Tangle - What is the "Donroe Doctrine"?

Episode Date: January 12, 2026

Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has prioritized the United States’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, often antagonizing nearby countries and seeking to increase control of critical resources. Last week, after the U.S. captured and arrested Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump and his top officials threatened Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico with similar military action and renewed his focus on acquiring Greenland. 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: What do you think of the “Donroe Doctrine?” 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. Morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place to 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 Monday in January 12th. I'm back in Philadelphia, back in the office, after a really fantastic few weeks. I got to say, I spent some time up in Hudson Valley with my wife's family in upstate New York, came home, did a little bit of Pennsylvania,

and then was out in West Texas for a couple weeks, which was phenomenal. I love this country so much. I love the open parts of this country so much. I'm questioning a little bit why I've lived in the city, for half my life, which basically comes up every time I go out to these rural places in America, which I talked about on the suspension of the rules podcast last week. But it is nice to be home.

It's awesome to be back in this beautiful studio that we've got here in Philadelphia that we've been working on. And we're jumping right in with some really big stuff going on. Today we're going to cover the quote unquote Don Row doctrine. Trump is, I mean, he's just way better at naming stuff. than other presidents, whatever you think of them. They're good at the brand stuff. We're going to talk about how it fits into the national security strategy,

and I'm going to share some kind of convoluted takes on this whole thing because I think it is itself a bit convoluted, and I'm having trouble parsing some stuff. Before we jump in, though, I just want to give you a reminder that on Friday, we published our annual edition analyzing our work from their previous year. We do this every year, the first Friday, edition of every January. We go back and we review our takes. We talk about what we got right and wrong, and we grade our commentary, specifically the my take commentary that comes out in the daily newsletter.

This year, we did part one and part two because we graded about 25 takes, so it was more than we could fit into a single podcast or newsletter. And this year, we also had the best grades we've ever gotten, like, by far. I'm really proud. of the coverage that we had in the last year going back and looking at it. And, you know, it wasn't selective bias. We always cover, we always grade the stuff that was sort of the stories that became these stories of the year. And in the past, we've done okay, maybe sometimes mediocre.

But this time, I think we did really, really well. So if you missed that edition, I'd go check it out. With that, I'm going to send it over to John to break down today's main topic. And I'll be back after the left and the right with. my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Hope y'all had a restful and rejuvenating weekend. And we have a lot to get to today, so I'm going to jump right into today's quick hits. First up, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell over his testimony to Congress about the renovation to the Central Bank's Washington,

D.C. headquarters. Powell described the investigation as an attempt by the Trump administration to pressure the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates. President Trump denied any involvement in the case. Number two, human rights organizations reported that the death toll from Iran's nationwide protests rose to at least 544 over the weekend. President Trump is reportedly considering a range of options to respond to the crackdown, including military strikes, cyber attacks, and delivering aid to protesters. Number three, the Labor Department reported that U.S. employers added 50,000 jobs in December, fewer than economists expected.

The unemployment rate decreased slightly to 4.4%. And October and November payrolls were revised lower by 76,000. Number four, the U.S. military carried out airstrikes targeting multiple Islamic state sites in Syria, the second such operation in the past month. And number five, former representative Mary Peltola, the Democrat from Alaska, announced her campaign for the U.S. Senate in the 2026 midterms. Peltola is challenging incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot, by a real lot.

They now call it the Don Roe document. I don't know. It's Monroe Doctrine. We sort of forgot about it. It was very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore. Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, will never be questioned again. Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has prioritized the United States' influence in the Western Hemisphere, often antagonizing neighboring countries and seeking to increase control of critical resources.

Last week, after the U.S. captured and arrested Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Trump and his top officials threatened Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico with similar military action and renewed his focus on acquiring Greenland. The second Trump administration's national security strategy released in November, offers a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that calls for strengthening partnerships between the U.S. and other Western Hemisphere nations while preventing hostile foreign influence.

