SPECIAL EDITION: Catching up on everything we've missed.

This is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 16 minutes.

Quick hits.

1. During a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump said the United States would assume control of the Gaza Strip and take responsibility for rebuilding it, adding that all Palestinians living in Gaza should be relocated to surrounding countries. (The comments) Separately, Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering the Treasury secretary to impose "maximum economic pressure" on Iran and implement a plan to eliminate Iran's oil exports. (The memo)
2. Authorities said they have recovered the bodies of all 67 people killed in the mid-air collision between a passenger jet and military helicopter in Washington, D.C., last Wednesday. (The recovery)
3. The Senate voted 54-46 to confirm Pam Bondi as attorney general, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) joining all Republicans in supporting her confirmation. (The vote) Separately, the Senate Intelligence and Finance Committees voted to advance the nominations of Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., respectively, to a floor vote of the entire Senate. (The votes)
4. President Trump signed an executive order ending U.S. engagement with the United Nations Human Rights Council and banning funding for the U.N. relief agency for Gaza. (The order) Separately, almost all employees of the United States Agency for International Development will be placed on leave by the end of the week, according to a notice posted on the agency’s website on Tuesday. (The notice)
5. The Trump administration began its plan to detain unauthorized immigrants at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with the first group of detainees arriving on Tuesday. The Department of Homeland Security did not provide further details about the migrants or their immigration status. (The latest)

Today's topic.

Catching up on under-the-radar stories. The Trump administration has started with a whirlwind, and we’ve been working overtime to keep up with everything. Between the Senate nominations, executive orders, government leaks and sudden emergencies, we haven’t had enough time to get into it all. We even dedicated last Friday’s edition to covering three confirmation hearings just to stay up to date. Every once in a while, we break our standard format to better cover the news, and we decided that today is a good time to do that.

We’re also using this time to balance two specific biases that have seeped into our coverage — and, no, we’re not talking about political bias. First, controversy bias. Tangle is an outlet that focuses on debate, which means we will err toward covering important stories that are divisive over equally important ones that aren’t as polarizing. To use last Friday’s piece as an example, our staff ended up being fairly critical of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel — just as we were for Pete Hegseth and Matt Gaetz. We covered these picks because they were controversial — which by definition meant they were worthy of coverage — but that doesn’t mean they were more important than other cabinet positions. 

The second bias is negativity bias. Our coverage has drawn some fair questions from readers about what, exactly, Trump was doing that we were encouraged by or hopeful about. That feedback has reminded us that the nature of our work — covering controversial issues that invite debate — can also skew coverage of the early days of an administration negatively. In a generous read, reporters want to follow leads that the public should be concerned about; in a cynical read, outlets want to publish stories that create fear and worry so people will pay attention. Since our model is somewhat reactive, that often leads us to subconsciously follow this tendency towards broader media negativity bias in our story selection. 

The result is that, as readers, you were getting a sample of cabinet-level nominees who were controversial and diverted from the “norm.” To continue the example of cabinet-level nominees, we dedicated very little time to covering Marco Rubio’s nomination for Secretary of State or Doug Burgum’s nomination for Secretary of the Interior, even though those are also highly impactful positions, just because they weren’t creating as much alarm or generating political controversy. 

So to guide today’s edition on all the things we’ve missed, we asked our staff members two questions: What piece of news has interested you over the last two weeks that we didn’t cover in depth, and why? Second, what has Trump done so far that you are supportive of, and why? We thought the answers would shine a light on all these stories, illuminate the diversity of thought among our staff, and give us an opportunity to expand our coverage of what has happened beyond the stories that are drawing headlines and debate. We even managed to coax a response out of our founder, Isaac Saul, who’s currently on paternity leave.

As always, we’re covering this not to say that “the good balances out the bad” or to endorse a broader ideological viewpoint. Our goal is to present all the information we can, with nuance and depth, so you can draw informed conclusions about the biggest issues of the day. 

Below, you’ll find some discussion about all these stories from our various staff members, along with links to some additional opinions from the left and right in case you want to read more.

Our take.

