Tangle - Trump softens on China and Jerome Powell.

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

While answering questions in the Oval Office on Tuesday, President Donald Trump made a series of remarks that appeared to soften his previous criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and stated that he intended to reduce U.S. tariffs on China. The comments sparked a stock market rally, though Trump did not indicate whether a trade deal with China was imminent. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you think Trump should impose tariffs on China? 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.  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 we get views from across the political spectrum,

some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. It is Thursday, April 24th, and today we are talking about President Donald Trump and his comments regarding the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, and China and tariffs on China. Before we get into all that though, I have a plug and a correction, unfortunately.

This is frustrating. In yesterday's reader question, we said that Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III was a district judge in Texas. In fact, Wilkinson is a federal appellate judge, not a district judge, and he sits on the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. I'm very frustrated because we had a few corrections recently, uncharacteristic ones. Wilkinson was misidentified by a few news outlets and as a district judge, and there are so many ongoing challenges. Like, I'm just going to be honest, we're tracking so many

court cases and challenges to the stuff that the president is doing that it gets really confusing. So there was a ruling in the Southern District of Texas affirming a challenge under the habeas corpus and whatever. We got that mixed up somehow. And I think in my brain, it just made total sense that Wilkinson was a judge from Texas in reading and editing the newsletter and the podcast yesterday. So we missed it.

This is our 135th correction in Tangles 298 week history. It is our first since April 22nd. You might notice that was Tuesday, which sucks. We track these corrections. We placed them at the top of the podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with our listeners. My sincere hope is this will be our last correction for month or months, which is typical, much more typical cadence for us than two or three in a week. Okay, so correction out of the way, which brings me to the plug. I want to let you know that we have a new fresh YouTube video up on our channel. The video is about comments Elon Musk made on March 30th at a town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin. About an hour into the town hall, Musk and one of his colleagues shared a chart that

claims over five million non-citizens not only had social security numbers, but were receiving government benefits and legally voting in our elections as a result. Kind of a big claim, which begs the question, are the claims true? Our executive producer, John Law, and one of our video editors, Aiden Gorman, they dug a little bit deeper into the claims in a YouTube video, which is now up on our channel. It was a really great video. I actually did not have a part in putting it together, but I watched it this morning and there's a lot of noise

and they bring some clarity to it. I think it's worth watching. So if you wanna go check out a YouTube channel and watch the video, you can go do that now. It's live and it's worth your time. All right, speaking of John, I'm gonna send it over to him for today's quick hits and our main topic. And I'll be back for my take.

["Quick Hits"] Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President Donald Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after the latter rejected a U.S. proposed framework for a peace deal with Russia. Trump said Zelensky's decision was very harmful to the peace negotiations with Russia, while Zelensky and Ukraine would not accept the deal's recognition of Russian control of

Crimea. 2. Senator Dick Durbin, the Democrat from Illinois, announced he would not seek re-election in 2026. 3. President Trump signed an executive order removing diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements from the college accrediting system, intending to put a greater focus on intellectual diversity among faculty and students.

The order also makes it easier for schools to switch accreditors and for new accreditors to gain federal approval. Number four, India closed its main border crossing with Pakistan and ordered some Pakistani visa holders to leave the country a day after suspected militants killed 26 tourists in Kashmir. And number five, Elon Musk will reportedly scale back his leadership role with Doge and his time at the White House in the coming weeks. I have no intention of firing him.

I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates. This is a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he doesn't, is it the end? No, it's not. But it would be good timing. It would be, it could have taken place earlier. But no, I have no intention to fire him. While answering questions in the Oval Office on Tuesday, President Donald Trump made a

series of remarks that appeared to soften his previous criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and stated he intended to reduce U.S. tariffs on China. The comments sparked a stock market rally, though Trump did not indicate whether a trade deal with China was imminent. President Trump has repeatedly pushed Powell to lower interest rates, arguing that the United States' inflation concerns have subsided. Conversely, Powell recently said the U.S. could face a challenging scenario of rising inflation and slowing economic growth due to Trump's tariffs.

