before Wednesday, the last government shutdown ran from December 2018 through January 2019 during President Trump's first term and lasted 34 days, the longest shutdown in U.S. history. In March, Congress passed a short-term funding bill to avert a shutdown, which we covered, and you can check that out with a link in today's episode description. Republican and Democrat leaders met with President Trump at the White House on Monday, but did not

make progress toward an agreement. Their bill has not one iota of Democratic input. That is never how this has been done before, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. It's up to Republicans whether they want a shutdown or not. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the Republican from South Dakota, said Democrats would bear the blame for a shutdown, saying they had taken the government as a hostage, and for that matter, by extension, the American people, to try to get a whole laundry list of things that they want. The special interest groups on the far left are pushing them to

accomplish. Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are primarily pushing for permanent extension of temporary Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. They also want to reverse spending cuts to Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health from earlier in Trump's term. Majority Leader John Thune said that he is open to discussing those issues as part of separate legislation, but not in a funding bill. As the shutdown approached, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought sent a memo to agency heads outlining the potential for mass layoffs if a spending bill was not passed. Agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider reduction in

force notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities, whose funding would lapse in a shutdown, Vought, wrote. Today, we'll share perspectives from the right and the left, on the government shutdown, and then managing editor Ari Weitzman will give his take. Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools, and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the full Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and silencing local voices. It shouldn't be this way. Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms

because smaller classes would make a big difference for our kids. Go to Building Better Schools.ca. A message from the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. The Hulu original series Murdoch, Death in the Family, dives into secrets, deception, murder, and the fall of a powerful dynasty. Inspired by shocking actual events and drawing from the hit podcast, this series brings the drama to the screen like never before. Starring Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette and Jason Clark. Watch the Hulu original series, Murdoch, Death in the Family, streaming October 15th on Disney Plus.

All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. Right primarily blames Democrat leaders for the shutdown and calls their demands unreasonable. Some say Democrats are playing into Trump's hands by accepting a shutdown. Others note how the party's rhetoric about shutdowns has flipped since the last funding fight. The Washington Examiner Editorial Board criticized the Democrats' ridiculous shutdown ransom. Democrats are demanding a ransom of more than half a trillion dollars over 10 years just to keep the government running for a few more weeks. It is a ridiculous proposal.

Republicans should refuse it, and Democrats will be left to take the blame for yet another example of Washington incompetence, the board said. Democratic lawmakers face intense pressure from their rabid base to shut down the government. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is especially under scrutiny because last March, he and ten other Senate Democrats put country over party and voted with Republicans to fund the government through the end of September. Democrats now want to undo most of the health care spending reductions, including restoring health care for illegal immigrants, and on top of that, they want to accept. extend Obamacare subsidies for insurance companies that are set to expire at the end of the month, the board wrote. A big part of why Trump won in 2024 is that voters were tired of President Joe Biden's illegal immigrant invasion and how much it was costing taxpayers to fund services for people who should never have been allowed in. Republicans would betray those who put them in

power if they agreed to the Democratic Party's ransom demand. In the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly A. Strassel wrote about Russ Vaught's secret shutdown weapon. Democrats insist government won't run unless Democrats are given $450 billion in additional Obamacare money, an end to President Trump's hold on spending, and a reversal of the central Medicaid reform in the GOP's reconciliation bill, Strassel said. Put another way, Democrats will give the Trump team exactly what it's been wanting, a shutdown, in return for Democrats continuing to demand something they will never get. What a deal. Even Faust got some worldly pleasure in exchange for a soul.

This is trading hellfire for brimstone. The true scope of this losing proposition came clear with a memo, Mr. Vot. The Vot memo orders agencies to identify all programs that depend on discretionary funding, which lapses next week, and don't align with the president's priorities. Employees who administer those disfavored programs or projects won't be furloughed. They will be fired, Strassel wrote. The Trump team has already listed the programs that will continue regardless of shutdown, Social Security, Medicare, military operations, veteran benefits, border security, and air traffic

control. The recent reconciliation bill helps ensure they function. In the Daily Signal, Jacob Adams argued a government shutdown would harm the people Democrats claim to care about. While Democrats in Congress claimed to be advocates for government workers, a government shutdown would potentially furlough thousands of government employees who would not receive pay for the duration of the shutdown, Adam said. During the last government funding fight in March, Democrats tried to weaponize the potential harm done to federal workers against Republicans. Democrats are now downplaying the arguments they've previously made about the harm government shutdowns due to federal workers and government operations.

