D (4:03)

Thanks, Will and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump versus Slaughter on whether presidents can fire members of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission for reasons outside of inefficiency, negligent of duty or malfeasance in office. Court watchers suggested the court seems likely to rule that the president does have this power. Number two, Alina Habba resigned as U.S. attorney for New Jersey following a ruling by an appeals court that she is serving unlawfully. Habba said she will continue serving as Attorney General Pam Bondi's senior advisor for U.S. attorneys. Number three, Paramount Skydance launched a competing bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery after Netflix announced an $82.7 billion deal to acquire the company on Friday. Paramount's $108.4 billion offer is backed by the Ellison family, Jared Kushner's affinity partners and sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. Number four, President Donald Trump said he will sign an executive order this week blocking state level regulations on artificial intelligence, saying that the technology should be regulated at the federal level. At number five, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake off the coast of northern Japan injured 23 people and caused a tsunami along the Pacific. Co.

D (5:54)

On Thursday, the Trump administration released its 2025 National Security Strategy, a document outlining the administration's priorities for U.S. foreign policy. In the document, the administration provides overviews of its policies in the Western Hemisphere, Asia, Europe, the Middle east and Africa. Key goals include refocusing on regional relationships, increasing economic power while avoiding conflict in the Pacific, protecting freedom and security in Europe, pursu lasting peace and economic partnership in the Middle east, and maintaining US dominance in the technological sector. For context, in 1986, the Goldwater Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization act mandated the nss, a report the President sends to Congress in order to communicate the Executive branch's security priorities. These transmissions began under President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and every president since has issued at least one NSS to Congress during each of his terms. The second Trump administration's NSS contained some notable shifts from recent US national security priorities. While the document maintains long standing policy on Taiwan and nuclear deterrence, it differs from previous administrations in its stances towards China and Russia. The administration also outlines its problems with post Cold War era policy, critiquing the prioritization of US Global dominance over domestic stability. The document also outlines the Trump administration's focus on the Western Hemisphere, which it calls a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The administration defines this corollary as increasing partnership between the U.S. and other Western Hemisphere nations while preventing external foreign influence. Additionally, it says its policy towards Latin America will be guided by a focus on US Border security and the use of military power to curtail drug trafficking. The NSS stated policy on Europe also breaks from traditional US policy. The document criticizes European countries stances on Ukraine and warns that the continent faces civilizational erasure to due to its migration policies, while also calling for European countries to increase their defense spending, improve their economic capacity and pursue a more stable relationship with Russia. The NSS drew sharp criticism from Democrats who criticized the administration's position towards Europe on X. Senator Mark Kelly, the Democrat from Arizona, wrote, donald Trump's national security strategy puts his family's and friends business interests with our adversaries like Russia and China over promises to our allies. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers praise the administration for its shift in focus. The NSS is an important first step in reasserting US hegemony in our hemisphere and to make Americans safe and prosperous, senator Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah, said today we'll take a look at arguments about the NSS from the left, right and writers abroad and then Senior Editor Will Kabeck will give his take.

B (8:47)

We'll be right back after this quick break.

D (8:50)

I make it to the gym about five to six days a week and one of the biggest supplements I use besides protein is creatine and it helps aid with building muscle and recovery. But I've noticed it also helps me with focus. One of the challenges when I'm traveling is bringing a big old creatine bottle with me, but Momentous is actually making it a lot easier to bring the creatine with me with its new creatine shoes. They're bite sized lemon lime shoes, easy to throw in a little baggie and take with me on trips. Each shoe delivers exactly one gram of creapure creatine monohydrate, the gold standard single sourced from Germany and NSF certified for sport, which means that it's independently tested for purity, safety and label accuracy. There's no artificial sweeteners, no fillers, just science backed clinically proven performance in a small, easy to take format. So whether you're training or working or traveling, this is performance without pause, made to support your body and your brain every single day. Right now, Momentous is offering our listeners up to 35% off your first order with promo code TANGLE. So go to livemomentous.com and use promo code TANGLE for up to 35% off your 1st order. That's livemomentous.com promo code TANGLE Cold mornings, holiday plans.