The Trump administration has levied 145 percent tariffs on Chinese imports to date, which has prompted retaliatory measures from the Chinese government, including 125 percent tariffs on U.S. goods. You can check out our previous coverage on Trump's tariffs with the link in today's episode description. In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump called Powell a major loser for his resistance to a rate cut, writing, Powell has always been too late, except when it came to the election period when he lowered in order to help sleepy Joe Biden, later Kamala, get elected.

This post followed National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett's comments that the White House was exploring legal avenues to fire Powell, whom President Trump nominated during his first term. The federal chair is appointed by the president, but is an independent position that does not report to the chief executive. Legal precedent holds that the federal reserve members, including the chair, can only be removed by the president for cause, often interpreted as malfeasance or impropriety. Trump said on Tuesday that he has no intention of firing Powell, though he added, I would

like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates. On Tuesday morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bissett reportedly told investors in a closed-door meeting that he expects a de-escalation with China in the very near future, adding that neither side thinks the current status quo is sustainable. Later that day, President Trump said he expects to reach a fair deal with China and that he was not seeking to play hardball in negotiations. Trump further suggested the tariffs on China would come down substantially, reportedly between roughly 50 and 65 percent.

Major stock indices rose sharply on the news, but the rally eased on Wednesday after Bessent suggested a trade resolution could be years off. Separately, 12 Democratic state attorneys sued the Trump administration, arguing the president does not have the constitutional authority to impose arbitrary tariffs. Today, we'll cover the response to Trump's comments on Powell and China with views 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. Alright, first up let's start with some agreement. Commentators on the left and the right both support Trump's statements saying he would not fire Powell. Both sides also commend the decision to lower tariff rates on China.

Alright, now for what the rightists say. Many on the right argue Trump should resist any impulse to fire Jerome Powell, suggesting it would work against his overarching goals. Some express optimism that Trump is headed toward a trade deal with China. Others say the White House must learn from investor reactions to its economic moves. National Review's editors wrote about Trump's war on the Fed. If Donald Trump is upset about higher interest rates, he should stop doing just about everything he can to undermine the U.S. economy in the eyes of the world.

As the U.S. becomes a riskier place to do business because of tariffs and fiscal uncertainty and the independence of the central bank comes under threat from the president, people will demand higher yields to make buying U.S. sovereign debt worth their while, the editor said. Maybe you think Trump's trade policy has merit or the Federal Reserve needs to be brought more firmly under the president's control. That's a separate question from how real investors with real money in the real world has merit or the Federal Reserve needs to be brought more firmly under the President's control. That's a separate question from how real investors with real money in the real world are really reacting to Trump's decisions.

The Fed still makes plenty of mistakes. It stayed in emergency mode for too long during COVID, overshooting the increase in the money supply and contributing to the inflation that occurred. It did so, however, by keeping interest rates too low, the exact thing that Trump is now encouraging, the editors wrote. Voters want economic stability, and firing Powell would only create more instability. The market consequences are dire and not just for Wall Street. Manufacturing firms in the middle of the country are warning about higher prices, and some

are announcing layoffs. Millions of Americans at or near retirement age are seeing their savings disappear. In hot air, Ed Morrissey suggested Trump's tariffs rollback could kick-start trade talks with China. Is this a blink, or is it a nudge? Since Liberation Day, the White House has spent considerable effort recalibrating its tariff rates and applications as the market responded, largely and significantly negatively. Donald Trump has hit China particularly hard, and after the first few days of the tariff rollout, appeared to make China his primary target for tariffs.