After the Maduro operation, President Trump referred to this mandate as the Don Roe Doctrine. We covered the new National Security Strategy document, and you can check that out with the link in today's episode description. In the week since Maduro's capture, President Trump has demanded that Venezuela's interim government, led by Maduro's vice president, Delce Rodriguez,

cooperate with the U.S. in extracting and selling oil from its national reserves. We're getting oil prices down and we're going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need, Trump said. Since early December, the U.S. military has pursued and seized five oil tankers near Venezuela, alleging that the ships were attempting to evade U.S. sanctions. Trump said the U.S. will sell the oil from the seized vessels. The Trump administration has sought investment from U.S. oil companies to revitalize Venezuela's oil industry, though oil executives have expressed uncertainty about the plan. Exxon Mobil's CEO Darren Wood said Venezuela is uninvestable without major changes to its commercial frameworks

and the legal system. Concerns echoed by Conoco Phillips CEO, Ryan Lance. Trump administration officials suggested the government could offer financial assistance or incentives to companies that invest. Separately, on Sunday, January 4th, President Trump criticized Colombian President Gustavo Petro and implied the U.S. could take military action against his government over its purported complicity in exporting drugs from the country. Colombia's foreign minister sharply. criticized the comments. The leaders subsequently spoke on the phone and announced plans for a meeting at the White House in February. Finally, President Trump has further discussed acquiring Greenland via sale or military action. Trump previously said he believes Greenland is a vital national security

interest to the U.S., citing its mineral resources and strategic geographic positioning. Greenland's political leaders rebuked the comments and affirmed their desire for an independent identity. Separately, Danish Prime Minister met to Friedrichson said that U.S. military action to control the territory would be the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Today, we'll break down the Trump administration's actions in the Western Hemisphere with views from the right and the left, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right is mixed on Trump's foreign policy, though many see it as a bold reassertion of U.S. influence. Some suggest that Donne Roe doctrine could

destabilize South America in the long run. Others say the strategy carries equal risk and reward. In the American mind, Jay Michael Waller explored the Don Roe doctrine in action. The administration's move to Take Maduro now allows Trump to exert unanticipated leverage over both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. She is unlikely to invade Taiwan under these new conditions, and Trump's dominance over China's oil supply can Denshi's seeming invincibility as party leader and the patron of the global South, which is already bleeding, Waller wrote. Beijing buys as much oil as it can that is not subject to. to American pressure, oil that cannot be sold just anywhere because it is sanctioned, so it's

unloaded at a heavy discount. There are even more wins for Trump and mankind we should consider. First, the Chinese and Russian efforts to destroy the petrodollary through bricks and other means will suffer. If the U.S. steers its policies properly, Venezuela and Iran will revert to selling their oil only in American dollars and not in Chinese yuan, Waller said. Second, these changes will enable China to squeeze Russia. Some might argue that China should not offset its losses of discounted Iranian and Venezuelan oil by importing more from Russia.

But after losing access to discounted crude from Iran and Venezuela and being forced to pay full price in U.S. dollars, China will have more leverage to demand steeper discounts from Russia. In the free press, Kenneth Rogoff asked, can the Don Road doctrine make South America better off? South America is so much more important economically than the Venezuelan oil that Trump wants U.S. companies to take control of. Copper, lithium, and uranium, not to mention tropical medicines and extraordinary biodiversity, are all just tastes of what the continent has to offer, Roegoffroote. Now, after decades of being largely ignored except for the odd U.S.-led international monetary fund debt bailout and perhaps some occasional drug eradication programs, suddenly we are in the new Donro Doctrine era with muscular new threats coming daily.