Reminder: "Our take" is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion from our editorial team. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

Isaac Saul, Executive Editor: Trump’s disorganization. I have so much more to say about the first few weeks of Trump’s presidency (and will put together a post when I’m back from paternity leave), but this is one notable take I figure I’ll get off my chest now. 

Maybe this doesn’t qualify as “under the radar,” but I think a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees by framing Trump's first few weeks as calculated and well planned.

Trump is undeniably flooding the zone, but I'm not sure yet how different this is than Trump 1.0. His administration is still beset by widespread leaking, disorganization, some missteps, and signs of chaos. He’s also breaking or testing the boundaries of many laws, which is not a sound recipe for long-term or sustainable change. Signs of disorganization — like the OMB funding freeze fiasco, the tariffs that Trump backed off of after spending days getting Republicans to rally around them, or the IRS inadvertently removing words like “inequity” (of holding tax payer money) and “inclusion” (of a taxpayer ID on a form) from important financial directives — are everywhere. Even more targeted approaches, like the dismantling of USAID, seem to go through fits and spurts (first the organization was going to be shut down, then it was just getting a new director, now 10,000 employees are being told to pack their bags without a plan or much of an organization to get them home, and the attempt to shut it down without Congress might be illegal). Another sign that Trump’s strategy won't be effective: Congressional Republicans are struggling to get anything done so far. It’s unclear what important legislation they’re going to prioritize or how they’re going to advance it, and Trump’s rapid-fire approach seems to be overwhelming even his own party. 

A lot is happening, and maybe being on paternity leave and getting to take in the news at a slower pace is informing my perspective. But I still think there is a lot of miscommunication, disorganization, and orders bound to get caught up in legal trouble (once the courts catch up). Ezra Klein said he spoke to a longtime government employee who opposed Trump, and his view was that the scary thing would be if Trump were moving in slow, calculated ways — but actually, he's doing basically what he did the first time around: He's blitzing, making mistakes, and seeing what sticks. I think that view — that Trump is creating an illusion of well laid plans — is actually closer to the reality I’m seeing. It’s still early, but it’ll be interesting to keep watching.

• From the left: in Slate, Ben Matthis-Lilley wrote about how Trump is breaking so many rules that it’s teaching Americans civics.
• From the right: In Fox News, David Marcus said “it's amazing what we're learning from how Trump is balancing chaos and change.”

Ari Weitzman, Managing Editor: Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.

Trump made a great decision by selecting Marco Rubio to run the State Department. Rubio has always been a strong communicator and a willing partner for bipartisan legislation in the Senate, and he brings a kind of steady maturity befitting the position. In fact, one of the biggest knocks against Rubio as a politician — that he’s somewhat politically inert and hasn’t resonated with the GOP on their most animating issues — is a strength in a secretary of state. I also consider the fact that he’s been willing to work with a president who famously employed personal attacks against him in the 2016 Republican primary to be a sign of grace and diplomacy, more characteristics that should serve him well as secretary of state.

His Senate confirmation hearing failed to make news, for all the right reasons. “His performance was flawless,” Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) said. “I believe Senator Rubio has a thorough understanding of the United States’ role on an international scale, has served with honor on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is a good choice to lead the State Department,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said. In a period of immense polarization, Rubio was confirmed in a unanimous 99-0 Senate vote.

Of course, the consensus of politicians doesn’t necessarily mean that Rubio is a slam dunk pick; a better indication is how he performed in his first test in office. Over the weekend, President Trump cast doubt on the future of USAID, leading to conflicting messages from Elon Musk at the Department of Government Efficiency and Marco Rubio at the State Department. Rubio’s comments were appropriately assertive to match the White House’s tone, but also much more reasoned and sober than what we got from Musk. I strongly suggest watching Rubio field questions on USAID at an impromptu press gaggle while touring an airplane repair facility in El Salvador to get a read on why he’s gained the respect and appreciation of so many of his colleagues.

• From the right: In National Review, Christine Balling said Rubio can bring a “renewed, proactive focus.”
• From the left: The Miami Herald editorial board called Rubio a standout pick.

Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships: Women in Trump’s cabinet.