Talks with other trading partners immediately opened up and reportedly focused on using tariffs as part of a strategy to isolate Beijing, Morrissey said. Now it seems that Trump will back down on the rates first. Earlier today, China signaled that it would engage with Trump on trade, but not under continued threats from the White House. If that's the case, then this leak might be a strategic signal to Xi Jinping that we can make a gesture to allow him to save face before entering into talks. That's all well and good, but then that complicates the idea that this has been a grand strategy

to isolate China more," he wrote. This looks more like an effort to shore up the markets and support from key constituencies. There's still plenty of opportunity for successes, but the White House has to decide what it's actually trying to do with its tariff policies and stick to the plan in His newsletter Eric Erickson called Trump's comments on Powell a very good thing Treasury Secretary Scott Bissette let it be known that the White House knows the situation with China is Unsustainable and the White House expects a trade deal there that calmed the markets the president rejecting his advisors thinking on firing Powell should help more to too, Erickson

said. I understand the desire of the administration to move quickly so any recession might be recovered before the midterms, but also a number of people in the president's orbit think the GOP House majority is toast next year anyway, so a realignment that takes longer is fine. That thinking, unfortunately, could have spillover effect downballot into state races. The go-hard-and-fast approach is impeded by investors and bond purchasers who cannot be prodded into a quick realignment of the global economy.

It's not that the president's economic team is hurting cats, but hurting two-legged cats. They won't go where you want, and they won't go fast, Erikson wrote. The go hard and go fast approach has added too much uncertainty and instability into an economic climate that requires more certainty and more stability than is presently being offered. Scott Bissett suggesting a deal will come with China and the president taking off the table

that he would fire Powell will both help provide stability and calm investors. More of this, please. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left welcomes Trump's softening on Powell, saying firing the Fed chair would be disastrous. Some say Trump is backing off his China tariffs because the US is not equipped to win a trade war.

Others worry that Trump's threat to the Fed has not subsided. The Bloomberg editorial board said, the White House is right to back off the Fed. The White House has recently been ratcheting up the pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, causing further rounds of financial market turbulence. Yesterday, this growing alarm appeared to call forth a clarification.

Commentators were getting this wrong, said the president. There's no plan to terminate Jerome Powell. If this amounts to a ceasefire, it's more than welcome, the board wrote. Challenging the Fed's independence adds greatly to economic uncertainty, which is already acute. In particular, it risks destroying confidence in the dollar, which could push prices and long-term borrowing costs sharply higher, whatever the Fed does. The Fed to the Fed hasn't been confined to shouting from the sidelines.

The administration is intent on securing firmer control of so-called independent agencies. The law makes special provisions for the central bank. Powell has emphasized that its independence is a matter of law and that its officials are not removable except for cause, the board said. If that threat really has been withdrawn, it's good news for the economy and for the administration itself. Destroying confidence in the central bank and achieving steady growth with low inflation becomes vastly harder. If this is indeed a ceasefire, everyone should hope it sticks. In the American Prospect, Robert Kutner wrote, Trump blinks.

It's not clear whether the China policy had already changed when Bessent spoke to the JPMorgan Chase meeting or whether Trump followed Bessent's lead. What is clear is that market anxiety gives Bessent special powers as Trump's whisperer, Kutner said. Meanwhile, the China grand bargain remains in the realm of wishful thinking. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have still not spoken, and the Chinese are now bragging that Trump blinked first, which indeed he did. Trump blinked first because his tariffs were doing far more damage to the U.S. economy than China. Tariffs of 145% are the equivalent of a total boycott.

A wide range of consumer and producer goods reliant on Chinese supply were abruptly shut down, and Chinese retaliatory tariffs were on the verge of devastating American agriculture, Kuttner wrote. In the next few days, we are likely to see some kind of handshake deal in which China agrees to buy more stuff from the U.S., Trump cuts the super tariff on China, and a joint task force is announced to address structural issues. The problem is China's entire mercantilist system, whose revision does not lend itself to a quickie grand bargain.