It is tempting to think that things can only get better, and one can understand if Marco Rubio and the U.S. State Department genuinely believe that when it comes to Venezuela in particular, Rogoff said. One can argue that Trump's Donro Doctrine may actually lead to better outcomes for some countries, especially where populist governments have stifled economic growth for decades. But at the same time, the United States' abrupt turn from soft power to hard power may ultimately lead to the election of more vehemently anti-American governments than the continent started with, handing China greater access to the region's resources. In the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead said,

Trump captivates the globe. This is world politics the way Mr. Trump likes it. Last week, it was his seizure of Venezuela's Nicolas Nicolas Maduro in a raid of extraordinary daring and competency that stunned the world. Then came his threats against Greenland, setting Europe in an uproar with a few casual remarks made, wrote. As European leaders vied to decry the projected American power grab in the Arctic, the French quietly shifted the date of next summer's Group of Seven Summit so as to not

conflict with the ultimate fighting championship event scheduled at the White House to celebrate Mr. Trump's birthday. Imagine for a moment that Mr. Trump's various gambles pay off. Cuba presumably will have to make its peace with America if Venezuela cuts off the oil and Washington Titans to screws on Havana. If six months from now Cuba, Venezuela and Iran have all changed alignment, Mr. Trump will tower above recent predecessors, Meade said. If Mr. Trump fails, his successors will struggle to clean up the mess he leaves behind. If he succeeds, he will have built a new world. In the moment of maximum drama and uncertainty, in which we live now. Nobody knows what the outcome will be. All right, that isn't for what the

right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is alarmed by Trump's foreign policy actions, arguing they are unlawful and unwise. Some suggest the president's push for oil dominance could backfire. Others say the U.S. is destroying the post-World War II global order. In New York magazine Ed Kilgore wrote about why Trump's Donro doctrine is so dangerous. Trump's occasional musings about seizing Greenland, retaking the pay. Panama Canal or even turning Canada into the 51st state looked like classic examples of situations in which it's wise not to take the president too literally or even seriously, Kilgore said. But in light of the Donneur Doctrine, it could all become deadly serious.

The Monroe Doctrine's defensive posture against European colonization of Latin America has now been replaced by an offensive claim that the U.S. must have complete control of its hemispheric neighborhood, regardless of state sovereignty, or the actual wishes of those with whom we share the region. Perhaps Trump's ego, along with the hawkish wing of the GOP, that has never really accepted his America-first policies, won't allow him to completely abandon U.S. security commitments outside of our neighborhood. But now they certainly seem subordinate to Trump's priorities in the America's Kil Gore-Rod. The Donne Road doctrine has no clear basis in U.S. constitutional or statutory law, though it is clear that it thoroughly violates international law.

Trump's critics have long feared he regards himself as a king. Perhaps he instead requires guards himself as an emperor. In the Atlantic, Rohe Karma said, big oil knows that Trump's Venezuela plans are delusional. The Trump administration is right about one thing. Venezuela has a lot of oil. As recently as the 90s, it was one of the world's top producers, pumping out more than three million barrels a day. But in the early 2000s, the populist leader Hugo Chavez forced out most Western oil companies, seized their assets, and turned their operations over to the country's dysfunctional state-owned company. Production has since plunged by more than two-thirds, karma wrote. Rebooting the country's oil industry would involve training an army of workers with no

experience in the industry, rebuilding decrepit processing facilities and miles of crumbling pipelines, and amassing a private security force to protect these investments from cartels and private militias. In fact, now that the U.S. is a major oil producer, unlocking a trove of foreign oil could backfire. The current price of oil approximately matches the cost for most American companies to produce a barrel of oil. If the price were to drop significantly, then suddenly many of those companies' assets would no longer be profitable, Karma said. The Trump administration is correct to distinguish its intervention from the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. As recently as 2003, you could have at least made a coherent argument that securing the invaded

country's oil reserves would serve the U.S.'s economic interests. That isn't remotely true today. In Newsweek, Nicholas Creel argued, the emerging world order looks like the old one. The American-led international order that followed World War II isn't dying. It's dead. And it was America who killed it. What is replacing it is quickly shaping up to look very much like what came before it, a world where the strong do as they wish and the weak accept what they must. The emerging order is set to make the world poorer, more violent,