On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in a 54-46 vote. Bondi, who previously served as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, was the first woman to hold that role in the state.

During her confirmation hearing, Bondi avoided taking firm positions on key issues, including whether she would enforce the TikTok ban, whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election, and whether she would investigate special counsel Jack Smith, who led probes into Trump during his time out of office. Trump has publicly called for Smith to be prosecuted.

Despite the significance of her appointment — and following the controversy surrounding Matt Gaetz’s withdrawal — Bondi’s confirmation received little media attention. This to me reflects a broader trend: many of Trump’s female cabinet appointees have flown under the radar. Even for someone who follows the news quite closely, it would be difficult to name which positions Janette Nesheiwat, Gail Slater, Harmeet K. Dhillon, or Brooke Rollins were nominated for. Can you?

While major headlines have focused elsewhere, Trump has actually doubled female representation in his main cabinet relative to his first term, with women now holding about one-third of cabinet positions.

Susie Wiles also made history as the first female White House Chief of Staff, yet her appointment was largely overlooked by mainstream media. Given the flurry of changes over the past two weeks, it’s understandable why — but it's still worth following and paying attention to.

• From the left: From Bloomberg, “Trump’s second term cabinet is more diverse than his first.”
• From the right: The New York Post editorial board wrote “Susie Wiles is a great choice for Trump chief of staff.”

Will Kaback, Editor: Stargate, DeepSeek, and the AI arms race.

Trump’s January 23 executive order on artificial intelligence (AI) is mostly a statement of intent — that the U.S. should work to solidify its position as a global AI leader and develop AI systems that are “free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas.” But this declaration, combined with the recently announced “Stargate” project, offers a glimpse of where we could be headed on what I believe will be one of the defining stories of the coming years. 

For background, Stargate is a joint venture (announced by Trump) between ChatGPT developer OpenAI, investment firm SoftBank, and software company Oracle that intends to invest billions of dollars to build out AI infrastructure in the U.S. The companies said they would collectively commit $500 billion to the project in the next four years, though Elon Musk has notably cast doubt on that figure. Regardless of the exact investment number, Stargate is fundamentally an AI hardware effort — it will primarily involve the construction of new data centers and physical campuses to train advanced AI models, which typically require a significant amount of energy, storage, and computing power.

Until recently, conventional wisdom among AI leaders held that developing the most advanced AI models — think ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude — requires expensive hardware and lots of it (specifically, advanced computer chips like those made by Nvidia). That assumption is the impetus for Stargate and recent decisions by U.S. technology leaders to boost their capital expenditures on AI hardware in the coming years. It’s also why the Biden administration moved to impose export controls on computer chips: If countries like China aren’t able to purchase enough of these chips to develop advanced models, they’ll be at a perpetual disadvantage. 

All of these assumptions were subverted last week by DeepSeek, a China-based AI startup. Without getting into the weeds of the announcement, DeepSeek claimed to have created an AI model that rivals anything produced by American companies at a fraction of the cost ( $6 million) and computing power. Their specific claims are dubious and seem to be getting weaker by the day, but what isn’t in doubt is that DeepSeek’s product is impressive, particularly with math and coding problems. 

That could be a big problem for the U.S. and initiatives like Stargate. For one, if DeepSeek were able to build this model with relatively few AI chips, it suggests that export controls won’t hinder China’s AI progress. Second, the company open-sourced its model, so anyone can access its code and learn how it developed its system. That means smaller startups with minimal funding could begin developing AI products that rival billion-dollar models — free market principles at their finest, but worrisome given the potential military applications for China. 

Third, if DeepSeek’s claims are verified, it’s very bad news for anyone who just committed $500 billion on a faulty assumption about AI. It’s plausible that DeepSeek has used creativity and ingenuity to solve a problem that U.S. companies have been throwing gobs of money at to solve with brute force. That’s a concern that could explain why Nvidia lost a jaw-dropping $592 billion in market cap after DeepSeek’s announcement.  

