At Tangle, we want to be a source of trustworthy news, thought-provoking analysis, and robust community engagement. As part of that commitment, we interact with the community in several forums — the website comment section, our Subtext texting service, our Reddit page, our staff email, and at live events. We also answer reader and listener questions throughout the week in our newsletter and podcast. Every few months, after we’ve built up a queue of queries from readers and listeners, we dedicate a Friday edition to answering some of your questions and feedback en masse.
Today, we’re opening up the mailbag to tackle a range of topics, from press accountability, to the true cost of the Iran war, to the Hurricane Helene recovery, to a Texas law mandating Biblical teachings, and much more. We’ve pulled our whole editorial team together for this one, and identified which member of the staff was responsible for answering each question, though the whole team participated in editing every reply.
In the spirit of this edition, let us know your thoughts (and other questions) in the comments. Enjoy!
Q: As I recall, it seems like y’all were fairly optimistic about Rubio as Secretary of State. I also seem to remember you’ve been disappointed in how completely he has seemed to “lose his backbone” and succumb to Trump’s whims, even when they fly in the face of diplomacy.
So just in general, how do y’all feel about Rubio’s performance as SoS so far?
— Paul from Tampere, Finland
Executive Editor Isaac Saul: To judge his performance, I think you first have to define the role and decide what metrics you’re using. The secretary of State (SoS) is the government’s chief foreign affairs official — fourth in line to the presidency — and basically acts as the #1 adviser on treaties, international agreements, alliances, foreign aid, and all manner of international crises (like war). To that end, I think assessing the strength of our alliances, the status of our foreign entanglements, and the nature of trade deals and treaties we’ve joined or left is a good way to evaluate Rubio’s tenure.
Through that lens, I could pretty easily frame Rubio’s first 18 months as SoS as a disaster. We’ve somehow stumbled into another war we can’t seem to get out of, and the ceasefire negotiations have been embarrassingly predictable and unsustainable. The war in Gaza has ended in name but not in reality, and our relationship with Israel seems to be deteriorating. The war in Ukraine rages on. At the same time, Rubio advocated for USAID cuts that have credibly contributed to many thousands of deaths, all to save the kind of money that constitutes a rounding error in our federal budget. And while plenty of people wanted us to leave the Paris Climate Accords, I personally think that decision was a mistake. A simple question: Is the world safer and more stable since Rubio took over? It seems… definitively not.
Amid all this, Rubio has also led a reorganization of the State Department, cutting its Washington staff by 15%. Reporting since then depicts a department with low morale, marred by overtime hours and an overwhelming plate of work (with several diplomatic crises abroad). When we had to evacuate Americans from the Middle East ahead of the Iran war, for instance, many stranded Americans were confronted with chaos — or a recording telling them: “Please do not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation at this time. There are currently no United States evacuation points.” Those stories were genuinely harrowing.
Now, it’s not all bad. Rubio has done plenty of subjectively (and objectively) good things. He led talks that produced billions of dollars of new trade deals, secured critical mineral supply chains, and helped facilitate trillions of dollars of investments from Gulf allies into the U.S. (though those are now at risk). With his push, five NATO allies are projected to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP by the end of the year. The military operation to capture Maduro in Venezuela, which he was a proponent of, was executed to near-perfection. He helped bring home over 175 hostages from abroad, including more than 100 Americans. He’s pushing AI policy that could turn into a global AI governance approach, and is widely credited for helping negotiate an end to the India–Pakistan conflict.
I also think — in Rubio’s defense — he’s been dealt a pretty tough hand. There is a literal meme now about him having seemingly every job in the administration, and behind-the-scenes reporting has shown he tried to warn Trump about the consequences of the Iran war. How much are these negative outcomes the product of his own failures vs. the nature of the White House he’s working for — and of navigating a war he didn’t seem keen to take on? It’s hard to say.
So, overall, my assessment leans more negative than positive. But I still believe he is a competent appointee who understands the role he was tapped for, and there’s plenty of time left for him to notch some more achievements.
Q: How has the recovery been from Hurricane Helene? Almost two years later, I’m wondering whether the region that was impacted is still feeling the effects.
