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: 14 minutes.
40% Off — Never Have a Dead Phone Again: The Viral Credit Card-Sized Charger is BACK!
BACK IN STOCK: The must-have Valentine’s Day gift everyone is talking about. Ever been stuck with a dead phone at the worst moment? Imagine trying to order an Uber or keep your kid entertained at dinner, only to see your phone is dead. Nightmare, right? The ChargeCard is the ultra-thin Credit Card-Sized portable charger that fits right in your wallet.
• Ultra-Slim & lightweight – Not like those big, bulky power banks
• Works with iPhones & Androids (built-in cables)
• Rechargeable & stylish – Available in black, platinum, and rose gold
Forget tangled cords and outdated bulky chargers. The ChargeCard, featured in Forbes, is the sleek, pocket-sized lifesaver you’ll actually have on you when you need it.
EXCLUSIVE OFFER for Valentine's Day: Use code TANGLE40 for 40% OFF today!
Bonus content.
We’ve been talking to a lot of interesting people lately, and are really excited to start releasing some of those interviews to our podcast subscribers. Today, we’re publishing Editor Will Kaback’s conversation with Stephen Hawkins, director of research at More in Common, a nonprofit that researches political polarization and strategies to build more cohesive communities. The group recently published a report that found Republicans and Democrats have vastly different perceptions of what the other side believes, and we talked with Hawkins about what those findings mean for the future of American politics. Premium podcast subscribers can listen to the interview on Supercast.
Tomorrow’s Friday edition will feature insights from aviation experts, commercial pilots, and military veterans on last week's plane crash in Washington, D.C. We’ll explore the factors that could have contributed to the accident, what safety reforms are needed, and whether President Trump’s suggestion that DEI played a role is plausible.
Quick hits.
- President Donald Trump signed an executive order that mandates Title IX, the law banning schools that receive federal funding from engaging in sex discrimination, be interpreted as prohibiting transgender women and girls from competing in women’s and girl's sports. Trump said the order would also apply to visa policies for athletes who travel to the United States to compete in the Olympics or other sporting events. (The order)
- A second federal judge blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, ruling that it could not take effect until a court rules on challenges to the order. A prior decision from another federal judge had blocked the order for 14 days. (The ruling)
- The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) offered buyouts to its entire workforce. Officials said the move is part of an effort to bring the agency in line with President Trump’s agenda. (The offer) Separately, at the White House’s request, the CIA shared a list of all employees hired by the spy agency over the last two years. The list, sent in an unclassified email, included the first names and last initials of the new hires. (The list)
- One day after saying that it would stop accepting inbound mail and packages from China and Hong Kong, the U.S. Postal Service said it would resume package delivery from those countries. The agency added that it is working with Customs and Border Protection to ensure compliance with President Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports. (The reversal)
- Argentina announced it would pull out of the World Health Organization, citing "deep differences" with the organization’s management of public health issues. (The announcement)
Today's topic.
President Trump’s comments on Gaza. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump said the United States will take over the Gaza Strip to facilitate its reconstruction after it was largely destroyed during the 15-month war between Israel and Hamas. Speaking at a press conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said that Palestinians living in Gaza should be permanently resettled in surrounding Arab countries and implied that the U.S. could take a “long-term ownership position” over the enclave. The president did not rule out the use of military force to carry out the plan.
On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to clarify aspects of Trump’s comments, saying that Gazans would be "temporarily relocated" during the rebuilding process and that Trump had not yet committed to using the U.S. military for the effort. Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed Trump’s proposal as an “offer,” saying that it should not be interpreted as a “hostile move.”
Several other members of the Trump administration also weighed in on the plan. Steve Witkoff, the White House’s Mideast envoy, spoke with lawmakers at the Capitol and said the president was not speaking extemporaneously when he made the remarks. According to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Witkoff said Trump has been “gestating on this plan for some time.” Furthermore, Witkoff suggested that the governments of other Arab countries could be persuaded to resettle Palestinians in return for treaties and economic agreements with the United States.
Some Republican lawmakers criticized the proposal. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said Trump’s plan would violate the “America First” principle that the president campaigned on. “We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers’ blood," Paul wrote in a post on X. Other Republicans were more supportive of the idea, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who called it a "bold step" toward restoring peace in the region.
Meanwhile, a chorus of Democrats described Trump’s comments as dangerous and illegal, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) calling the plan "inconsistent with American values.” Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) said Trump is “completely ignoring the sovereignty and the self-determination of the Palestinian people who have lived in this place for generations.”