Of course, we should be very skeptical that DeepSeek is telling the whole truth about how it built its system, and this single announcement doesn’t render efforts like Stargate immediately irrelevant. In fact, even if DeepSeek is legit, AI hardware is still going to be important going forward — more chips and infrastructure inherently enable companies to run more tests simultaneously and support a range of enterprise and consumer functions. 

For the White House and its partners in the private sector, these developments are a wake-up call, and I’ll be watching to see how President Trump steers the government’s strategy. I expect more export controls are on the menu, but the real test will be whether he can keep his eye on the ball and not get bogged down in concerns about “woke” AI. 

• From the right: In USA Today, Dace Potas said “Trump is right to invest in AI development. But is it too late to beat China?”
• From the left: In The Atlantic, Matteo Wong wrote “Trump bets it all on OpenAI.

Jon Lall, Executive Producer: The U.S. sovereign wealth fund.

On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order tasking U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick to “deliver a plan within 90 days for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund.”

For context, a sovereign wealth fund is like an investment account for a country. The fund is managed by the government, with the aims of generating wealth and providing for the common good, and can be used for healthcare, infrastructure, and the betterment of future generations. Trump has floated the idea of using the funds to purchase TikTok.

This may sound like a fresh idea to some in the U.S., but it's hardly novel. There are over 100 countries with sovereign wealth funds, including China, Saudi Arabia, and Norway (which manages the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world), where national governments command funds worth trillions of dollars. Even within the U.S., over 20 states have sovereign wealth funds (Alaska’s is the largest, holding over $80 billion in assets). It's also not a partisan idea; senior officials in the Biden Administration were also working on similar plans for a fund. So if other small and major nations have successful funds and both sides of the aisle think it's at least worth exploring, why haven’t we done it yet?

The biggest issue comes down to the biggest difference. While other countries with these funds have budget surpluses, we run huge budget deficits, not to mention a $35 trillion debt. As Dominic Pino wrote in National Review, “The U.S. is running enormous budget deficits, forecast to get even bigger as things currently stand, and it would have to borrow even more money to start a sovereign wealth fund.” So how would we get the money for such a fund? According to Bloomberg, “Trump advisers have previously discussed plans to use the US International Development Finance Corp. to partner with major institutional players to leverage US economic powers.” 

Perhaps a clue to his funding strategy lies in a famous Trump saying: “Drill, baby, drill.” Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and especially Norway with its $1.7 trillion behemoth have built their funds with revenue from oil, natural gas, and mineral sales. Trump wants to expand oil and gas production but may not have the support he’s looking for from industry leaders.

Unsurprisingly, Elon Musk has also been involved in these conversations — which brings up another critical concern, as Heather Long puts it in The Washington Post: “A sovereign wealth fund would be a way for a president to have access to money without having to deal with Congress. But as such, it could quickly become a dangerous slush fund.” With many government oversight departments on the chopping block and a “special government employee” in Musk with a murky job description and increasingly alarming access, there are enough red flags to give pause and consider the possibilities and the dangers.  

Still, if President Trump can manage to create and fund this sovereign wealth fund, it could lead to investments in technology, infrastructure, medical research, or simply function as a piggy bank that eventually gives back to taxpayers. And since both the Biden and Trump administrations have considered this plan, it's more than fair to give credit to President Trump for expeditiously pursuing it. But having the world’s largest economy, and yet, the world’s largest debt, I’m skeptical that our government — and this administration in particular — can take on this task responsibly. 

• From the left: In The Washington Post, Heather Long wrote “The idea is intriguing, but it doesn’t make much practical sense.”
• From the right: In National Review, Dominic Pino said “It’s a bad idea that shouldn’t go anywhere.”

Audrey Moorehead, Associate Editor: Restructuring the Department of Education

Anecdotally, this is an issue that's very important to me: I went through the public school system, and I rely on federal loans for college. Beyond that, I grew up with many family members involved in public education. My mother taught for 20 years before becoming a public school librarian; my grandmother taught elementary school for most of her life; my father and my uncle are both school superintendents with decades of experience in administration. As such, I've spent my whole life experiencing and learning about the problems facing public education from many sides.