— Robert from Montana
Contributing Editor Isaac Wood: Thank you for this question! I started as a Tangle editor a few months ago, and I live in Johnson City, Tennessee. Hurricane Helene was the closest I’ve been to a natural disaster. I wasn’t directly harmed, but I have connections with several of the communities that were most heavily impacted. Over the last two years, I’ve felt a tension: I’m frustrated by how quickly the rest of the nation moved on, and yet I completely understand that the whole country can’t be locked into a regional tragedy forever. At the end of the day, a region’s got to climb (or in this case, muck out) its own mountains. Still, it means a lot when someone from across the country asks about how things are going.
The first few months were devastating and miraculous. I’m sure you’ve seen stories of people helping each other out in surprising ways, but it really was unbelievable to watch people come together to donate, organize, and distribute supplies. Mucking out flooded basements is hard work that neighbors did diligently for each other, and countless families in the region are grateful for the volunteers, construction workers, plumbers, and electricians who donated their time and expertise to rebuild homes.
But, nearly two years later, the work is far from over. Disaster response falls into three categories: response (or “rescue”), relief, and recovery. Response includes search operations and other emergency services to get people to safety; relief is distributing supplies and getting people back to a livable situation; and recovery is the rebuilding process. I interviewed a nonprofit leader for a story I reported about the relief efforts, and he told me about the 1–10–100 rule, a general rule of thumb that estimates that for every one day of response, relief takes 10 days and recovery takes 100 days. It’s not an exact science, but the response stage for Hurricane Helene, in the worst parts of East Tennessee and Western North Carolina, took about two weeks. 14 days for response, 140 days for relief, and 1,400 days for recovery.
That’s almost four years.
And in this case, that rule bears out. On a day-to-day basis, most people are not heavily affected by lasting damage, but that’s not true for everyone. As of March this year, Blue Ridge Public Radio reported that over 100 people in the Asheville area are still enduring homelessness caused by the storm. In April, Tennessee announced a $34 million program for farmers and forest land owners to rehabilitate damaged land, and North Carolina is putting $18 million in grants toward cleaning up debris left over from the cleanup process. The scenic Blue Ridge Parkway is still not completely open.
Just last week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced $197 million in public assistance grants for Hurricane Helene and other disasters. North Carolina’s proposed budget, awaiting the governor’s approval, includes $700 million toward disaster recovery programs. All that money will be going toward more recovery efforts; there’s still a lot of work to do.
Q: I’d appreciate a piece on this frightening new law in Texas forcing Texas school children to read the Bible (which one?) as part of the 2030 elementary school curriculum!
— Rachel from Nyack, NY
Senior Editor Will Kaback: In June, the Texas State Board of Education — an elected executive agency currently controlled 10–5 by Republicans — approved a new mandatory reading list for public school students, which will take effect in the 2030–31 school year. The Bible-oriented additions are fairly substantive: In elementary school, students will read passages about Jesus in the New Testament; in middle school, they will read several of Jesus’s sermons; and in high school, they will read portions of the Book of Job, among other Bible passages. Parents will be able to opt their children out of any instruction on the Bible, but the students may still be tested on the material.
Beyond the new reading list, Texas has made several moves to incorporate Biblical teachings into public schools, including adopting (optional) curriculum for elementary school students that incorporates Biblical instruction and mandating that public schools display the 10 Commandments in classrooms (something Louisiana has also done).
I wouldn’t go so far as to call these moves “frightening.” Texas is, of course, a deeply religious state, and 67% of Texans identify as Christian. Am I surprised that a state with that makeup would choose representatives who support measures like this? Not at all. Do I think kids will be indoctrinated against their will as a result of this reading list? Probably not, at least not more than any required school reading can indoctrinate.
That said, I understand the opposition, and I feel it myself. “Church and state shall be completely separate” isn’t written explicitly in the First Amendment, but a government mandating that one specific religion be taught to public school students certainly gives the appearance of establishing a favored religion — a clear constitutional affront.
In the context of the other moves that Texas has made to incorporate religious materials primarily tied to Christianity into public school education, it’s hard for me to avoid the conclusion that the state is attempting a form of proselytization. Still, it’s probably good for students to have some biblical education in order to better understand the United States, its founders, and the history of the West. If Texas had instead required religious texts explicitly chosen to educate about America’s origins and ideals, it would have been more defensible — and valuable. As someone who didn’t grow up religious, I think I would have benefited from learning more about the key figures, teachings and materials from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and others. Defenders of the new curriculum argue it shouldn’t be controversial to teach kids about the Bible — I agree, but it should be controversial to teach kids only about the Bible.
Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead: I have a different view from Will’s.