For example, a 2023 study published in governance, an international journal of policy, administration, and institutions found that the 2013 government shutdown hurt federal worker morale. The study also concluded that federal workers who faced government shutdowns were more likely to experience administrative dysfunction, such as unmanageable. workloads, missed deadlines, poorer customer service, and abandoned projects, Adam wrote. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has indicated that it would take the opportunity of government shutdown to consider reducing the size of the federal workforce. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is

saying. Many on the left accused Trump and Republicans of negotiating in bad faith. Some say Democrats should hold out to win some concessions. Others warned that a shutdown could backfire politically in the long run. In USA Today, Chris Brennan wrote, Democrats want to prevent a shutdown. Republicans want to blame them for one. The shutdown again demonstrates a recurring two-step pattern for President Trump's political proclamations. It goes like this.

First, Trump claims that all of America's problems will be easily fixed through his leadership if we just elect him president. And then after he becomes president and those problems don't get fixed, Trump reclaims that someone else is at fault, Brennan said. This one-size-fits-all escape from reality and responsibility applies across all topics for Trump, from the shutdown Russia's war in Ukraine, inflation, to tariffs driving up costs for Americans. Here's what is tragic. The Republicans rejected Democratic input on the continuing resolution because that's what Trump

ordered them to do. And Johnson canceled House sessions this week before the shutdown deadline, so there would be no chance of working out a negotiated deal other than what he wants. Brennan said. Those are the voices of politicians who have driven us to the brink of a shutdown, refused to negotiate a way out, then finally met with the Democrats only to rebuff their attempts to negotiate. In MSNBC, Paul Waldman argued, losing the shutdown in the best way is Democrats' only realistic goal. In the strictest sense, Democrats can't win the government shutdown conflict that now hangs over Washington, at least not completely. When it's over,

President Donald Trump will continue to ravage the federal government, undermining its ability to serve the public. While at best, Democrats will only have garnered some of the policy concessions they are seeking, Waldman said. But there are better losses and worse losses, and the worst would be congressional Democrats folding without exacting the highest price they can. Trump is extremely unpopular and the public is disinclined to believe what he tells it. The GOP is also the party that hates government and that has shut it down in the past. That means it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, Waldman wrote. If Democrats can at least win a substantive concession or two, like the extension of ACA subsidies, and used the controversy to remind voters how much damage Trump

and Republicans are doing to the country, it wouldn't fundamentally change the course we're on, but it would be better than nothing and better than the alternative. In New York magazine, Ross Barkin said shutting down the government would feel good, but it's thinking small. Congressional Democrats do have leverage, and they should drive it home to protect Obamacare health insurance subsidies. Premiums will skyrocket if the GOP majority has its way, Barkin wrote. But a shutdown, as cathartic as it may feel for Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic base is not a long-term strategy. On a practical level, it can backfire as Russell Vaught, Trump's OMB director, prepares for

the mass firing of federal employees. As devastating as Doge was, Vought will be willing to cut the government to the bone. Democrats could enjoy a short-term boost if the government shuts down, but it's the equivalent of a sugar high. It won't last and doesn't solve the underlying messaging problems for the party. It's not, in any sense, a real strategy. Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader and Jeffreys, the House Minority Leader, have been rightly criticized for not offering a detailed vision for the future of the country,

an alternative to Trump that voters can rally around, Barkin said. Locked out of power, they should be speaking directly to the people about what they might do if their party is in charge again. What should Americans actually look forward to? All right, let's head over to Ari for his take. Hey everyone, this is Tangle managing editor Ari Weitzman here giving the take today while Isaac's abroad traveling. So first and foremost, the government shutting down, I don't think, is a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. I see it more as a Congress problem. It seems the only way Congress can come together to do anything is to hold itself hostage each time saying it's actually the

the left or the right foot that's about to step off the cliff. Now, for the first time since 1995, we've tumbled over the edge. So what does that mean for us? First, essential workers like TSA agents and Border Patrol and select military personnel will continue to work without pay until the shutdown is over, at which point they will receive back pay. The roughly 40% of the federal workforce or 750,000 people who are not essential workers, so Q. KU.S. Curators at the Smithsonian, workplace safety officers at OSHA, administrators at HUD, service members with the National Guard, scientists at NASA, so on and so on and so on. They'll have to stay home, and their households will lose their paychecks for an indeterminate amount of time.