So it may come as a surprise that I — and a lot of my family — think getting rid of the Department of Education (ED) is a good move. While the aims of the department are noble, and I personally place a high value on the importance of education, its results leave a lot to be desired. In the end it’s a good idea to streamline the federal government by restructuring departments, including ED.

First and foremost, I’m partial to the traditional conservative argument about constitutionality. A federal department of education is not outlined in the Constitution as a duty of the executive branch. While the legislature created and empowered the department, I’m not convinced by arguments that education should fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction in our current system.

As far as the department's impact on public education goes, recent results aren't great: American students’ performances in reading and math increased after the department's formation during the Carter administration, but have hit new lows in recent years, especially after the pandemic. Furthermore, the two seminal pieces of educational policy in the 21st century — No Child Left Behind and its successor, Every Student Succeeds — have negatively affected public education by imposing ineffective, top-down accountability measures. Tying federal funding to statewide test performance creates undue pressure on teachers to "teach to the test" rather than “teach to learn”, and there's no evidence that state testing has actually reduced achievement gaps among high- and low-income students, as it was intended to do.

Additionally, the other important work of the Department of Education — its student loan programs — have also fallen under scrutiny. I personally experienced the disastrous FAFSA 2023-24 rollout where many students were left in educational limbo, unable to receive aid and therefore unable to enroll in college. Of course, federal loan programs are vital for many middle-class and low-income students hoping to attend college, but ED has not proven that it can fulfill this role well enough to justify its bloat.

All in all, I am not convinced that a federal Department of Education is necessary or even helpful. If Trump moves to abolish ED by restructuring what I consider its most important work — providing federal student aid — into other departments while gutting its more harmful, over-regulation provisions, then I count that as a win for students, parents, and educators everywhere.

• From the right: In the Cato Institute, Neal McCluskey said “Abolish the Department of Education.”
• From the left: In The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin wrote that “Democrats can make education a winning issue.”

Russell Nystrom, Social Media and Marketing Strategist: Releasing the JFK files.

Waiting for a president to fully release the JFK files has been a bit like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy not to pull the football away, only to be disappointed every time.

For context, in 1992 Congress passed the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. Among other requirements, the act mandated full disclosure of documents by October 26, 2017, unless the president deemed doing so would pose a significant risk to national security, intelligence operations, or foreign relations. After pledging in 2017 to release every document, Trump reneged on his promise just a year later (though he still released tens of thousands of pertinent documents during his first term). President Biden additionally released thousands of relevant documents, but thousands more still remain sealed or contain significant redactions. 

Just a few days into his term, President Trump signed an executive order mandating the attorney general and director of national intelligence (DNI) to present a plan to the president for the full and complete release of these records within 15 days, or by February 7. Additionally, both officials are to present a plan to release records relating to the 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (Note: Trump’s nominee for DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, has not been confirmed by the Senate at this time). The order does not set a date by which documents must be released. 

Experts say not to expect a “smoking gun” that proves beyond doubt whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted as a lone gunman or if there was a larger conspiracy when he killed President Kennedy. Instead, the final documents likely contain personal data of officers or informants still living, embarrassing information of intelligence agencies’ knowledge of Oswald, and a smattering of details that may provide a more robust picture of the situation. In fact, we already know that some of the most infamous materials will not be released: Hours of interviews of Jackie Kennedy and then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy as well as private letters between Jackie Kennedy and President Johnson are under deeds of gift from the Kennedy family that bar their public release for decades to come. 

So, will the documents ultimately be released? Only time will tell, but I am hopeful that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an outspoken supporter of releasing the documents related to his uncle and father, likely being in the administration will compel Trump to follow through on his promise. If Trump actually releases the government’s documents, it will be a big win for government transparency — and for all of us Charlie Browns out there. 

• From the left: In Politico, Philip Shenon wrote about “the iffy transparency of Trump’s order on the JFK assassination files.”
• From the right: The New York Post editorial board said “good on President Trump to release the last of the JFK, RFK and MLK Jr. assassination files.”

Isaac Saul, Executive Editor: Executive orders limiting regulation.