and one in which America is better cast as a regional power than a global one, Creel wrote. The post-war world was marked by systemic decolonization, yet the official policy of the U.S. is now nakedly one of colonial resource extraction. The administration has already doubled down on this mindset by threatening military action against Colombia and Mexico. After having tried and failed to use economic sanctions to coerce Latin American countries, it seems Trump has embraced not just the concept of the Monroe Doctrine, but also the gunboat-style diplomacy that often accompanied its deployment, Creel said. alienating allies in Europe while embracing a policy of domination over Latin America

means the world which America can influence is getting smaller. As former allies grow in power to counter our hostility, we will increasingly be limited to ever smaller spheres of influence. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the writer's hang which brings us to my take. The Don Road Doctrine started to come into focus in December. when the administration release its national security or NSS document. While the doctrine focuses on the Western Hemisphere,

it is designed to fit into the larger NSS about global relations. After all, our desire to take over Greenland has a deep impact on Denmark and Europe. Our wish to have a greater influence in Latin America is in part driven by the goal of keeping China, Russia, and Iran out, and so on. So what's happening in the Western Hemisphere is not just about what's happening in the Western Hemisphere. Yet the last few weeks have called into question how committed the administration really is to its underlying ideas, both globally through the NSS and more specifically to the purported Donne Roe doctrine. On the one hand, I have to say, I nod along to about 75% of the goals defined in the NSS. It's only 33 pages long, and it's easy to read enough yourself if you want to click the link in today's episode description or newsletter.

The Trump administration rightly identifies the Western Hemisphere as the most critical priority for the the U.S. It rightly deemphasizes the importance of the Middle East for energy and national security in the mid-2020s. It rightly rejects the imposition of our own values on other nations as a mandatory condition to do business. And it rightly calls for a more diplomacy forward, peace-through-strength approach that avoids dragging us into military quagmire's. Perhaps most critically, the administration's concern about China, the power it has a mass, and the importance of protecting Taiwan are all well-founded. The entire strategy unapologetically declares allegiance to our own national interests, and it speaks plainly about the self-interested nature of all sovereign nations without ornamental diplomatic non-sequiters.

I felt strongly enough about these ideas that a few weeks ago, when senior editor Will Kibak penned the take about NSS, I used the staff dissent section to defend Trump's prioritization of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere. I wrote this. I believe the Trump administration's focus on Latin America, is warranted. I'd agree threats from China, Russia, and Iran are more serious threats of kinetic warfare and cyber intrusions. But economic instability, mass migration, and the import of narcotics and gang activity are also national security concerns. The immediacy of those threats from Latin America is apparent and I think more urgent. Plus, the very actors will identify

China and Russia are making inroads in Latin America. This isn't an accident. They recognize the region is an open door to increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere, making it all the more important we focus here. Further, I think in order to make Will's argument, you'd have to show that the preceding policies, those deployed by Biden, Trump One, or Obama actually worked. Have our past policies toward China, the Middle East, and Russia deterred those nations, prevented war, stop trade imbalances, and if not,

is it really fair to frame a reset as a wrong term? So that's what I wrote in December. yet, on the other hand, my issues with the portion I don't agree with are pretty significant. The 25% I'm not nodding my head along to is so contradictory and so incoherent that it doesn't seem like a genuine doctrine at all. And unfortunately, the actions of the last few weeks have contradicted the already contradictory document in some meaningful ways. For starters, the NSS emphasizes that the U.S. must reject the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself and should prioritize commercial diplomacy to strengthen our own economy and industries

using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools. Which of the following actions feels closer to those principles? Kidnapping Venezuela's despotic leader in a blaze of airstrikes and extraditing him to the United States or landing a trade deal with major cooperative bloc of Latin American countries. Because Europe, a transnational collective the NSS decries, is violating national sovereignty, seems to be doing a better job of following through on Trump's stated principles, given that they just struck a major trade deal with a block of Latin American countries. Elsewhere, the NSS says,

we seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories. It adds, specific to the Middle East, that the key to success is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations, as they are, while working the world. together on areas of common interest. Yet, we are imposing ourselves forcefully on our historical allies and other regions, demanding Greenland except the U.S. as their new leader and owner

or face military incursion, a pretty significant democratic and social change. Even more difficult to parse is that the very same document openly criticizes the trajectory of Europe based on its immigration policies and offers a thinly veiled threat to our alliance with the continent unless it moves in a direction that we want. The NRAs. States states that Europe's migration policy, censorship, suppression of political opponents, and cratering birth rates calling the question whether it will be a reliable ally in 20 years. Trump seems to be generally following a guidance of tolerance and mutual opportunity in much of the Middle East, seeking out investment opportunities and enhancing relationships with Arab countries

that have very different governments and cultures from ours. But even there, he's selective. Would Iranians say that the United States is accepting its leaders as they are, while Trump is threatening to bomb the country based on how it treats protesters or on the heels of the U.S. destroying its nuclear arsenal? Regardless of whether you think supporting the Iranian protesters or striking Iran's nuclear facilities is right or wrong, the guidance behind the strategy is clearly inconsistent.

In other words, adversaries won't have our democratic or social norms imposed on them except when they do, but allied nations need to do what we say lest we abandon them. Europe must close its borders to migration. Denmark must hand over Greenland, the United Kingdom must give up its efforts to thwart hate speech online because that pursuit violates our notion of speech norms.

NSS even calls for preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance. So we won't impose our will on the world and we will invite nations into our sphere of influence who want to be there, but we won't allow Ukraine to join NATO, which is obviously who this is in reference to, even when it wants to.

This is all without even touching on the lip service paid to energy dominance while we ignore and abandon the most innovative forms of energy or promises to commit ourselves to merit above all else, except for immigrants who don't get to come here to work and innovate if they can out-compete American workers. In the Western Hemisphere, the NSS also calls for enlisting partners and expanding our influence.

Does the administration suppose we'll have a lot of success enlisting new allies while we are overthrowing the presidents of other nations, threatening to bomb Colombia, promising to take Greenland and openly emphasizing the importance of doing doing all of this for oil and military advantages? These actions don't make a lot of sense to me in light of the NSS, which I'll repeat is a document I broadly supported when I first read it. Again, whether you support the goals outlined in the NSS or not,

they are sometimes contradictory, and the actual actions of the administration don't fit into the Don Road Doctrine we're supposed to think the administration is carrying out. The Trump administration's actions, not its words, provide the best insight into what this doctrine actually is. And as best I can tell, Trump doesn't really have a doctrine. His actions are governed by a combination of the personal relationships he forms with world leaders, his view that he is only restrained by his own mind and morality,

and the competing interests of the cabinet-level people in his orbit, i.e. Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and Stephen Miller. Trump sees himself as the CEO of the United States and other countries has competing businesses whom he can cut or build ties with on a whim without much regard for how a what you have done for me lately attitude, works different when running a nation than a business. This is why, when we covered Trump's capture of Maduro, I said, quote, this should be the final nail in the coffin for any notion of a Trump doctrine on foreign policy, end quote. As a result of all of this, we're forcing regime change in South America,

chasing oil and mineral interests, threatening sovereign nations with military force, playing police in the Middle East, taking credit for peace agreements that haven't actually ended wars, and trying to bend Europe to our will. The framing might differ from past administrations and in many cases sound more compelling, this time dressed up in an America-first isolationist narrative. And maybe the Trump administration truly will reshape the world over the next three years.

But so far, the doctrine of actions sure does ring familiar. All right, that is it for my take. There are two staff dissents today, which I guess means I did a good job, I'm not sure, managing editor Ari Weitzman and associate editor Audrey Moorhead. So I'm going to pass it over to them, and I'll be back for your questions answered. This is Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead with the staff dissent. I share Isaac's assessment that the Trump administration's actions and policy within the Western

hemisphere itself have been inconsistent. However, I disagree with both Ari and Isaac on the motivations underpinning Trump's policy. I think the Trump administration is returning to a spheres of influence view of global politics from which the Donroe doctrine is derived. Trump believes that the U.S. should be most concerned with the Western Hemisphere. Under that view, I don't think the U.S. must act consistently in Europe and the Middle East. I think it's understandable for Trump to have different strategies for different regions. This is managing editor Ari Weissman dissenting to part of Isaac's take.