Furthermore, potentially millions of government contractors across all departments, from janitors to IT professionals, and again, on and on, they will miss out on their work. The programs that these employees run through their federal mandates will all be halted, Benefit payments will continue to go out, though supplemental and nutrition assistance programs or SNAP distributions will eventually stop getting delivered, but others will be limited. National Parks will partially close. The FDA will halt new drug reviews and routine food inspections. The NIH will not issue new grants. The DOJ will curtail or postpone civil litigations. The Department of Education will not issue new grants looking at civil rights complaints and etc. All in all, analysts estimate that this shutdown would cost roughly 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points of economic growth for each week that it lasts, though those losses can eventually be recouped. American citizens are right to look at the situation and demand accountability. Personally, I get tired of feigning into the charade and arguing about which party is more to blame. Let's be honest, a recalcitrantly dysfunctional system is at the root of the problem.

But at the end of the day, government shutdowns aren't just the result of systemic inertia. Some individuals are always at fault. In this case, I'd point to three people specifically. Let's start with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who ultimately is the one. who has his hand on the button. The House just passed a clean continuing resolution, or CR, and he's opting not to take it. Despite being in the minority, working off the same budget Democrats in the House and Senate approved a year ago and declaring the importance of keeping the government open just this last March when Republicans recently threatened the government

shutdown, Schumer has decided that this is the moment to maximize his leverage, pushing for assurances for NIH funding and hundreds of millions of dollars in enhanced ACA benefits. My issue isn't that Schumer is, quote, taking government funding hostage with a letter of demands, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune said. It's Schumer's job as minority leader to push for his party's agenda. He is leverage right now, and it's fair for him to use it. But my question is, why didn't he offer any resistance earlier? That would help this position now. Before Republicans passed the one big, beautiful bill act, when they were torn over whether to reject Biden's budget or pass the buck to Elon Musk and Doe,

to try to find budget cuts, Schumer decided to play the role of the hero, valiantly fighting to keep the government operational. Under the threat of firings and rescissions and dubious executive branch budget cuts, Schumer offered no resistance in Congress each time Trump flexed executive authority. He had only words when the OPM shuttered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He offered remarks when the State Department guttered USAID, and of course he touted his infamous very strong letter when Trump faced off with Harvard University. Now, when he does choose to take something to the Senate floor, he has nothing new to ask Republicans to meet him halfway on. Instead, Schumer is reaching back to a COVID-era benefit extension that is set to

expire at the end of the year. Why are an ACA benefit extension and unfrozen NIH funding the only thing Schumer is fighting for? Yes, extending these benefits will keep primarily premiums lower for millions of U.S. citizens and likely be popular with Democratic voters, but there's no way Senate Republicans approve this extension, even if it means shutting down the government for weeks. The extension authorizes an increased level of funding that was supposed to be temporary for a program Republicans have historically opposed that also extends to legal immigrants. That's just not something Republicans are going to vote for, and Schumer knows that. That's why he's not banging the drum on the fundamentals of his argument.