On Trump's first day in office, he issued several orders to expedite federal permits that will help shrink the timeline for building critical energy infrastructure. The directive was a response to longstanding bipartisan complaints about lengthy environmental reviews and the red tape of federal authorization for infrastructure projects big and small. Trump's directive is an initial step, and he is limited in his power, but it was an unsung positive from his first few days in office (and something Biden should have done himself). Even left-of-center writers like Noah Smith have championed the orders, which (with any luck) could also extend to expedited permitting and construction of housing, too.

Magdalena Bokowa, Partnerships: Why aren’t we talking about $MELANIA?

With a single tweet on February 19, First Lady Melania Trump launched her own cryptocurrency, the Official Melania Meme Coin, symbolized as $MELANIA. Coming just days after President Trump unveiled his own meme coin, this move has sparked conversations about the ethical and financial implications of political figures endorsing cryptocurrencies, and it reflects the growing involvement of the administration in the cryptocurrency space.

So, should the Trumps have their own cryptocurrency — even if it’s “just” a meme coin?

My answer is no. The Trumps are blurring the lines between their political influence and profiting off the speculative nature of cryptocurrencies. While celebrity-backed coins may drive mainstream interest in crypto, they also raise trust and transparency issues, given the unregulated nature of digital assets. Though it’s unlikely the Trumps took the value of their meme coin seriously, they are still directly profiting from trading fees and cash returns from token sales — and this is all tied to their relevance as figures currently in the White House.

It feels odd to associate a meme coin with the White House, the world’s most powerful office — it undermines its credibility at face value. What kind of messaging does this send to the world? Or, wait… we already have DOGE…

• From the left: In MSNBC, Stephen Diehl called the memecoin launch “uniquely troubling.”
• From the right: In The Washington Examiner, Peter Cordi wrote about what the launch “means for [the] crypto industry.”

Ari Weitzman, Managing Editor: The DNC elected a new chairman.

The chairman election has zero impact on U.S. policy or anybody’s day-to-day lives, but it’s fascinating — and it gives us our first clue for how Democrats are learning and rebuilding from the 2024 election. 

The short version: more of the same — but with more populism! Here’s a brief list of the winners from the DNC’s election:

• Ken Martin, former leader of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. He is known for being a behind-the-scenes tactician and for labor-friendly policies, and has said he would “take the low road so my candidates can take the high road.”
• Kamala Harris, whose prerecorded message received a strong ovation, who spoke with each front-runner for 15–20 minutes before the election, and who committed to fundraising for the next few months.
• David Hogg, the Parkland shooting survivor and gun control advocate, who was elected to one of the three DNC vice chair positions.

And a slightly longer list of the losers:

• Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin, who was seen as a frontrunner going into the vote, but ended up managing only a third of the total vote.
• The senior leadership of the Democratic Party who endorsed Wikler, a real who’s-who of familiar names: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, billionaire donor George Soros, and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.
• Diverse leadership representation. Bernie Sanders’s senior advisor Faiz Shakir received two of the roughly 400 votes, while self-help author and occasional presidential candidate Marianne Williamson received zero — as did former U.S. House candidate Quintessa Hathaway, the only black woman running for the position.
• Any hope of a big ideological shift. Martin ran on changing tactics, saying the party has “the right message” and just needs to “connect it back to the voters.”

• From the right: In The Daily Wire, Matt Walsh said that Democrats hilariously fell apart.
• From the left: In The Nation, Joseph Geeverghese said the DNC defeated the party elites.

Hunter Casperson, Editorial Fellow: Trump’s reaction to the D.C. crash.

We’re publishing a big piece on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Friday, but President Trump’s response to the deadly D.C. plane crash was news in and of itself. In a press conference on Thursday, Trump suggested that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives were to blame for the crash, stating, “The FAA is actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems, and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website.” Media outlets on both the left and right reported on his comments, and many challenged the statements he made for being misleading or outright false. Vice President JD Vance spoke out against the media’s criticisms of the president’s statements, saying, “The president made very clear that he wasn't blaming anybody, but he was being very explicit about the fact that DEI policies have led our air traffic controllers to be short-staffed." Setting aside the conversation of DEI’s effectiveness as a whole, I see the comments made by the president as a representation of Trump’s tendency to scapegoat through an ideological lens — and the implications of the aftermath regarding Jo Ellis also concern me. 

