Tangle - What happened at Davos?

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump addresseda gathering of prominent global figures at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. The conference comes amid rising tensions between Europe and the United States over Trump’s efforts to acquire Greenland, and several world leaders gave critical remarks about the U.S. prior to the speech. However, later on Wednesday, Trump said that he discussed a framework of a deal related to Greenland with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Mark Rutte that gives the U.S. “everything we needed.” 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!Want to get texts from Tangle?Since October, over 13,000 Tangle readers have joined us on Subtext, our free SMS messaging service that lets us connect directly with readers. Subtext subscribers can weigh in on our coverage through topic polls, receive analysis on developing stories straight from Isaac, and get occasional peeks behind the scenes at Tangle’s operations. You can sign up for Subtext here!(Note: Subtext is currently only available for subscribers based in the U.S. and Canada.)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: What do you think of the speeches from Trump and Carney at Davos? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed 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, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I am your host, Isaac Saul. It is Thursday, January 22nd. And today we're going to be covering Davos and specifically some addresses to the World Economic Forum, most notably from President Donald Trump and Prime Minister. Mark Carney. We're going to talk about what they said. I've got some thoughts about what all this means. Before you jump in, I want to give you a quick heads up on two things. First of all, yesterday, Ari, Camille, and I recorded a suspension of the rules episode that you're really going to want to listen to. It is our one-year retrospective on Trump. We answered four questions. What surprised you? What happened how you expected? What were the biggest pros and what were the

biggest cons of the first year of Trump's presidency. And, well, the first year of Trump's second presidency. And we each went around and answered the questions and then talked about each other's questions. It's a pretty long episode. It ended up coming out to about an hour and a half. But we covered a ton of ground. And I'm really proud of it.

I think it is a really valuable addition to some of the discourse that's happening. On that note, tomorrow, Friday, we're going to be doing another Trump retrospective that's basically the complete opposite. In the days before President Trump's second inauguration, we published a special Friday edition in the newsletter in the podcast where we outlined a series of metrics and promises that we could track

over the course of the president's term. One year in, we're going to return to that piece and share the latest numbers. This is on stuff like gas prices, housing prices, inflation tariffs, deportations, foreign conflicts, much more. These are things that are really objective. like what is the data say

where was it a year ago where is it now? What did Trump promise? Did he fulfill the promise or not? Or what kind of progress is he making? So it's really different. It's kind of like the other side of the coin of the big subjective stuff that we did

in the suspension of the rules podcast. And I'm also really excited about this piece and I think together you're going to get a really incredible fulsome look at what's going on and what's happened this first year. So keep your eyes out for those. Again, the suspension of the rules episode coming out, and then also the Friday edition and the newsletter and the podcast where we're revisiting

these metrics we laid out for Trump. All right, with that, I'm going to send it over to John to break down today's main story, and I'll be back for my take and your questions answered. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, after oral arguments on Wednesday, the Supreme Court appeared likely to rule that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her position while she challenged.

President Donald Trump's attempt to fire her. The court is expected to rule this summer. Number two, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 34 to 8 and 28 to 15 to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, respectively, in contempt of Congress for their refusal to appear for depositions in the panel's investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The full House will now consider the contempt resolutions. Number three, the Trump administration launched a new immigration enforcement operation, in Maine and began making arrest this week. U.S. officials said the operation will focus on immigrants from Somalia.

Separately, a federal appeals court blocked a district judge's injunction that restricted how immigration and customs enforcement agents can engage with protesters. Number four, President Trump held a signing ceremony for members of the Board of Peace that will oversee the reconstruction of Gaza. The board includes leaders from Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, and Pakistan. Canada and many European countries, including the UK, France, Germany, and Italy did not take part in the ceremony and have not committed to being part of the board. And number five, a major winter storm is expected to impact large parts of the South,

Midwest, and Northeast from Friday through Monday, with heavy snow or ice forecasted for 33 states. On the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere, that's our territory. It is therefore a core national security interest. of the United States of America. And in fact, it's been our policy for hundreds of years to prevent outside threats from entering our hemisphere. And we've done it very successfully.

We've never been stronger than we are now. That's why American presidents have sought to purchase Greenland. It's the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it and make it so that it's good for Europe and safe for Europe been good for us. The problem with NATO is that we'll be there for them 100%, but I'm not sure that they'd be there for us. If we gave them the call, gentlemen, we are being attacked. We're under attacked by such and such a nation. I know them all very well. I'm not sure that they'd be there.