in public, he's basically begging Republicans to just come to the table. That reduces the strength of his position and makes the minority leaders seem more motivated by wanting to appear to resist than by a desire to achieve his stated goals. That's Schumer. Second person that I would blame is House Speaker Mike Johnson. Remember, when Republicans elected Johnson Speaker, he oversaw a laddered appropriations process that broke appropriations for the following year into batches. When Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown in the now-routine December funding showdown, he held his caucus together to approve a mostly clean CR that denied most democratic requests. This time, it's a clean CR out of the House, no strings attached, just funding the government at normal until we get to

the next funding deadline. This constant kicking the can is exactly what the House Freedom Congress fought against when it ousted his predecessor, Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Where are those appropriation bills that Johnson committed to when he took the gavel. Does fiscal responsibility just somehow matter less once you're the one in charge? I mean, to be fair to Johnson, he didn't invent punning on appropriations and depending on CR to keep the government operational. That's long been what has happened at Congress, but Johnson did previously identify the issue and he did say he'd work to change it. Now he's perpetuating the problem. The House of Representatives might feel good about itself for just extending current level.

of funding, passing a CR to keep the government open and sending it to the Senate to approve, but the optics are pretty hard to look at. Hundreds of thousands of people, government employees, will be working without pay until they get back pay after the government reopens. Who knows what that will be? Millions of other people are going to be furloughed at home without any job without any pay at all. Meanwhile, 535 U.S. representatives will be fully paid, and they're on recess until October 7th. Last but not least, President Donald Trump. I don't have a whole tirade about the president's role here.

My point is actually pretty simple, and I think it's unavoidable. Why should Democrats trust the executive branch to spend the budget Congress approves? Seriously, even after Elon Musk has left his position as contract counselor-in-chief, OMB director Russell Vote, is promising to lay off employees who work on programs the president doesn't like. And, of course, the shadow of future rescissions packages still looms over Congress. Of course, Democrats are going to ask for assurances. If the last year's budget is always up for renegotiation, then every continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels,

it's always going to raise the question of what current levels even means. Trump simply hasn't given Democrats any reason to believe that their negotiations are in good faith. Democrats are reasonable to take every opportunity to try to get Republicans to commit to something, even if they were late to realize that, and even if they're choosing a questionable hill to die on. Republicans are reasonable to flex their majority and stand the line, even if their party leader in the White House is apt to change his mind about what that line is in the future. It's hemming and hawing and horse training.

It's an ugly process that will probably end with another CR and unfrozen NAH funding. But hey, that's politics. And it's relatively normal. What isn't normal, though, is both parties failing to come to the table until after actual damage is done, That's totally unreasonable, and it's negligent to the rest of the country they purportedly represent. Until something fundamental in our politics changes, governance by breakmanship is, unfortunately, now the status quo. Hopefully, this is just a matter of days, not weeks, before our leaders come together on an obvious solution to the problems they're creating for the rest of us. For some reason, we had some members of staff who disagreed with me today, so I'm sending it over to Lyndon,

Lindsay Canuth, our associate editor, to read Today's Staff Dissent, which she co-authored with Isaac Saul, who pitched in from abroad. Here's Lindsay. Thanks, Ari. This is Associate Editor Lindsay Canuth, and I'm reading today's Staff Descent, which I'm co-signing with executive editor, Isaac Saul. We think Ari is putting far too little emphasis on Trump's role in the current shutdown. The president is perfectly capable of negotiating or deal-making his way out of this, but he's shown no interest in doing so. Instead, his response to the looming shutdown was posting an AI-generated clip of Hakeem Jeffreys wearing a sombrero next to a deep-fake Chuck Schumer promising to give unauthorized immigrants free health care, which the ACA benefit extension wouldn't do.

By focusing almost exclusively on flexing executive power, Trump has left Congress to its own devices and the shutdown as a predictable result of a government run by a president with that approach to politics. We'll be right back after this quick break. Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools, and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and silencing local voices. It shouldn't be this way.

Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms, because smaller classes would make a big difference. for our kids. Go to Building Better Schools.ca. A message from the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. The Hulu original series, Murdoch, Death in the Family, dives into secrets, deception, murder, and the fall of a powerful dynasty.

Inspired by shocking actual events and drawing from the hit podcast, this series brings the drama to the screen like never before, starring Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette and Jason Clark. Watch the Hulu original series, Murdoch, Death in the Family, streaming October 15th on Disney Plus. Okay, that's it for my take, which brings us to today's reader question, which comes from Bob from West Covina, California, who asks, Trump is prohibited from running for a third presidential term.