B (9:56)

This is when I need my wardrobe to just work. That's why I'm all about quints. Quince makes the essentials every guy needs. Mongolian cashmere sweaters for $50, Italian wool coats that look and feel designer, and denim and chinos that fit just right. Their outerwear lineup is no joke. Down jackets, wool top coats and leather styles that are built to last. Each piece is made from premium materials trusted by factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Favorite thing I've bought from Quince recently was the cashmere hooded sweater. I actually got some compliments on it when I went out to the bar the other night, which is pretty rare for me. I don't typically get compliments on what I'm wearing unless my wife bought it for me. But this one I did all on my own. If you want to join me and support Tangle, you can get your wardrobe sorted and your gift lists handled with Quinn's. Don't wait. Go to quince.comtangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N c e.comtangle free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comtangle.

D (11:04)

All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the strategy, with some praising its pivot to prioritizing the Western Hemisphere. Others say the document fails to capture the greatest threats to the US in the free press, Niall Ferguson explored the truth about Trump's national security strategy. One can tell from the opening section of the document why both the Times and the Wall Street Journal hated it, for it is a succinct repudiation of the foreign policies of both the Clintons and the Bush, not to mention the Kennedys. It rejects the notion of an indispensable nation with a duty to police the globe, ferguson wrote. Since the early 20th century, the foreign policy establishment has held this truth to be self evident, that all regions are not created equal and Europe is the most important region of them all. The NSS rejects this. It firmly puts Europe in second place after the Western Hemisphere. In their rush to be offended on behalf of the Europeans, the mainstream commentariat has largely missed what a grab bag of fairly conventional ideas most of the news national security strategy is, ferguson said. There is Nixonian realism, with its familiar insistence on the primacy of national interest, burden sharing and the balance of power. There is Reaganite peace through strength. But there is also the late Joe Nye's soft power, through which we exercise positive influence throughout the world. As Harvard y a foreign policy idea as you could wish for. In the New York Post, Peter Doran wrote, trump's new national security plan beats Biden's but muddles our biggest threats. The best national security strategies accurately describe the world as it is align finite national resources to potentially unlimited aims and, most important, inform decision making in a Crisis. The Trump 1.0 strategy largely accomplished all three of these objectives, declaring in no uncertain terms that China and Russia were overt challengers to American power and influence. The Trump 2.0 strategy is less clear, doran said. Instead of decisive language and a bold new recognition of immediate dangers from China, Russia or the clerical regime, Iran. The new strategy buries Trump's priorities under layers of befuddling rhetoric. Right now, China is flexing its military muscle in the Pacific, ramming ships and war gaming threats to Taiwan. NATO generals warn that Russia could be ready to attack Europe in under five years. The clerics in Tehran are still in power and overtly antagonistic to America and its friends. Alas, the Trump 2.0 strategy gives these issues lower priority, focusing more on Western Hemisphere affairs, fair trade deals and grievances about current account deficits, Doran wrote. The United States cannot win a high stakes rivalry with serious players like Beijing or Moscow. If we don't adequately confront the severity of our competition and the complexity of the threats they present.

D (13:56)

Alright, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is critical of the plan's priorities, with many saying it will elevate right wing governments. Some suggest the document's inconsistencies derive from Trump's variability. In the Atlantic, Thomas Wright argued the NSS shows less concern for the American homeland than for building an illiberal world order. What the White House presented on Friday as a hard headed, realistic assessment of the geopolitical landscape more closely resembles France's Maginot Line, a massive fortress built before World War II to stop a German attack that never came while failing to anticipate the one that did, Wright said. Trump's latest NSS is a blunt repudiation of the idea that the United States is in a strategic competition with rival powers. It prioritizes threats from the Western Hemisphere, European civilizational decline and overregulation and trade deficits, but says nothing about the Russian threat to US interests and views China almost entirely through the lens of economic security. The strategy therefore does not explain what the government, Congress and the private sector should do to fix these vulnerabilities, wright wrote. The reason may lie in what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish. Contrary to its protestations about reining in America's ambition after decades of overreach, it does have a grand plan. The NSS is a blueprint for building an illiberal international order in which the US can assert dominance unilaterally, strike deals with revisionist powers such as China and Russia, and work patiently to support right wing populist parties in Europe in overthrowing centrist establishments. In Bloomberg, Andreas Kluth said the US quietly made a new national security plan out of whims. The NSS's authors did their best to navigate around the many contradictions that riddled the president's foreign policy and, by extension, the document. A convenient translation strategy is whatever Trump says tomorrow on Air Force One or later in the Oval Office, kluth wrote. All this preening shouldn't obscure a shift. In some emphases, several things are consistent. It was always clear that the president views Moscow, not mentioned much and in part as a potential partner, more favorably than did any of his predecessors since World War II. The rest is largely as predicted. The strategy heaps contempt on multilateral and international organizations, which Trump has been quitting, boycotting or deriding while appearing to bless a return to 19th century style spheres of influence, kluth said. And as ever, Trump's friends, business and golf partners do well. After the document harangues the Europeans for their way of life, it graciously promises to stop hectoring the Gulf monarchies into abandoning their traditions, which have rarely resembled Madisonian democracy.