I know we'd be there for them. I don't know that they'd be there for us. We're building a golden dome that's going to, just by its very nature, going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also, but then not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful. But they should be grateful to us. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump addressed a gathering of prominent global figures

at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The conference comes amid rising tensions between Europe, in the United States over Trump's efforts to acquire Greenland, and several world leaders gave critical remarks about the U.S. prior to the speech. However, later on Wednesday, Trump said that he had discussed a framework of a deal related to Greenland with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Routé that gives the U.S. everything we needed. We covered the latest on Greenland on Tuesday, and you can check that out with the link in today's episode description. For context, the WEF promotes cooperation between private corporations, national governments, and international organizations to address global issues.

Its annual meeting in Switzerland, colloquially known as Davos, features conversations between leaders in business, government, civil society, media, and academia on a range of topics. On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a notable speech, alluding to President Trump's efforts to control Greenland and describing a global rupture underway. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate, Carney said. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Trump criticized Carney and Canada in his Wednesday address, remarking, Canada gets a lot of freebies from us. They should be grateful also, but they're not. The president also spent a portion of the speech criticizing European nations over their energy,

trade, immigration, and economic policies, saying they were not heading in the right direction. On Greenland, Trump explicitly said that he would not use military force to acquire the island territory after previously refusing to rule out the option. I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force, Trump said. Later in the day, the president posted on Truth Social that he had formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland after meeting with Secretary General Ruta. As a result of the discussions, he said he will not improve. proposed planned tariffs on eight NATO countries that recently sent a small number of troops to Greenland

to take part in military exercises. Further details about Greenland discussions have not been announced, but Routé's proposal reportedly does not include the transfer of overall sovereignty from Denmark to the United States. Today, we'll cover the latest on Trump's time at Davos with views from the right, left, and abroad. And then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First of let's start with what the right is saying. Many on the right support Trump's criticisms of Europe in the speech. Others say his address only reiterated a well-established worldview. The New York Post editorial board said Trump simply gave Davos elites some tough love.

President Donald Trump in Davos just delivered some home truths to the assembled grandees of Europe, who unsurprisingly resent being reminded of what a basket case they've made of their continent in just a couple of decades. Trump was blunt. Europe, he told the crowd, has squandered its inheritance, the board wrote. The Davos crowd bristled at Trump's characterization of Europe and Canada as freeloaders, but their vaunted and cherished social democratic welfare states have indeed been propped up for decades by America's massive defense expenditures. The Greenland question is driving the euros crazy, yet their response, sending a few dozen

paratroopers to perform military exercises on the icy expanse, only underlines the absurdity of the European claim to the island. fact, absent American intervention, Russia or China would have no problem plucking at will the ripe fruit of Greenland to fulfill their Arctic ambitions, the board said. Trump's criticism of Europe and the globalist outlook of Davos man was scathing, but tough love often is. In the Washington examiner, Daniel DePetris wrote about Trump's very predictable message at Davos.

Outside of his commitment not to use force to acquire Greenland, which many people in the room probably didn't believe anyway, Trump's speech simply reflected his already well-established views, to Petrus said. First, the belief that U.S. allies are spoiled children, who don't pay the U.S. back for all the generosity it has bestowed on them since the end of World War II. Second, the U.S. is respected again on the world stage, unlike those ineffectual, stale, and morally superior dunces who occupied the office in the past. Third, the days when U.S. allies operated with a sense of entitlement are over. Consider that Trump's machinations about possibly capturing Greenland by force wouldn't be resulting in such anxiety in Europe today if the military balance of power

inside NATO were not so unequal in favor of the Americans. Perhaps there's a lesson in that, De Petrus wrote. In the end, I suspect Trump will strike some kind of deal with Denmark short of full annexation. What the deal will look like is anybody's guess, but it is likely to include the kinds of economic and security concessions that will scratch Trump's itch and allow him to claim a public victory. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. Many on the left say the gathering offers world leaders a chance to unite against Trump's aggression. Others say Trump's presence at Davos is part of his bid to reshape the global order. In The Guardian, Robert Reich wrote, world leaders in Davos must stand up to Trump.