However, would it be possible for Vance to run for president in the next election and have Trump as his VP running mate. If so, and if the Vance Trump ticket won resulting in Vance becoming president and Trump becoming VP, would Trump be allowed to become president again if something incapacitated Vance? The 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951 after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's record for elections to the presidency, begins with, quote, no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, end quote. Open and shut, right? Not quite. Some legal experts have argued that the 22nd Amendment only prohibits a president from being elected for a third term, and that a two-term president could bypass the amendment by taking office through

succession. That would be most easily done from the vice presidency to the presidency. The first president to be constitutionally prevented from seeking a third term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower even joked, you know, the only thing I know about the presidency the next time is this. I can't run. but someone has raised the question that were I invited, could I constitutionally run for vice president? You might find out about that one. I don't know. Other scholars argue that the 12th Amendment prohibits this. It states, quote, no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States, end quote. However,

this clause arguably only applies to the Article 2 requirements of being 35 years or older a natural-born citizen of the United States and a resident for at least the last 14 years. Still, others raised the possibility that even if a term-limited president cannot run for vice-president, that candidate could still become Speaker of the House or Secretary of State or some other position down the presidential line of succession and eventually succeed to the presidency from there. It's impossible to tell just how the courts would rule if any president sought an unelected third-term but until someone tries, we just won't know what's behind that door. Okay, that's it for me on the podcast today.

I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod. And I'll talk to you guys next time. All right, thanks to Ari for today's take and Lindsay and Isaac for The Descent. And now on to today's Under the Radar story. New research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that through the first half of 2025, left-wing domestic terror attacks, outnumbered far-right attacks for the first time in over 30 years. The researchers analyzed a data set of 750 domestic attacks and plots

from January 1, 1994, to July 4, 2025, which showed that right-wing attacks have historically been more frequent in the U.S., with 152 far-rate attacks since 2016 compared to 41 far-left attacks. However, at least five left-wing plots or attacks have already been recorded in 2025, compared to one right-wing attack. Axios has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. 31 days is the longest that the U.S. government has gone with a funding gap,

and that was from December of 2018 to January of 2019. According to the Congressional Budget Office, $18 billion is the estimated amount of federal discretionary spending for compensation and purchases of goods and services that was delayed as a result. of the 2018-2019 government shutdown. The estimated reduction in real gross domestic product in Q4, 2018, as a result of the 2018-2019 government shutdown was $3 billion. The estimated reduction in real gross domestic product in Q1 of 2019 as a result of the

2018-2019 government shutdown was $8 billion. Approximately 25% of federal spending is subject to annual appropriation by Congress. According to the Department of Labor's 2025 contingency plan, 3,100 out of 12,900, Labor Department employees would continue to work in a shutdown. 406,000 out of 741,500 Defense Department employees would continue to work in a shutdown. According to a September 2025 morning consult poll, 45% of U.S. voters say that they would blame congressional Republicans for a shutdown, while 32% of U.S. voters said that they would blame Democrats.

33% of Republican voters say that their party would be at fault if the government shuts down, while 22% of Democratic voters say their party would be at fault. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Roughly 40,000 people in the U.S. have Huntington's disease. Last week, Gene Therapy Company Unicure announced that an experimental treatment shows promising signs of slowing the disease's progression. The company administered the treatment to 17 patients and tracked their health for three years. It found the therapy slowed the progression of the disease by 75%.

Victor Sung, a neurologist and principal investigator for the trial, noted that we've been burned so many times in the past with failures, but said that the results of the trial are some of the most compelling in all of neurodegenerative disease. The Washington Post has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership,

podcast membership, or a 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 is me. Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Wohl. Today's episode was Edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas.

Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com. Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms

in Ontario schools, and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and science. silencing local voices. It shouldn't be this way. Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms because smaller classes would make a big difference for our kids. Go to Building Better Schools.ca. A message from the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario.

The Hulu original series Murdoch, Death in the Family, dives into secrets, deception, murder, and the fall of a powerful dynasty. Inspired by shocking actual events and drawing from the hit podcast, This series brings the drama to the screen like never before, starring Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette and Jason Clark. Watch the Hulu original series, Murdoch, Death in the Family, streaming October 15th on Disney Plus.