Ellis is a transgender pilot for the Virginia Army National Guard who was falsely accused in thousands of social media posts of being the captain of the crashed Black Hawk helicopter. The rumors were even reported by at least two news outlets, one representing the false accusations of Ellis as fact. Ellis posted a video to Facebook that Friday to prove that she was alive and not at fault for the crash. With the accusations of Ellis being linked so closely in time to President Trump’s DEI statements, I see this as a prime example of the power Trump holds in the narratives he creates. With President Trump’s focus on DEI as a whole, combined with the public’s response to this event, I see this playing out over Trump’s presidency as a manic perception of nonwhite, transgender, and disabled people that could have dangerous consequences.

• From the left: In The New York Times, David Sanger wrote that President Trump’s remarks “reflected his instinct to immediately frame major events through his political or ideological lens.”
• From the right: In National Review, Dan McLaughlin wrote about “air traffic control and the DEI debate.”

Will Kaback, Editor: Changing standards for government contractors.

President Trump’s executive order on DEI programs has garnered considerable attention both for its intent to root out these initiatives in every facet of the federal government and how that objective has been executed, with the Office of Management and Budget using the order as a pretext for its short-lived funding freeze memo last week. Elon Musk has also centered DEI as his primary target in his efforts to cut government spending via the Department of Government Efficiency. 

The anti-DEI push in the Trump administration is probably a topic we’ll cover in more depth soon, but Trump also issued an adjacent order on his first day in office that is worth discussing here. That action, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” rescinds a 1965 executive order by President Lyndon B. Johnson (Executive Order 11246) that established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in government contracting. Specifically, it prohibited government contractors or subcontractors who worked with the U.S. from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Sounds pretty basic, right? Yes, but the order had another provision: It required contractors to take affirmative action to ensure they were not discriminating in their hiring practices. Over time, this stipulation was interpreted by successive presidential administrations as requiring contractors to adopt affirmative action policies (that is, consciously selective of different demographic traits), which is somewhat ironic considering the original intent of the order. Now, Trump has canceled that directive and replaced it with a provision that explicitly bars contractors from considering race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in hiring. 

The potential impact is enormous. In fiscal year 2023, the federal government committed about $759 billion to contracts with a wide range of businesses, so Trump’s order will impact hiring in numerous industries. 

I think this action was the right move — the application of EO 11246 has evolved beyond its original purpose, and some kind of clarification was overdue. But I also believe the government shouldn’t be in the business of mandating the hiring practices of contractors; as long as it is confident that a company can provide the desired service, it shouldn’t matter the demographic makeup of its employees.

I disagree with President Trump, Musk, and others that efforts to promote diversity are worthless, but I’m aligned with the idea that it shouldn’t be a priority in determining who the government works with. For what it’s worth, this sentiment seems to be increasingly in line with how Americans view affirmative action policies.

• From the right: In Newsweek, Casey Ryan said “Trump takes necessary action to eradicate DEI.”
• From the left: In The Washington Post, Philip Bump argued “Trump’s DEI push doesn’t level the playing field. It digs trenches.”

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

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered the social media Congressional hearings.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the ad in our free version for the Daily Upside.
• Nothing to do with politics: Why Black History Month is in February.
• Yesterday’s survey: 3,242 readers responded to our survey on USAID with 55% saying the U.S. should more tightly manage it through the State Department. “This should be handled by Congress to ensure the people have a more direct voice in what happens. Putting Elon Musk in control of USAID's fate is dangerous and unconstitutional,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Deforestation is a common concern among environmentalists, but a recent rainforest restoration effort is taking shape in an unlikely place. At Bowden Pillars in England, volunteers working with The Wildlife Trusts have been transforming a barren field into a rainforest; nearly 2,500 saplings have been planted and another 4,500 native trees are set to be planted by the end of winter. Similar restoration projects are occurring in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Positive News has the scoop.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 315,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!