D (16:33)

Alright, that is it for what the right and the left are saying. Which brings us to what writers abroad are saying. Some writers abroad say the NSS should be a wake up call for Europe. Others argue the administration's criticisms of the continent's leaders are well founded. In the Guardian, George Reichelies and Varg Folkman wrote Trump's new doctrine confirms it. Ready or not, Europe is on its own. Everybody should have seen it coming after Washington's humiliating 28 point plan for Ukraine. But the new words still land as a shock. Reichelison Folkman said the security document is the clearest signal yet of how brutally and transactionally Washington wants to engage with the continent. It marks another phase in Trump's attempt to reshape Europe in his ideological image while at the same time abandoning it militarily. There are reasons to believe that the US will not abandon Europe completely. Protecting roughly $4 trillion in US investments on the continent remains a key interest. Yet the direction is unmistakable. Washington is stepping back, Reichlistenfolkman said. If Europe wants to move from a defensive crouch to a posture of strategic agency, it must sustain its surge in defense investment and make it crystal clear that attempts at coercion from Washington or Beijing will be met with forceful countermeasures. Only then can Europe avoid being squeezed between a retreating patron and a mistrustful rival in strategic Europe. Judi Dempsey said Europe needs to hear what America is saying. Europe and the rest of the world now know how poorly this US Administration regards them, and they cannot keep pretending otherwise, dempsey wrote in adversarial language. The strategy goes on to decry the activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political oppression, cratering birth rates and loss of national identities and self confidence. Yes, Europe does lack self confidence. Yes, it does lack a security and strategic outlook. Yes, it has far too long relied on the United States as a security guarantor. Yes, it has failed to listen to the grievances of the far right, dempsey said. Yet its leadership in the institutions and the member states won't take the leap to deal with these major issues that reflect the post Cold War era. These failings weaken Europe as a credible global player that makes criticism of the NSS a rhetorical exercise. Alright, let's head over to Will for his take.

C (19:03)