Even with a less mercurial president, China is far better positioned to play the long game than the U.S. In MSNBC, Ryan Teague Beckwith called Trump's attack on the Fed his riskiest yet. Of course, everyone wants, or thinks they want, lower interest rates. Lower rates make it cheaper for people to buy cars and take out mortgages. They boost investment in the stock market and stimulate the economy overall. Lower interest rates are especially attractive to real estate developers like Trump, who typically borrow money to finance their projects, Beckwith said.

But when done at the wrong time, they can also give the economy an artificial high that leads to a headache later. And since reducing interest rates is the major way that the Federal Reserve fights a recession, lowering them too much in good times can leave it without a valuable tool when that downturn inevitably comes. Powell's term ends in May of 2026, at which point President Trump can appoint another Federal Reserve chair subject to confirmation by the Senate. Powell has said he would not step down if Trump asked him to resign, noting that the

Fed's independence is a matter of law and that members serve very long terms, Bebwith wrote. Trump's desire for total control over every aspect of the government has already damaged American democracy. But if he gains power over the Federal Reserve, it would damage the US economy too. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. ["The Left and the Right Are Saving"]

All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So I have a theory about American journalists, that's me, and American news consumers, that's you, that applies in moments like this. We're all goldfish. I mean, no offense, but you, me, the whole lot of us, our mental hard drives are just at capacity from constantly consuming so much news that I think we genuinely struggle to remember the full picture, even for stories that started just a few weeks ago. But actually remembering recent events,

it can be illuminating. Imagine that. So as I was thinking about how to make my point today to illustrate that regardless of your opinions on tariffs as an economic tool, this rollout has been disorienting and unpredictable, it occurred to me, would making a timeline help? I think it would help. The Peterson Institute for International Economics and the New York Times had put together

a bunch of useful dates. I pulled from both of their timelines of the trade war and what's been happening and I tried to summarize them in a way that is maybe cohesive and a little bit engaging. And I want to give it a shot now on the podcast, if you'll bear with me, to just step back and remember what has happened over the last few months. So on inauguration day, January 20th, President Trump announced that he would levy 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico that would take effect on February 1st.

A few days later, Trump threatened tariffs on Columbia, whose president briefly said he would respond in kind before backing down, which drew cheers from the people confident Trump could force our trading partners into submission across the globe. Trump, perhaps feeling emboldened, cited emergency presidential powers and then signed the 25% executive order on February 1st, adding a 10% tariff on China. All three countries, China, Mexico, and Canada, retaliated with tariffs of their own, and the trade war was on, but then off.

Two days later, Trump put a 30 day pause on his tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Four days after that, on February 7th, Trump for the first time promised reciprocal tariffs on every country, an expression that would soon be fully in the public's lexicon, but did not reveal details of the plan. On February 10th, Trump announced a 25% tariff on all foreign steel and aluminum,

resurrecting a policy from his first term. Over the next couple of weeks, Trump continued to threaten reciprocal tariffs and promised that his tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada would go into effect on March 4th. Then, March 4th came, and the tariffs went into effect. Canada responded with a 25% tariff on an estimated $155 billion of American imports. And the next day the carve outs began. Trump, the day after a phone call

with the heads of major US automakers announced a one month exemption on car imports compliant with the United States, Mexico, Canada trade agreement. On March 6, Trump paused most of the tariffs placed on Canada and Mexico again until Liberation Day on April 2, denied he was reacting to the market sell-off and promised again to impose 25% tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. Then, between March 6 and March 12, Canada and China retaliated.

