Good Monday morning and welcome to Tangle. I’m Isaac Saul. Yesterday, I was in an Uber to O’Hare Airport in Chicago headed back from a dear friend’s wedding when a massive, sky-blue plane crossed right over the highway — so close it startled me. It took me a full two seconds to process that it was Air Force One and President Trump landing, apparently on his way to watch the final day of the Presidents Cup golf tournament (the American team took first place — go USA!). It was an odd moment to literally cross paths with a man I write so much about, and to do so unexpectedly and for such a random confluence of reasons. 

Apparently, the president needed a little recreation after a jam-packed week with the UN General Assembly and a state visit from China’s President Xi, which combine for the focus of today’s newsletter. Plus, a reader question about courts overruling the Trump administration and an under-the-radar story on the Trump administration clawing back congressional funding. 

It’s a 12-minute read.

Too busy to read? Push play instead!

Listen to the newsletter Monday - Friday. New episodes drop at 4pm ET.

Asking the hard question.

On Friday, Executive Editor Isaac Saul asked, “Is President Trump okay?” It was the same question he posed about President Biden in 2021, and Isaac’s essay similarly explored how the president’s words and behavior have changed in recent years, and whether concerns about his fitness for office are valid. You can read the edition and join hundreds of Tangle commenters discussing the piece here.

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump rejected a seven-day ceasefire proposal from Iran that would have also reopened the Strait of Hormuz. (The rejection)
2. The Supreme Court blocked a new congressional map in Missouri designed to net Republicans an extra House seat, ordering the state to use its 2022 congressional map for this year’s midterms. (The order) Separately, the Court ruled that the Trump administration can use a federal database to verify voter eligibility. The Court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented. (The ruling)
3. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Trump administration had “ample support for its conclusion” that AI developer Anthropic posed a national security risk, finding that the administration’s move to block Anthropic from working with the government was legal. (The decision)
4. British authorities arrested five people near an airbase operated by the U.S. military on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack. (The arrests)
5. President Trump announced the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is rolling back Biden-era vehicle emissions standards. (The announcement)

Today’s topic.

The UN General Assembly and the Trump–Xi summit. Last week, world leaders gathered in New York City for the 81st United Nations (UN) General Assembly, with conflicts in Iran and Ukraine taking center stage. In a speech before world leaders, President Donald Trump said he is weighing whether to seek a deal to end the war with Iran or “annihilate” the country, while also touting a security agreement reached with Greenland and Denmark. Later in the week, President Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping for a state visit, during which the leaders discussed trade disputes and AI development.

At the General Assembly meeting, U.S. and Iranian officials held indirect talks for the first time since a ceasefire between the countries ended in July. Neither side announced any major breakthroughs, and Trump later said he had rejected an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran said the U.S. must unfreeze their assets and lift restrictions on its oil as preconditions for negotiations. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also gave a speech criticizing the U.S. and Israel for initiating the war, saying, “We will never bow our head or bend at the knee.” 

Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign ​Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss a Russia–Ukraine ceasefire involving grain and energy-related targets. Lavrov later suggested that Europe would use any pause in fighting to “pump the Kyiv regime with weapons.”

Chinese President Xi arrived in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, kicking off three days of meetings with the Trump administration. Both sides spoke positively about the meetings, and during the visit, the U.S. and China announced an extension of a trade truce until January 2027 and a deal to lower tariffs on $30 billion of goods. Furthermore, the White House said China agreed to buy more U.S. coal and create a working group to address trade barriers to U.S. agricultural products.

The two leaders also discussed AI development, with Chinese state media reporting that Xi told Trump AI should be kept under human control. The White House offered minimal details on these discussions, but both governments said they agreed to create a channel for handling AI incidents.

Today, we’ll share views from the left and right on last week’s events. Then, Executive Editor Isaac Saul gives his take. 

In Bloomberg, Andreas Kluth said “Trump and Xi's empty summit is straight out of the 1930s.”