Thanks, John. All right, here is my take. The NSS's demands for Europe to do more in its own defense while prescribing a renewed focus on Latin America and confronting our enemies through negotiation as well as deterrence don't really come as a surprise. But they also don't represent the value of the NSS as a statement of priorities that highlights what we can expect from the White House in the next three years. Trump's NSS highlights a familiar set of reducing illegal and legal immigration, leveraging US influence to resolve conflicts abroad, establishing dominance in critical fields like artificial intelligence, and more. And these are all, to varying degrees, sensible, and I agree with them. But as a cohesive plan, it misdiagnoses the hierarchy of threats that the United States faces. The document distills the America first philosophy to its essence. The US will not strive to be the world's police force outside of circumstances where it can receive a direct material benefit, nor will it maintain alliances based on historical relationships alone. It will approach global conflicts from an explicit position of self interest. That may sound blunt, but that's because the NSS is blunt on these points. But I also think it's an understandable response to decades of failed foreign policy that has pulled us into costly wars in the Middle east, spurred migration crises, and done little to tamp down on emergent threats. In short, I can appreciate the appeal of a reworked foreign policy that refocuses our priorities on benefiting Americans first and foremost. In practice, though, the America first agenda laid out in the NSS has just as many flaws as the old strategies. Take its ambitions in the Western Hemisphere, which the document refers to as the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It describes a refocusing on regional partnerships as a means of security and economic opportunity. Again, on paper, I think most people in the US can get behind this. Our relationships with our neighbors have a myriad of direct and immediate impacts. But look at how the Trump administration has gone about this goal so far. Wide ranging tariffs, dubiously justified by a national economic emergency and unevenly applied. Just as an example, think of the 50% tariff on Brazilian imports over the country's prosecution of former president and Trump ally Shair Bolsonaro. And then compare that to the $40 billion bailout for Argentina to boost President Javier Milei. There's also been a military buildup near Venezuela along with reports that the US Will attempt to oust President Nicolas Maduro. Then there's the ongoing strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, prompting condemnation from several Latin American leaders and concern from legal experts domestically and globally. Trump's NSS says he wants to bolster our, quote, own nation's appeal as the hemisphere's economic and security partner of choice, end quote. But these actions seem far more likely to antagonize and alienate than foster stronger allegiances. Execution of policy aside, the very decision to place the Western Hemisphere as the top national security priority is itself suspect. Certainly greater emphasis on the region is sensible, and the document accurately outlines the strategic benefits of things like near shoring our supply chain, reduced economic migration and access to critical materials. But the war in Ukraine, an ascendant China with hegemonic ambitions, and ongoing instability in the Middle east remain far more immediate and substantial national security concerns. And I would note that the first Trump administration made this exact assessment. Threats from Russia and China were the focal points of Trump's 2017 NSS, and it identified the two countries as a, quote, challenge to American power, influence and interest, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. That assessment, which the Biden administration shared, hasn't really changed in the last eight years. If anything, it's even more accurate now. Since 2017, China has ratcheted up its attacks on key US infrastructure and seems increasingly likely to invade Taiwan in the years ahead. A March 2025 report from the US intelligence community stated this clearly, China presents the most comprehensive and robust military threat to US national security.

C (23:35)

And obviously Russia has since invaded Ukraine and Putin continues to threaten Eastern Europe. The Trump administration may reject the notion that Russia's invasion of Ukraine poses any direct threat to US national security, but Russia has amply demonstrated itself a major threat even outside the war. The same 2025 US intelligence community report I just referenced highlighted Russia's ongoing efforts to train its military space elements and field new anti satellite weapons while partnering with China to develop cutting edge artificial intelligence tools both on and off the battlefield Elsewhere in Asia, beyond just China and Russia, hostile governments in North Korea and Iran remain an ever present threat of regional or worse destabilization. But Trump's NSS doesn't mention North Korea at all, and only mentions the threat posed by Iran in the past tense. Considering this broader picture, I just don't see reasserting American dominance in the Western Hemisphere as what our top national security priority should be. Now. In fairness, the NSS still does say plenty about China and Russia. The section on China is robust and accurately outlines the military threats the country poses. But its argument places all its weight on the idea that, quote, maintaining American economic and technological preeminence is the surest way to deter and prevent a large scale military conflict, end quote. What is not addressed, though, is how our economic and technological preeminence has not meaningfully deterred China's military aspirations to date. Again, China has not slowed down its military buildup, its intrusions into US Infrastructure, or its efforts to broaden its spheres of influence since Trump returned to office On Russia, the document primarily focuses on establishing strategic stability with the country, but it doesn't address any of the military threats it poses in detail. The Trump administration essentially argues that deal making alone can resolve these issues, which is certainly hopeful but also evidently ineffective. Since Trump has started his second term, dealmaking has thus far failed to produce a breakthrough in Ukraine, and it's done little to alter China's course either. Separately, the NSS's section on Europe also feels out of place for a national Security strategy document. Here again, the document's words are unsurprising. The administration has not been shy about criticizing European leaders for their approach to migration policy, defense, free speech issues and more. And many of these critiques are well founded, and they're also critiques that we've covered and criticized ourselves in tangle. But a pressing national security concern worthy of elevation in a document like this? Well, the NSS constructs an elaborate projection in which overregulation and liberal migration policies hollow out European economies and militaries, leading to the loss of national identities and self confidence.