This year's Davos meeting occurs at a time when Donald Trump is not just unleashing his brown shirts on Minneapolis and other American cities, but also dismantling the international order that's largely been in place since the end of the Second World War, Reich said. I hope the leaders now assembling at Davos speak out against Trump's tyranness assault on international laws and rules and his contempt for every institution established to maintain peace. Their collective repudiation of Trump would give other CEOs and world leaders cover to express their opposition as well. It could be a tipping point. Davos' excuse for existing is supposed to be world leadership, although its attenders have not exactly distinguished themselves in the past by their fealty to democracy, social justice,

or rules of international law. Some are directly benefiting from Trump's tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks. Many occupy their positions precisely because of their reluctance to rock any big boats or cause any trouble, right, road? Yet if there were ever a time for them to speak out, it is now. This is their opportunity. It is also their duty. In the New York Times, Michael B.G. Froman called Trump

the ultimate Davos man. Much like the rest of the international system, Davos is entering a moment of transition that will determine whether it can adapt and retain its relevance from and wrote. Its current metamorphosis, driven largely by President Trump, is more swift and pronounced than any prior period. Gone is the years-long emphasis on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the implementation of the Paris Accords, and how government should rely on local organizations to carry out their developmental programs. The old Davos is dead, and the new Davos is still coming into view. Mr. Trump is making a bid to shape its future.

Other American presidents skipped Davos, at least in part to distance themselves from the optics of rubbing elbows with the global elite instead of focusing on kitchen table issues back at home. This is Mr. Trump's third visit to Davos, Frevin said. In planting his flag at Davos, Mr. Trump is indicating he is not an isolationist,

but rather is ready to engage with the rest of the world and reshape the international system, one piece after another. All right, that is it for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to what writers abroad are said. Some writers say Trump is changing the world order, but Europe should still stick by the United States. Others suggest Davos' mission is increasingly irrelevant.

In the National Post, Canada, Jesse Klein argued Carney may be right about the new world order, but he failed to articulate a coherent foreign policy. What Carney really wanted to convince his chums in Davos of was not to invest in our country, but to join him in building coalitions so that middle powers like Canada can assert themselves in a multipolar world

and avoid being trampled upon by great powers like the United States and China, Klein wrote. Carney is right that cooperation among middle powers is the best chance we have of ensuring our voices get heard. Yet he isn't advocating for a realist foreign policy, but what he terms value-based realism, which aims to be both principled and pragmatic. Carney may be right that we're transitioning to a new world order

characterized by a great power rivalry between the U.S. and China, and that unlike during the Cold War, Washington may not operate under the assumption that what's best for its allies is best for America, Klein said. But Canada and its allies will still have to ask themselves which side they're on. On one side, we have a country that, for all its faults, and there are many, is still a capitalist country with a democratic system of government. On the other, we have a coalition of totalitarian dictatorships in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea that are actively seeking to undermine the free world. In the Guardian UK, Larry Elliott said that Davos Rural,

represents a world that no longer exists. Donald Trump represents everything that the Davos crowd hates, and it is unlikely that they are any more well-disposed towards him after being forced to listen to more than an hour of the president's rambling speech today. He is a protectionist, not a free trader. He thinks the climate crisis is a hoax and is suspicious of multilateral organizations. He prefers power plays to dialogue, and he doesn't have any time for the woke capitalism that Davos has been keen to promote, Elliot wrote. Davos is an irrelevance, and it seems fitting that Trump should be on hand this week to deliver the coup de grace to the liberal international rules-based order

that the WEF prides itself on upholding. The question is what happens next. Clearly, a well-functioning international order is preferable to the law of the jungle, but crafting one is not going to be easy, Elliot said. It requires faster and more inclusive growth. It requires significantly higher investment in public infrastructure. It requires the rich West to give poorer countries financial help so that they can protect themselves against the climate crisis.

It requires Europe to do more to pay for its own defense. And it requires reform of the international institutions, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, as well as the IMF and the World Bank. All right. Let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the right saying, which brings us to my take. By now, I should be used to the political. whiplash, but I got to say it still leaves me a bit dizzy. On Tuesday, I wrote about Trump's comments

on Greenland. I've talked about them on the show here and on suspension of the rules, and I've said the same thing pretty often. It is an important strategic play, and Trump's threats to take Greenland with force are an embarrassment, and Greenland genuinely has strategic importance for us, so we need to play our hand carefully. I never believe that Trump would actually deploy troops to Greenland, because, one, Trump has better instincts than to pursue such a politically unpopular idea. Two, he uses this kind of negotiation tactic where he tries to move the Overton window all the time. And three, enough serious people around him will make sure we never actually put boots on the ground in Greenland. Trump's speech on Wednesday provided strong evidence that this intuition was correct.

Trump said explicitly that he wouldn't use force to take Greenland. And the way he said it clearly showed he knew it was something he needed to say. That's probably the biggest statement, Trump said, because people thought I would use force. I don't want to use force. I don't have to use force. I won't use force. Of course, people thought he would use force because he said he'd take Greenland the easy way or the hard way. He repeatedly refused to rule out using force. His advisors explicitly threatened to use force, and he complained in Norway's prime minister that he didn't feel inclined to focus explicitly on peaceful methods because he was denied the Nobel Peace Prize. This was always where we were heading, though.