“Donald Trump and Xi Jinping walked on red carpets, craned to watch flyovers, gave speeches at a state dinner and gifted pandas (China is sending another pair to the Atlanta zoo). But the two presidents didn’t even attempt breakthroughs on the big issues that will decide matters of war and peace in the years to come,” Kluth wrote. “They talked about trade, and promised to provide some details next week about agreements on US agricultural products, ‘non-sensitive’ Chinese consumer goods and the like. But this is small beer and can’t distract from the reality that their tense economic truce could turn into open conflict again at any moment.”

“Prolonged summitry without substance is itself a warning signal. That was the conclusion the liberal German economist Wilhelm Röpke reached when he wrote, during and after World War II, about the international crises of the 1930s… [Röpke] looked on in horror from his exile as the nations that had been in one world war and would soon be in another kept jaw-jawing at one conference after another, without achieving anything, while staying on their disastrous course,” Kluth said. “That malady has now returned. Once again, world leaders are traveling and jaw-jawing, but with confused notions about what is good for their nations or the world.”

In The Guardian, Kenneth Roth called Trump’s UN speech “delusional and dangerous.”

“Disregarding the UN charter’s emphasis on the peaceful resolution of disputes, [Trump] doubled down on his violent unilateralism while denigrating the global issues that the UN is designed to address,” Roth wrote. “[Trump’s] was probably less a genuine threat than a clumsy effort to influence negotiations where he has little leverage. Trump is in desperate quest of some face-saving gesture that will allow him to feign ‘victory’ and extract himself from his disastrous war of choice.”

“Trump also spotlighted his other acts of aggression. He celebrated the seizure of Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, emphasizing how some political prisoners have now been freed, although hundreds remain,” Roth said. “But while Trump lauded his coerced deal with Venezuela’s remaining autocratic leaders to take a large chunk of the country’s oil, he said nothing about a democratic future. Instead, touting his might-makes-right beliefs, he proclaimed: ‘To the victor belong the spoils.’”

In MS NOW, Jonathan Fritz argued “Trump’s fawning over Xi won’t advance U.S. interests.”

“President Donald Trump rolled out far more than a very long red carpet for the visiting leader of the People’s Republic of China… [he] also provided full official honors, ordered a military jet flyover and gushed about his ‘great friendship’ with the Chinese leader,” Fritz wrote. “These grand gestures to harsh adversaries of the free world took place while Trump was fighting in court to kick three news outlets, including MS NOW, out of the White House press pool because he didn’t like how they covered his administration.” 

“What Xi’s visit has revealed is that the Trump administration seemingly prioritizes pomp and circumstance over substantive success,” Fritz said. “Washington should be negotiating from a position of strength. The United States needs to work closely with our Indo-Pacific partners and allies to push back with firm resolve against Beijing’s economic and security bullying, even while keeping open channels for pragmatic, respectful diplomacy. That’s the only way to be taken seriously by an unsentimental Leninist like Xi, who likely views Trump’s welcome as a signal that the U.S. president is playing a weak hand.”

In The American Conservative, Evan Sankey said “a grand bargain is unlikely” between the U.S. and China.

“The ‘truce era’ of U.S.-China relations is pitched between visions. The first is suggested by a ‘constructive relationship of strategic stability,’ the awkward framing both sides adopted at the Beijing summit in May. In this view, a durable ‘strategic stalemate’ requires a bilateral reset… The second is that the truce is just what it sounds like: a useful lull for each side to get its house in order,” Sankey wrote. “The deliverables most likely to emerge from Xi’s visit will be notionally compatible with both visions. They will sustain the truce and begin to flesh out the ‘constructive relationship of strategic stability,’ but they will also be easily reversible in the event of a sudden downturn in the relationship.”