China imposed tariffs targeting U.S. farm products, and Ontario premier Doug Ford announced tariffs on electricity imported to the province from Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. Trump called Canada's actions an abusive threat and then issued a threat of his own. He would double tariffs on Canada's steel and aluminum. Both sides seemed to puff their chests out, yell a lot, and then blank and back down. The next day, the European Union slapped billions of dollars worth of retaliatory tariffs on US goods, but said they would not enact them until April 1, hoping to give the US a chance to change course. Trump responded on March 13 by threatening a 200% charge on all alcoholic products like wine and champagne

from the European Union. And now I was getting upset. He then threatened tariffs on Venezuelan oil on March 24th and then a blanket 25% tax on all cars and car parts shipped into the US, including from American brands that assemble their vehicles overseas on March 26th. And then we had a week of rumors innuendo and signaling about what Trump was going to do, if he'd really follow through

on his liberation day promise. Finally, liberation day arrived, freedom, economic promise. On April 2nd, Trump put a 10% tariff on all remaining nations, importing goods into the US that had not yet been tariffed. And using the emergency powers he'd leaned on throughout his series of pronunciations, he unveiled additional

reciprocal tariffs that varied by nation. We covered Liberation Day in a previous podcast. It was pure chaos. Some of Trump's biggest boosters started criticizing him for the first time. Elon Musk went to war with Peter Navarro, Trump's trade advisor. Bills were introduced in Congress to try to stop him. The markets tanked, bond yields fell, questions started flying about how the administration even calculated the reciprocal tariffs, and the administration offered mixed

and often mutually exclusive explanations for why it was doing what it was doing. Over the following week, some countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh asked for pauses. China escalated, slapping more retaliatory tariffs on us. On April 9th, liberation day tariffs started to go into effect. The real liberation day was finally here. The European Union and China implemented more tariffs. The market went absolutely haywire again. In a surprising and perhaps frightening turn, bond yields did not drop but instead continued to go up, the opposite of what the

Lighthouse said it wanted and expected to happen. The entire global economy was knocked off its axis by the weight of the U.S. tariffs. And then, Trump backed down. On April 9, in an abrupt abrupt surprising reversal, the president announced a 90-day pause on all the bespoke, reciprocal tariffs, bringing them down to the global baseline of 10% level that would remain in effect. At this point, I have lost count of how many times tariffs had been turned on and off or paused and restarted, but it's a lot. Trump said people were getting yippy. His fans heralded the art of the deal, though no deals had been struck. A week later, The Wall Street Journal would report that

Trump made his decision after his Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary got him alone without pro-tariff trade advisor Peter Navarro in the room. That reporting seems detailed and believable to me, but you can be the judge by go reading it for yourself. Anyway, China was not included in the pause. No, instead, they got hit harder. The White House announced an 84% tariff on China that it then raised to 125%, which it clarified was on top of an existing 20% tariff, culminating in a 145% effective tariff on all Chinese imports. How high can we go?

It's anyone's guess. Then on April 11th, one day after clarifying we have 145% tariffs on China, we created a massive list of tariff exemptions for Chinese imports, including products like smartphones, computers, and semiconductors. The White House denied this was a list of exceptions, despite having literally announced the order in a memorandum titled Clarifications of Exceptions. The European Union, in response to Trump backing down, then suspended all of its countermeasures on US goods until July. The White House on April 13th then said that the exceptions on China are temporary and new tariffs on computer chips are coming. So I figured trade war back on.

Which gets us to about last week, which was quiet, too quiet. The trade war stopped warring. I had a vision of trade advisors from all across the globe in some scene straight out of an old western after a massive gunfight, looking around bullet-ridden saloons with broken glasses and bodies strewn across the floor, nudging various arms and legs with their boots to see who's still alive and quietly listening for a creak in the floorboard or another shot to ring out.

But instead, we just got the now typical market volatility paired with bond yields continuing to rise and threats to the US dollar. On Monday, April 21st, some big time executives from major retailers like Walmart and Target and Home Depot, apparently worried about the tariffs, decided to bend the presidency here.

The executives insisted that prices were about to spike as the tariffs began to have a deep impact on our supply chain. That apparently did the trick. The next day, the treasury secretary said that the China tariffs will ease very soon at a closed-door investor summit. The markets defying expectations then rallied on Tuesday morning, which, you know, might reasonably raise more questions about insider trading.