On Thursday, President Trump shared more details about the proposal in a post on Truth Social. “The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting,” Trump wrote. “The U.S., working with great development teams from all over the World, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth.”
Trump’s comments come at a tenuous time, as the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is still ongoing. Hamas officials released a statement on Tuesday calling Trump’s proposal “a recipe for creating chaos and tension in the region.” Separately, Prime Minister Netanyahu said the idea was worth pursuing and represented “something that could change history.”
Today, we’ll share arguments from the right and left about Trump’s proposal. Then, Managing Editor Ari Weitzman gives his take while Executive Editor Isaac Saul is on paternity leave.
What the right is saying.
- The right is mixed on the proposal, though many commend Trump for eschewing the failed status quo.
- Some say Trump imperils his promising vision for Middle East peace with this plan.
- Others argue the plan rests on faulty assumptions.
In The Wall Street Journal, Elliot Kaufman wrote about “Trump’s plan to free Palestinians from Gaza.”
“President Trump shocked the world with his proposal to resettle Gazans in nearby countries, but not because the idea is cruel. Few critics dispute his point that it would benefit the displaced to escape the ‘demolition site’ of Gaza and live in peace rather than as cannon fodder. The real disturbance, after decades to the contrary, is to think seriously about what it would mean to put Palestinian lives first rather than sacrificing them to the lost cause of Palestine as their leaders always do,” Kaufman said. “The scandal isn’t that displaced Palestinians now could be ‘transferred’ voluntarily out of Gaza; it’s that they have been forced to stay there—as Hamas’s shields during the war and among the ruins in its aftermath.”
“Even as Arab states claimed Israel was slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately, they insisted Gaza’s borders stay shut. When Palestinians tried to flee the war, as is their human right, Egypt forcibly closed the border—with the support of the international community,” Kaufman wrote. “When Mr. Trump says he would like to ‘resettle people permanently in nice homes and where they can be happy and not be shot, not be killed,’ he is accused of inhumanity. The humane solution, by liberal lights, is to sacrifice another generation of Palestinians to permanent refugee status and a forever war on Israel.”
In MSNBC, Daniel R. DePetris argued “Trump’s Gaza relocation comment is liable to kill his own diplomatic agenda.”
“Can Donald Trump, the self-professed ‘peacemaker’ who has eyed the coveted Nobel Peace Prize for many years, go where no U.S. president has gone before by striking a transformational, comprehensive peace deal in the Middle East,” DePetris asked. “Trump’s critics would answer with a big eye roll. And yet his pressuring of Netanyahu to sign onto the first stage of a three-phase ceasefire deal with Hamas — three more hostages were freed over the weekend in return for more than 100 Palestinian prisoners, the fourth round of prisoner exchanges since the deal took effect in mid-January — at least gives some credibility behind the ambition.”
“But Trump can kiss all of this goodbye if he intends to move forward with his ongoing calls to expel the Palestinian population from Gaza… At the top of the wish list is an Israeli-Saudi normalization accord, something his predecessor Joe Biden couldn’t finalize before his term ended,” DePetris said. “Yet none of it will happen if Palestinians are forced to leave their own lands. It would snuff out an expansion of the Abraham Accords before the Trump administration even got the ball rolling.”
In National Review, Philip Klein explored “Trump’s Gaza bombshell.”
“President Trump has developed a reputation for zigging when everybody else says it’s time to zag. But when it comes to the plan he just outlined for Gaza, it’s more like one side is zigging, another is zagging, and he just busted into the White House East Room and shouted ‘hippopotamus!’ It’s hard to think of any other way to convey the sense in which Trump has upended decades of discussions about the Arab–Israeli conflict,” Klein wrote. “The most fundamental flaw of the proposal is the assumption that the Palestinian population primarily is interested in living in a peaceful and prosperous place somewhere else. In reality, Palestinians are largely supportive of Hamas terrorism, they see Gaza as their homeland, and they don’t think Israel should exist. They will not want to leave.”
“As far as the second part of Trump’s Gaza plan, there would be no real authority for the U.S. to swoop in and claim ownership in Gaza. And for a president who campaigned on putting an end to endless wars and disentangling from foreign interventions, it would be bizarre to send troops to help create some sort of American economic outpost in one of the most dangerous hot spots in the world,” Klein said. “It’s quite possible, as has happened in the past, that Trump is saying something outrageous to shake things up and freak everybody out, and then he will ultimately be open to pursuing more conventional ends. That said, we should be clear that Trump’s plan for Gaza as he outlined it tonight is not going to happen.”