“The [trade] truce is vague and fragile. This summer it was strained by U.S. import bans on Chinese robots and power equipment and retaliatory Chinese sanctions on American firms. Still, it is low-cost for both sides and now serves as the central ballast of the relationship. Expect it to be renewed when Trump meets Xi,” Sankey said. “Neither Trump nor Xi is allergic to confrontation, but each ultimately sees the other as a powerful peer he must work with to secure his own country’s interests.”

The New York Post editorial board praised “Trump’s warning to the United Nations.”

“[Trump’s] UN addresses from the start have been top-notch statesmanship — and prophetic: The Germans laughed at his 2018 warning not to depend on Russian energy . . . until the tanks rolled into Ukraine in 2022. On Tuesday he again held a clear mirror up to the all-talk, no-walk crowd — and if the UN fails to get the message, its days may be numbered,” the board wrote. “Trump touted America’s rebound since his return to the White House and trumpeted his effective work to ‘reshape the world stage’: his peace deals, his Venezuela move, his Greenland entente and, above all, his defanging of Iran. Indeed, he vowed to ‘annihilate’ the Islamic Republic if it refuses to make an acceptable deal.

‘I have no interest in leaving dangers to grow for another day,’ [Trump] explained. ‘So, while others have talked, I have acted.’ Hear, hear,” the board said. “The president was even more explicit about his disdain for Turtle Bay’s efforts to impose a ‘far-left agenda’ and for its ‘globalists,’ ‘rogue’ International Criminal Court, Human Rights Council and UNESCO. Yes, ‘the United Nations has great, great potential,’ Trump allowed; his criticisms aim to save it.”

In National Review, Michael Lucci suggested “Trump’s China strategy is bigger than tariffs and summits.”

“Trump’s mix of sparring and summits with CCP Chairman Xi Jinping should be understood relative to the strategic backdrop against which Trump returned to office. On the surface, both sides project stability and congeniality, but beneath the surface, the Trump administration is arming allies and racing for resilience to restore the American deterrence necessary to prevent a catastrophic global conflict,” Lucci wrote. “America’s military alliances, supply chains, hemispheric security, and positioning near global chokepoints are being reinvigorated to ensure American strength.”

“At home, unprecedented steps are underway to purge high-risk Chinese power transformers from the U.S. power grid. The Federal Communications Commission has also banned Chinese power inverters, drones, routers, robots, and test labs. Federal agencies are writing new rules to protect federally funded university research from dangerous Chinese institutions,” Lucci said. “Predictably, America’s media are fixated on diplomatic gestures, corporate complaints, and even promoting Chinese narratives. But the fundamental work of arming allies and striving for resilience is happening at an unprecedented pace away from the cameras.”

My take. Isaac Saul Executive Editor

A lot has happened in the last week. There’s enough geopolitical ground to cover that I figured it’d be easiest to offer seven distinct thoughts on the United Nations General Assembly and President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington, D.C.

Reminder: This is where we share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, leave a comment or reply to this email.