Like Isaac, I also see inconsistency between Trump's actions of the policy that supposedly describes as motivations. However, I disagree on what those central motivations. are. I think Trump sees international organizations like NATO, the EU, or the UN as primarily constraining, and he wants every country to aim to be entirely self-sufficient, and he wants to exert U.S. control over those that aren't through whatever means necessary. I'd expect more strong arming of allied countries that clearly rely on us in very few direct stances against Russia or China. That's it for my dissent, sending it back to John.

and Isaac for the rest of the pod. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, thank you, Ari and Audrey. Today's question is from Brent in Hearst, Texas. Brent said, I'm probably naive, but why can't Congress pass a law that voting districts must be based on school districts? A big district could be split by high school lines.

A small district could be combined with other small, nearby, or adjacent districts. Seems that would severely limit gerrymandering. Okay, first of all, I love this. It's a clever, low-cost suggestion that does sound like it could solve the problem. After all, communities have an incentive to draw school districts sensibly and conveniently. And if politicians were trying to change school districts to their electoral benefit, that would be met with immediate blowback. However, the suggestion has one significant problem. It's unconstitutional. The Constitution states that all congressional districts should be as close in population to one another as practicable and requires.

requires them to be adjusted to fit that requirement after the census every 10 years. Saying they must be drawn along school district lines when those district sizes very widely would conflict strongly with those limitations. More abstractly, school district lines are already subject to sporadic change. Adding a political incentive to that process would probably end up corrupting voting districts and school districts. Admittedly, a law that says congressional districts have to align with school districts as much as practicable would probably be an improvement over the

current process, but other solutions exist that sound cleaner and more effective. Fixing gerrymandering doesn't require new solutions. It requires the political will to apply them. All right, that is it for my take and your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On Friday, Ukrainian officials said Russia attacked the country with hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles, including its second deployment of a new hypersonic missile called Oreshnik that Russia says are impossible to intercept. The attack reportedly killed four people and wounded 25. One drone struck the embassy of Qatar, which has mediated prisoner exchanges between Russia and

Ukraine. Ukraine Security Service said the use of the Ereschnik was a war crime, and Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelensky called for a clear response from the international community. The attack follows recent progress in talks between Ukraine and its Western allies over security guarantees as part of a potential peace deal with Russia. CBS News has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, folks, I just wanted to give a brief update on the numbers section. We've gotten hundreds of emails now and the overwhelming majority of people seem to be on board with removing the numbers section in its current form.

I see that a lot of you have strong feelings about keeping the numbers section in and have also given some good ideas and suggestions for how we might revamp that section, where we might move it, how we could rephrase it. We're going to take all that into consideration and discuss it further. For now, we are going to continue to put a pause on the numbers section. Some of you actually wrote in saying that you might want to see the survey question in place of that, or just have that read with a link to that in the newsletter. Feel free to write to me, John, J-O-N at reetangle.com with your thoughts and opinions.

And last but not least, our have a nice day story. In the sub-Antarctic zone at the southernmost tip of the mainland of South America, Chile is preparing to create a national park. In November, the nonprofit foundation Rewilding Chile donated roughly 127,000 hectares of the parks proposed 150,000 hectares, to the Chilean government on the condition that it establishes the park in the next two years. Rewilding Chile Wildlife Coordinator Benjamin Caseres described Brunswick Peninsula, the location of the park, as a mosaic of marine, coastal, and land ecosystems

that together maintain balance and create a refuge for species, that are in danger of extinction. Reuters 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.

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 Loll. all. 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 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.