Trump declaring some ambiguous deal on truth social and all of us left waiting to hear the details. So, what changed? Two things. One, I think Trump most likely recognized, again, the economic consequences of his threat to tariff nations that did not support the plan. Trump, in his address, actually alluded to the stock market taking a dip because of Iceland and how this whole venture has already started costing us money. A quick aside here, Trump mixed up Iceland and Greenland four times in his speech in Davos

and his press secretary, Caroline Levitt, she denied it. She said that didn't happen, despite it being broadcasts and millions of people on video, which just kind of astounded me. Anyway, Trump probably also recognizes that using force would be wildly unpopular, both domestically and with the European countries that are still our global allies. These are typically the things that constrain Trump, economic risk and bad polling. Frankly, these are pretty good constraints. I want a president who responds to public sentiment and economic indicators,

but this issue should not require external constraints. The rest of Trump's Davos address was more standard and less notable. The president insisted he wanted Europe to do well, and he lambasted its leaders for mass migration and self-defeating energy policies. He told the world that the United States is the hottest country on Earth, is doing better than it ever has, and has turned around remarkably after Biden's failures. He credited this success to deregulating the energy industry, drastically reducing the federal workforce and closing the border. The newsiest statement he made was his promise to lean into

nuclear energy, but even that commitment from Trump isn't all that new. The speech was also full of typical exaggerations or outright lies. He claimed China makes all of the world's wind turbines, but never uses them proof they're ripping everyone off by selling wind energy. Actually, China is the world leader in wind power, and it accounted for 70% of new global wind power in 2024. He claimed we never get anything out of NATO when the only time NATO's Article 5 clause was ever exercised was after September 11th.

He claimed the U.S. has brought in $18 trillion of new investment, double his own administration's tally, which itself is based on broad pledges. He claimed, again, that he has ended eight wars, which he has not. He claimed the prices of drugs have fallen 5, 6, 7, 800% or even up to 2,000%, all of which are mathematically impossible. Also, drug prices have gone up. On the other hand, Canon's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, gave a rather remarkable and newsworthy address to the forum. Carnie's speech was not subtle. He spoke to the harsh realities of today's international order, that the powerful get to do what they

want so long as the weak and intermediate powers submit, that the international rules-based order was always something the great powers could ignore when convenient, and he called on the world's middle powers to act, to reject the notion that compliance will buy safety and to accept that the rules-based international order is dead. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality, Carney said. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons,

tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, and supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. Karnie laid out a new and significant position, that Canada recognizes itself as a middle power and that as a middle power cannot negotiate with hegements on its own. As such, Canada will form different alliances for different issues, broadening its strategic partnerships to include more nations, implicitly not just the United States, Mexico, and Europe. The goal, he said, is for Canada to rebuild coalitions to join forces with other middle powers

to give itself actual leverage rather than passive subordination to great powers like the United States, China, and Russia. And it's walking the walk. Canada has expanded the great powers it will play nice with, agreeing to a trade deal with China this week. It's also negotiating agreements with other middle powers, Qatar, India, Thailand, and the Philippines, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the South American Merkhauser bloc. This declaration could be one of the most important responses to the great power struggle between the U.S. China and Russia.

Carney, again, was not subtle about the impetus of his remarks. He described tariffs as economic weapons and violations of international law by the great powers as the reason for his new position. Not only that, but he called on other middle powers to act, to join him, to follow Canada's lead to coalesce their power so they can respond together. Trump and his speech took note of Carney's words. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful, Trump said.

They should be grateful to the U.S., Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements, end quote. Indeed, Carney did not seem very grateful, nor did he seem interested in subordinating to the kind of response Trump offered. For all the talk of Greenland and Europe and Venezuela, this, to me, seemed like the most notable and interesting development of Davos. One of our oldest and geographically closest allies has explicitly promised

to collect as much power as possible to be able to stand up to us when they can. Perhaps in two or three years we'll look back on this speech and scoff, but today Canada's prime minister got my attention, and I was left with a strong sense that he meant to. what he said and intends to follow through on it. All right, that is it for my take. Our managing editor Ari Weitzman is a staff dissent, so I'm going to turn it over to him,

and then I'll be back for your questions answered. This is Tango Managing Editor, Ari Weizman, with a staff dissent to Isaac's take today. It's pretty narrow. I ultimately agree with Isaac that I don't think Trump is going to put boots on the ground in Greenland, but I don't take his statements as any indication of that outcome. Trump forcefully said he wouldn't put boots on the ground yesterday while speaking in Switzerland,

but what do we think he'll say when he comes back home? What will his messaging be the first time this supposed Greenland deal that we don't know much about yet? It's a snag. I think the pattern will remain. Trump will renew his threats the moment he thinks he can get more than he currently has. Again, I don't think we're going to see a military invasion of Greenland, but I don't think we've heard the last of Trump's threats. We'll be right back after this quick break.