1. The UN assembly reminded me just how tense the state of global affairs is. International concern about the threats of AI and the competition between the West and China. The unrelenting Russia–Ukraine war, which President Zelensky warned could get worse if AI decides what happens on the battlefield. Israel’s war on several fronts. The distinct conflicts in Sudan, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Then, there are the situations the U.S. is directly involved in, or could be: The Iran War. What we left in Venezuela and our commitment to now defending it. Add to that the Houthis in Yemen and the percolating rumors of an offensive in Cuba. As Biden’s term was ending, I argued that the feeling of global chaos was going to hurt Democrats in the 2024 election. Heading into midterms, that problem feels even worse for Republicans and Trump.
2. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered a historic speech to the UN — it was the first time the leader of a country at war with the United States delivered remarks to the assembly on U.S. soil. The remarks were… not encouraging for peace. Pezeshkian showed images of the schoolgirls killed by a U.S. strike, called the U.S. and Israeli attacks illegal, blamed the U.S. for global instability, promised Iran would not be bullied by America, and said his country would not give up its civilian nuclear program. Nothing in his tone was conciliatory, and the whole speech exemplified the psyche of Iran’s leaders in this moment: defiant and ready to keep fighting. 
3. Trump’s remarks were similarly not encouraging. The president told the UN he was considering whether to “annihilate” Iran, a threat he has made repeatedly since the war began. Remember: After signing a Memorandum of Understanding in June, the Trump administration embarked on a media tour proclaiming the conflict was over, with Vice President J.D. Vance (now infamously) describing how “cool” it was that negotiations were barreling ahead. Just last week, the Pentagon quietly added to the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war, despite previously denying reports that they had underreported service deaths as a result of the war. It’s now almost October, and Trump is preparing Americans for escalated strikes after the midterms, which are still over a month away. Simply put: This conflict isn’t going anywhere. Which means all the things related to it — soaring energy prices, instability in the Middle East, deaths abroad — aren’t going anywhere either. 
4. In perhaps the most remarkable story from the week, President Trump offered to sell weapons to China’s President Xi during a closed-door meeting. The source of this news was David Perdue, the U.S. ambassador to China, who shared the moment in a Fox News interview — apparently unaware of the fire he was lighting. That the president would even consider selling weapons to our chief geopolitical rival, at a time when we are stalling on a $14 billion arms deal to Taiwan (a friendly nation, which China is constantly on the precipice of invading), is stunning. As we speak, China is arming Iran and Russia and aiding them in live conflicts that we are on the other side of. Essentially, this would be selling weapons to be used against ourselves. The State Department later walked the plan back: “U.S. law prohibits arms sales to China and there is no offer or plan to sell arms to China,” they said. Apparently, Trump was just riffing. 
5. Zooming out, the entire Trump–Xi summit is a disorienting episode. I’m certainly not opposed to a warming of U.S.–China relations — given all the uncertainty and tension in the world, the two global superpowers being on friendly terms would be an unambiguous good. But we’re talking about Donald Trump, who was — at one point — the ultimate China hawk. He ran repeatedly on the need to stand up to China on the global stage. In 2016, he described China as “raping” our country. As recently as 2024 he said China was “killing us” as a country. Yet when Xi visits, Trump is literally rolling out the red carpet, offering to show him his special military ballroom, joking around at the expense of his predecessor, and offhandedly suggesting China could buy U.S. weapons. It’s all a very odd spectacle, given Trump’s history of hardline positions on China.
6. At the intersection of the UN assembly and Trump’s summit with China is the topic of AI. The U.S. and China are in a technological arms race, which American AI leaders have used to justify plowing forward with development despite their own concern that AI could upend (or destroy) life. It’s fascinating to be reminded of how China views this technology: They aren’t worried about an AI takeover wiping out all of humanity or even destroying the economy. In fact, it seeks to integrate AI into nearly every facet of its economy. China has so much control at the state level that it believes it can just switch off the power grid and haul in AI developers if things ever get dicey. Instead, China’s mainly concerned about AI shaping domestic opinion and turning its population against the regime. We are, simply put, chasing the same goals (AI development) with very different fears. 
7. To the degree the UN assembly or state visits like this offer any value, I think they serve as milemarkers to reflect on the state of global geopolitics. Trump started his remarks at the UN by saying “a lot has happened in the last year,” which may have been the understatement of the week. He then gave Xi the distinct honor of a state dinner; in the midst of a trade war and the push and pull of so many foreign conflicts, I’ll be curious to look back on that dinner in a year to see if it changed the trajectory of our relationship with China. I’m inclined to view these events more as theater than anything else, but sometimes a few hours of in-person, private communication between world leaders really can change the shape of history.  

Take the survey: What kind of relationship with China should the U.S. pursue? Let us know.

Disagree? That’s okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we’ll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

How many times in this presidency has a Trump action/directive been overruled by the courts, and how does that compare to other recent presidents?