What the left is saying.
- The left mostly opposes Trump’s idea, seeing it as unwise and implausible.
- Some say Trump has identified a real problem to address, but his solution would not be effective.
- Others say that forcing Palestinians to move would be ethnic cleansing.
In The Washington Post, David Ignatius said “Trump’s proposed takeover of Gaza was incendiary.”
“President Donald Trump, who said he wanted to end Middle East wars, is stumbling toward a dangerous new entanglement with his talk of expelling Palestinians from Gaza and seizing the territory for the United States,” Ignatius wrote. “Concerns about the jaw-dropping proposal were so swift and sharp on Wednesday that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt rushed to clarify that Trump didn’t plan to pay for that project or send in U.S. troops. If that’s true — and no other country in the region appears ready to offer financial or military support — then the proposal is the foreign policy equivalent of an empty suit.”
“The leaders of Egypt and Jordan, the two nations Trump mentioned as relocation sites when he first floated the idea 10 days ago, have been summoned to meet Trump in Washington next week. They’re afraid of him, as most of the world seems to be after two weeks of threats and action. But they’re even more worried about the danger of internal unrest that could follow an expulsion of Palestinians into their territory,” Ignatius said. “Trump’s capricious proposal is the latest example of an administration that, in its pell-mell desire for disruption, seems oblivious to the implications for national security.”
In The Atlantic, Yair Rosenberg wrote “nobody wants Gaz-a-Lago.”
“Trump’s Gaz-a-Lago plan has just one minor defect: It is a nonstarter with pretty much all of the parties required to make it work. Fresh off failed forays into Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans will balk at inserting themselves into one of the Middle East’s most intractable conflicts,” Rosenberg said. “Trump named Jordan and Egypt as two Arab countries that could take in displaced Gazans during the territory’s reconstruction, but both regimes would rather swallow broken glass than grant citizenship or even a foothold to large numbers of Palestinians, whose cause they celebrate but whose people they routinely denigrate.
“Trump’s scheme also conflicts with an essential component of the Israeli ethos. The country prides itself on ‘defending itself by itself,’ as home to a formerly persecuted people no longer reliant on foreign powers for its security,” Rosenberg wrote. “But as flawed as Trump’s proposed solution is, it does identify a real problem… With significant revisions, this proposal could contain a semblance of something workable. Temporarily housing Gazans in dignified conditions elsewhere while the devastated territory is rebuilt under the watchful eyes of America and its allies would provide the Gazan people with much-deserved relief while depriving Hamas of its source of power and income.”
In Forward, Dan Perry asked “is Trump’s proposal for the U.S. to take over Gaza really as ludicrous as it sounds?”
“Trump’s ideas, however fantastical, would reshuffle the deck completely. How exactly he might intend for the U.S. to take over management of the territory, and rebuild it ‘magnificently,’ is unclear. Even more unclear: Who, exactly, would benefit from this dubiously thought out plan,” Perry wrote. “Clearly not Hamas, which might be one reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in Washington, D.C., today to meet with Trump, would get on board… And clearly not those Palestinian civilians who prefer staying in their home.”
“Trump is not entirely wrong in saying that Gaza is unlivable. Even before the current war, conditions in the strip were dire. Under Hamas rule, the population has been impoverished. Now, after over a year of Israeli bombardment, the destruction in the tiny strip of land is staggering,” Perry said. “But forcing Palestinians out of Gaza would be an act of ethnic cleansing, and a war crime under international law… The truth is that permanently displacing a significant number of Palestinians from Gaza — or any part of Palestinian territory — would almost certainly create more problems than it solves.”
My take.
Reminder: "My 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.
- You don’t have to be an expert on Israel and Palestine to see all the flaws in Trump’s plan.
- It’s unjust towards Palestinians, doesn’t make Israelis safer, and would take an enormous commitment of U.S. resources.
- I don’t know what will make Trump back off this idea, and I worry that he won’t.
As a non-practicing American Jew, I’ve always been conflicted in how I think about Israel. I declined to go on my Birthright trip, I believe legitimate criticism of Israel is too often dismissed as antisemitism, and I have always felt uncomfortable about Israel’s status as both a democracy and a country with an official religion. At the same time, I personally place more blame on Hamas for the continuance of violence in the region, and I don’t believe the Jews who have settled in Israel — many of whom were relocated there after the Holocaust by a decree not of their own making — are perpetrators of colonialism.