All right, thank you, Ari. And next up is your questions answered. This one is from Jim in Atlanta, Georgia. Jim said, Can you please help us understand the assertion that there is a housing shortage in this country? There are approximately 148 million residential housing units in this country. Of those, about 133 million, are occupied.

The average square footage of the residential housing units in this country is around 1800. The U.S. population stands at 340 million. The average number of people per housing unit stands at 2.03 people. In no uncertain terms, there is no housing shortage in this country. Supply clearly exceeds demand, and there's no indication of overcrowding. Why would anybody make such an absurd assertion? What are the facts that justify such a claim? Okay, all great points, Jim, and all actually accurate figures, according to data from Fred. You'll get a lot of of consensus by claiming that people who have housing have ample space. U.S. homes have increased in size by 150% since 1970, and at the same time, families have been getting smaller. We can definitely

have a discussion about whether or not that's a good thing, but those facts don't prove that there is no housing shortage. The real question is if enough housing units are available to those who need them. Put differently, since about 15 million homes are vacant, why can't all the people who don't have homes move into one of those. First, most vacant homes aren't move in ready. According to the Census Bureau, about 30% of unoccupied homes are between residents, getting refurbished on the market or pending purchases. Another 30% are used occasionally or seasonally, and the remaining 40% are vacant for other reasons. They're legally condemned, unlivable, pending litigation, etc. Second, most vacancies aren't in high opportunity areas where demand is high. A good measure of housing

availability is vacancy rate. A healthy vacancy rate is around 5 to 10%. Cities like Austin, Texas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Salt Lake City, Utah, all fall below that threshold. Third, in economic terms, a shortage doesn't mean that there is an inadequate supply, full stop. It means the market has an inadequate supply to create equilibrium, leading to higher demand that causes high prices. So, yes, if we were able to coordinate it, we could, theoretically place everyone under a roof tomorrow. However, doing so wouldn't be economically feasible. The owners of those properties would require payment, and the new occupants probably wouldn't be able to find jobs in the areas where the most vacant homes are in order to make that payment.

That creates localized market imbalances, which causes spikes in prices, which creates what economists call a shortage. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Isaac, here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. Beginning January 17th, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reportedly started releasing immigrant families from a Texas detention center. The shelter director said that approximately 160 detainees, half of the minors, have arrived at the shelter, and ICE plans to release up to 100 to 150 a day over the next two to three

weeks. The agency has not explained the releases, but those freed reportedly hail from roughly 12 countries, including Iran, Russia, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Guatemala, and Mexico. The action runs counter to the Trump administration's previously outlined zero-releases strategy for those arrested on alleged immigration offenses. USA Today has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. And last but not least, R have a nice day story. Despite its name, Dinosaur National Monument, located on the Colorado-Utah border, hasn't had

a dinosaur fossil excavation in over 100 years. That changed this month. On January 16th, officials from the National Park Service announced that dinosaur fossils had been uncovered during parking lot construction in September 2025. As workers removed old asphalt from the site, they discovered dinosaur-bearing sandstone, a small portion of the roughly 3,000 pounds of fossils in rock that were subsequently excavated. The fossils are now being cleaned and studied at the Utah Fieldhouse of Natural History State Park Museum. CBS News 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 bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. In tomorrow's Friday edition, we will be revisiting a piece that we wrote in the days before President Trump's second inauguration, outlining a series of metrics and promises we would track over the course of the president's term. Now we'll be looking back at that piece to share the last.

latest numbers on issues like gas prices, housing prices, inflation, tariffs, deportations, foreign conflicts, and much more. We're going to explore how these numbers have changed since Trump took office and offer a few new metrics that will begin to track for the rest of his turn. A reminder that Friday editions are for members only, so to access that piece, you will need to sign him for a membership. Isaac Ari and Camille will be here for the suspension of the rules podcast tomorrow. I'm actually going to be taking a few days off to celebrate my daughter's fourth birthday with her.

We're planning a surprise trip for her to Disneyland. I'm pretty pumped about it and think she's going to have a super good time. She's at that age where she's really into like Mickey Mouse and Frozen, so I think it's going to be a lot of fun for her. Anyways, I hope you all have a lot to look forward to this weekend as well, and I will be back on the mic sometime late next week. In the meantime, for Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely wonderful weekend, y'all.

Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Woll. 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 editor's Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. 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.