Finally, Tuesday afternoon, now April 22, Trump and his economic policy team all began signaling trade talks with China are imminent, potentially explaining the previously inexplicable market rally. End scene. For now, until, well, yesterday, when Secretary Besson said a deal with China could be years away, sending the market back into a sell-off. So, what can one make of all of this, when laid out end-to-end? I'm not really sure. I mean, it seems not great.

Disorganized. Spurious. Without a plan. Personally, I do not see the art of the deal, and neither do manufacturers or most ordinary Americans whom this was supposed to help. Trump is now experiencing his worst polling on the economy ever. Peter Navarro, who a few weeks ago insisted the administration could use the 90-day pause to make a trade deal a day, has not announced a single trade deal. Even Art Laffer, one of the

economists who is most staunchly back Trump, seems worried. I've stated this theory before, but I think it bears repeating again. Trump is almost always most compelled by the last argument that he's heard. And if true, that theory would explain a lot about US policy. So maybe that's just it. Trump loves tariffs. His team has mixed feelings on how to use them in our economic policies or the manifestations of all that infighting. My optimism, my desire to wait six months to a year

and see how this all turns out, it's waning. After compiling all of the above, I'm more convinced that we're not in a good place. I'm less hopeful than ever that things will work out fine and dandy. And I don't think things are going to plan if there even is one. All right, that is it for my take.

I'm gonna send it back to John for the rest of the pod. And I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. 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 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

Thanks Isaac, here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. This week, Vice President J.D. Vance visited India, a country whose largest trading partner is the U.S., to discuss a bilateral trade deal. During Vance's trip, the countries announced they had agreed to the terms of a negotiation for a deal, with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative saying the U.S. would seek increased market access, lower tariffs, decreased trade barriers, and a robust set of additional commitments. Vance remarked that a failed relationship between the U.S. and India would darken the 21st century, and outlined plans to increase co-production of defense equipment, boost

energy exports, and help the Indian government explore its own offshore natural gas and critical mineral supplies. The Wall Street Journal has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The year President Donald Trump nominated Jerome Powell as federal chair was 2017. The year Powell's term expires is 2026. He was confirmed by the Senate for a second term in 2022 on President Joe Biden's nomination. The Federal Reserve's current borrowing benchmark rate is 4.25 to 4.5 percent, the highest since 2007.

The increase in the year-over-year consumer price index in March 2024 was 3.5 percent. The increase in the year-over-year consumer price index in March 2025 was 2.4 percent. The percentage of Americans with a favorable and unfavorable view of China respectively in 2025 is 21 percent and 77 percent, according to Pew Research. The tariff rate on all Chinese imports to the U.S. as of January 1, 2018 was 3.1%. And the tariff rate on all Chinese imports to the United States on January 1, 2025 was 20.8%. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story.

Approximately half of all fresh fruits and vegetables go to waste worldwide, a problem appeal sciences is tackling by attempting to make fresh produce last longer. Recently, appeal found that applying an edible compound coating helps reinforce the natural protective peel on produce, increasing its shelf life. So far, the innovation has prevented 166 million pieces of produce from being wasted, saving more than 29,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and almost 7 billion liters of water. Good, Good, Good has this story and there's a link in today's episode description.

All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to reetangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. As a reminder, we also released a new YouTube video today where I break down some of the claims that Elon Musk made about social security and voter fraud. You can head over to our YouTube channel to check that out. We've provided a link in today's episode description.

And if you're willing, please like the video, subscribe to the channel, and leave a comment. Tell us what other videos you'd like to see us produce in the future, if you have any other questions about what we presented, or if you'd just like to leave some nice supportive words, which I would deeply appreciate. Isaac and Ari will be here with the Sunday podcast and they'll be joined by a special guest and I will return on Monday. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely fantastic weekend, y'all.

Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor, Ari Weitzman with senior editor, Will K. Back and associate editors, Hunter Tasperson, Audrey Morehead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Knuth and Kendall White.

Music for the podcast was produced by Dyett75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com. 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.