This is an issue I’m coming into with humility, knowing that I don’t have a ton of personal connection to Israel or Palestine. I know the history, I know the news, and I know what our editorial team thinks — but I don’t know everything. One thing I do know, however, is that solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict are going to involve some concessions from one or both sides — there’s no perfect solution.
Having said all that, Trump’s proposal has an incredible amount of problems — in fact, I think it’s one of his worst yet. To help clarify my thoughts, I’ve bucketed my criticisms and questions into seven different categories.
1) Ethnic cleansing. A UN commission investigating crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.” That’s an accurate description of what Trump wants to do in Gaza. What else would we call it? And where are they going to go? Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and even the West Bank all reject this plan. One of Gaza’s defining characteristics is that over 80% of its inhabitants are descendants of people displaced following the 1948 war; that history is part of what makes Gazans so committed to staying in place — but Trump wants to run it back.
2) Peacemaking. When Trump brokered the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries, he won well earned plaudits for his dealmaking. When an envoy from his incoming administration helped broker a peace deal between Israel and Hamas three weeks and one lifetime ago, it launched a thousand takes that have already aged past their shelf lives. Israeli writers speculated that Trump may next help Israel normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, and conservative American writers were saying that Trump’s supporters would be disappointed by the president’s lack of bellicosity. Now, the route of peacemaking he’s pursuing is making one of two sides just go away. That’s not peacemaking; it’s domination. And it’s a means of diplomacy that tends to create the preconditions for future conflicts.
3) Nation-building. It’s almost a presidential cliché to try to broker a legacy-defining “peace in the Middle East” deal, so the region is familiar with U.S. diplomatic involvement. But U.S. boots on the ground in Israel or Palestine is a different matter entirely. The same president who criticized nation-building in Afghanistan and wanted to avoid conflict in Ukraine now wants to “take over” Gazan reconstruction. In the words of Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, “It’s not a serious proposal… If ever pursued, it would entail a massive cost in dollars and U.S. troops, with no support from key regional partners.”
4) Israeli security. An argument that Executive Editor Isaac Saul has advanced since the beginning of this war is that trying to destroy Hamas through a strategy of maximal aggression in Gaza is actually making Israelis and Jews less safe by further destabilizing the region and drawing other adversaries into the conflict. Trump’s proposal dials up that aggression. It imperils the hostage-return deal and further cements that the next generation of Palestinians will view Israel as a hated enemy, adding the U.S. alongside them. To quote Isaac Israel “has not sown the seeds of peace but has instead ensured that another generation of Palestinians will live through heartbreak and war and watch their friends and family die in front of them, which will make forgiveness or reconciliation with Israel next to impossible.” Yes, Trump’s plan isn’t to kill Palestinians, but forced resettlement will still be dangerous and deadly, likely incurring the same effect.
5) Poor communication. Trump’s ambiguity in his wording is often a feature, not a bug — but more often than not it’s just a problem. Trump tends to push interpretations of his statements towards the poles of either optimistically brushing him off or paranoia, depending on the person or the topic. For me, on this topic, it creates paranoia. What exactly does Trump mean by “we’re going to take it over?” When would we leave? Would we leave? Are we seriously trampling on the many international compacts we are party to and invading Gaza? The White House’s mixed messages aren’t helping provide clarity. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says Trump wants to remove Gazans from the strip temporarily, but Trump also literally said he wants to permanently relocate them and then rebuild Gaza “for the world’s people” — should we optimistically brush this off as bluster, or paranoically infer that Gaza will be for Israel?
6) Israel’s culpability. Trump consistently phrased his descriptions of Gaza to avoid apportioning any amount of responsibility to Israel. Gaza is a “demolition site,” but demolished by whom? “Gaza is a guarantee that they’re going to end up dying,” meaning the location itself is hostile to Palestinians? Gazans have suffered “bad luck,” meaning that bad things have just happened to occur to them? As I said at the top, I believe that Hamas deserves more than a co-equal responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians; that’s a position that I’m sure our readers will criticize, but at least I acknowledge that Israel bears its share of responsibility. “Bad luck?” Really?