— Tracy from Cossayuna, NY

Contributing Editor Isaac Wood: According to a New York Times report, as of September 2, the Trump administration has been sued more than 850 times. 

Over 650 cases remain in ongoing litigation. In 523 of those cases, the challenged policies remain active, while courts have halted policies in 162 others. That leaves 196 cases that have received a final ruling; seven were decided in the president’s favor, 74 in the plaintiff’s favor, 113 were dismissed, and two had mixed outcomes. Excluding the cases that were dismissed, that gives Trump about an 8.4% win rate. 

Now onto the comparison with previous administrations. A database of legal actions from states and their attorneys general offers a helpful tool for comparing these lawsuits to judicial restrictions under previous administrations.

In Obama’s two terms, Republican state attorneys general had a 64.2% win rate for 80 multistate lawsuits (lawsuits brought by multiple state attorneys general). In Trump’s first term, Democratic AGs had an 83% win rate in 160 cases. And during Biden’s presidency, Republican AGs had a 74.1% win rate in 114 cases. So far in Trump’s second administration, according to an April statement from Democratic AGs, they had won 55 of the 67 cases that had been decided — an 82% win rate. So Trump has lost in court more often than both Obama and Biden. 

The recent increase in lawsuits against presidential administrations is notable — during George H.W. Bush’s presidency from 1989 to 1993, he received only 20 multistate lawsuits. His son, George W. Bush, was challenged in court 76 times in his two terms, nearly doubling the pace. The 160 lawsuits in Trump’s first term octupled the rate of lawsuits against George H.W., and the 133 against Joe Biden trailed just behind Trump 1.0. Now, Trump is on track to surpass his first-term number: As of April, Democratic AGs have sued his administration 100 times. 

If you feel like the judicial branch has occupied more of the news cycle than in past decades, well, you have data on your side.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Friday, the Trump administration said it is canceling approximately $810 million in congressionally approved spending, primarily targeting programs that provide aid to noncitizens. A president is typically required to give Congress 45 days to review a request to rescind funds, but the administration’s move — known as a “pocket rescission” — comes near the end of the fiscal year, giving lawmakers minimal review time before the funding expires. In addition to roughly $567 million in cuts for Health and Human Services programs supporting noncitizens, the rescission includes funding for education programs for migrant students, initiatives to bring foreign students and faculty to the United States, and a business development program for minority entrepreneurs. Fox News has the story.

Numbers.

• 6. The number of visits Xi Jinping has made to the United States as China’s leader.
• 3. The approximate number of years since Xi visited the U.S. before last week’s summit.
• 19% and 54%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they have a warm and cold view of China, respectively, according to a September 2026 Pew Research poll. 
• 11% and 68%. The percentage of U.S. adults who said they had a warm and cold view of China, respectively, in 2021.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition on embracing the tech backlash.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the roundup of the top Gen Alpha slang terms of 2026.
• Nothing to do with politics: What signs of “walking men” look like in different parts of the world. 
• Our last survey: 3,315 readers responded to our survey on GLP-1 medications, with 45% saying they wouldn't take a GLP-1 for weight loss but are glad they're available for others. “[GLP-1s have] been a hard-earned miracle that has helped me change my inner voice and quiet the constant food noise in my head… I feel free,” one respondent said. “GLP-1s are a tool in the toolbox. You still need to do the work,” said another.

Have a nice day.

When a group of about 30 inmates found out students of a nearby Kansas school district had taken on roughly $6,000 in school lunch debt, they decided to help out. The inmates are part of a prison rehabilitation program called Reaching Out From Within, which has chapters across the state and has goals such as raising money for donations. Several inmates told Corey Roy, superintendent of Norton Community Schools, that their own experience with food insecurity motivated them to help out with the children’s lunch debt. They donated $4,267 to cover most of the balance. “It was just an inspiring interaction,” Roy recalls from a four-hour visit with the group of men. “Even people who have made mistakes in the past can do super great things in helping another person.” NBC Today has the story.