7) U.S. resources. This plan would undoubtedly involve U.S. troops, who are also supposedly going to be deployed to the border and assist in the mass deportation of millions of unauthorized migrants from our country. Trump’s plan in the Middle East is then to use U.S. troops to forcibly relocate millions more, from a country we don’t govern to others that we don’t govern — a massive increase in an already costly plan for the military. In the words of one of Trump’s allies, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), “I don’t know that I think it’s the best use of United States resources to spend a bunch of money in Gaza.”
As for this plan’s bright spots, it’s really really hard to find any that don’t just amount to “now Hamas won’t have anything to govern.” I’ve scoured for information and asked members of our editorial staff to look for an answer to this question: What is the best argument in favor of Trump’s plan? These two are the best I’ve got: First, the Middle East needs a bold reimaging of the default set of solutions. Second, Trump doesn’t literally mean what he’s declaring — he’s threatening the Middle East by saying, “If you don’t handle this then I’m going to come in and make it an American resort.”
Sorry, but that’s not good enough. A bold new plan doesn’t have to be this plan. And “he might be bluffing” doesn’t erase the criticisms of the thing he has said he wants to do. Acting on this idea would be patently immoral and inhumane to the Palestinians; it has a greater chance of hurting the long-term security of Israel than helping; and it would come at the cost of U.S. troops, budget, and diplomatic goodwill.
Maybe Trump is just negotiating again, like a poker player who has the biggest stack at the table, keeps getting pocket aces, and rushes all-in on his opening bet — but I don’t understand what he's hoping to gain. I doubt Hamas is going to sign some symbolic gesture to get Trump to go away, like Canada and Mexico did, so now the U.S. is dangerously close to being all-in on Gaza.
I hope someone in the administration can get Trump to see the brick wall before he runs the country and the region into it face-first, but I don’t foresee that happening without something he can claim victory on — and I don’t know what it will take for Trump to divert course. For now, the plan is still just a plan. All things are subject to change when ideas meet reality, and we are still just talking about things that haven’t happened yet. But by all accounts, things are not about to get better.
Take the survey: What do you think of Trump’s plan? Let us know!
Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
We're skipping today's reader question to give our main story extra space. 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.
The share of Americans quitting their jobs has decreased significantly in recent years as the job market cools from pandemic levels. During the Covid-19 pandemic, job openings were robust as the economy started to reopen, and many workers sought new opportunities that offered better pay, benefits, and flexibility. This dynamic led over 50 million people to quit their jobs in 2022; but in 2024, job quits decreased 22% from that peak. While the unemployment rate remains low and job growth is consistent, workers no longer have the same quantity and quality of new opportunities. Furthermore, hiring has slowed, and the share of workers hired into new jobs every month fell to an average of 3.5% in 2024, down from nearly 4.4% in 2021. The Wall Street Journal has the story.
Numbers.
- 140. The total area, in square miles, of the Gaza Strip.
- 60%. The estimated percentage of buildings in the Gaza Strip that have been damaged during the Israel-Hamas war, according to analysis of satellite data.
- 160,000 and 276,000. The number of housing units in Gaza that have been destroyed and damaged, respectively, during the war, according to the United Nations.
- 2.2 million. The population of Gaza before the war.
- 56%. The percentage of Americans who say the United States should take an active part in world affairs, according to a poll from The Chicago Council on Global Affairs released in August 2024.
- 68% and 54%. The percentage of Democrats and Republicans, respectively, who say it would be best for the future of the United States to take an active part in world affairs.
- 37%. The percentage of Americans who think the U.S. should play a leading role in the reconstruction of Gaza.
- 51% and 24%. The percentage of Democrats and Republicans, respectively, who think the U.S. should play a leading role in the reconstruction of Gaza.
The extras.
- One year ago today we wrote about the Senate’s border bill.
- The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was Trump’s statements on taking over Gaza.
- Nothing to do with politics: A surprisingly competitive live multiplayer game to see who can click a pixel the most.
- Bonus feature: Yesterday’s special edition did not include a survey, so we have no results to publish today. Instead, we’d like to highlight the short video we produced on USAID.
Have a nice day.
Animal shelters across the country are encouraging people to spend their Valentine’s Day by taking a local shelter dog out on a date. Partnering with Chewy, shelters hope this event helps people find the right adoption for them and inspires more people to foster pets. Participants will receive a "date kit" containing treats, toys, and poop bags to secure a successful outing. This event offers shelter dogs a break from their kennels and gives them a fun day “meant to be filled with love.” Chewy has more information on its website.
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!
Member comments