C (26:38)

The national security issue then follows from Europe's eventual diminishment as a reliable ally for the US in quote, 20 years or less. That hypothetically could be a future concern worth discussing. But by centering this criticism of long standing allies, the Trump administration again overlooks much more immediate threats. To return to Trump's NSS in his first term, the shift in language on Europe in the past eight years has been striking. In the 2017 document, quote, the United States remains firmly committed to our European allies and partners, end quote. In 2025, quote, our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory end quote. In 2017, quote, the NATO alliance of free and sovereign states is one of our great advantages over our competitors, end quote. In 2025, it is, quote, an open question whether some NATO states will remain reliable as they become majority non European priorities and circumstances can change in eight years, of course, but. But what is the strategic benefit of turning up the heat on Europe now while seeking to negotiate an end to a brutal war on the continent and relaxing our focus on China and Russia, which each pose more immediate and non hypothetical national security threats. Bluntly, it's a benefit to our geopolitical rivals. And just look at how Russia responded to the NSS when it was published. The document is largely consistent with our vision, kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said. To reiterate one more time, the NSS contains plenty of worthy goals, things like strengthening the US Industrial and technological base, modernizing military readiness and deterrence capabilities, and building more supply chain resilience. But these redeeming qualities are overshadowed, frankly, by the failure in prioritization. The document demonstrates how President Trump's flexible worldview, which elevates an open for business attitude with a willingness to call out friends and foes alike, can translate poorly to a high level vision of national security priorities. Trump's 2025 foreign policy is an exemplar of the conception of America first that I talked about at the beginning and that clearly appeals to large swaths of the country. And I understand why. But I think Trump's second NSS lays bare this America First's foreign policy's own equally significant shortcomings. In effect, it shifts the US Gaze inward without a clear strategy for approaching national security issues that past administrations, including Trump's, correctly identified but failed to address. It all adds up to something that might feel like a breath of fresh air, but leaves key concerns unaccounted for and the United States less prepared for the dangers that truly define this moment.

B (29:33)

Hey guys, Isaac here. I'm jumping in today actually with a stat half descent, so I appreciate Will's take, but I believe the Trump administration's focus on Latin America is actually warranted. I would agree with Will that the threats from China, Russia and Iran are more serious. Threats of kinetic warfare and cyber intrusions. These are traditional national security concerns. But economic instability, mass migration, the import of narcotics and gang activity are also national security concerns. The immediacy of those threats from Latin America is apparent and I think more urgent. Plus the very actors will identify as China and Russia. Primarily they are making inroads in Latin America. This is not an accident. They recognize the region is an open door to increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere, making it all the more important. We focus here now too. Further, I think in order to make Will's argument, you'd have to show that the preceding policies, those deployed by Biden, by Trump Won or Obama actually worked, have our past policies toward China. The Middle east and Russia deterred these nations prevented war, stopped trade imbalances. And if not, is it really fair to frame a reset as a wrong turn? All right, that's it for my staff descent today. I'm gonna send it over to Will for the your questions answered.

B (31:11)

We'll be right back after this quick break. You may have heard of HelloFresh. They're the number one meal kit in America, making home cooking easier with chef crafted recipes and fresh ingredients delivered straight to your door. But this fall, they're serving up something even more to love. This isn't the HelloFresh you remember. It's bigger. HelloFresh has doubled its menu. Now you can choose from a hundred options each week, including new seasonal dishes and recipes from around the world. You can dig into better portions that'll keep everyone satisfied. I know the value of hellofresh because I've used it and when it arrives at my door, it just simplifies the whole week. The best way to cook just got better. Go to hellofresh.comtangle10fm now to get 10 free meals and a free breakfast for life. One per box with active subscription free meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's hellofresh.com tangle10fm to get 10 free meals plus free breakfast for Life.

E (32:16)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

C (32:44)

Now let's jump into today's reader question. Today's question comes from Charles in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania and he asks, I have seen a lot of trade agreements described as a framework of a deal. Can you guys do a follow up on the status of these deals and agreements? Are they still in the works? Are they still frameworks or are they actually fully fleshed out deals? Here's our response. When the US and another country reach a trade deal, they typically announce it as a framework rather than an official agreement. Both entities often need to take further action in order to implement the different facets of the trade deal, and the process for doing this can be slow and drawn out. The clearest example might be the European Union deal, which we covered as a framework deal back in July. A month later, the EU and the US released a joint statement outlining the official provisions that the two entities had agreed upon. And since then both sides have begun slowly implementing those provisions. For example, a recent European Council press release detailed how the US had issued adjustments to its tariff rates, while the European Union recently began adopting some of the regulatory guidelines that were included in that deal. But the situation, and the deal does remain fluid. The Trump administration later announced that it was threatening new safeguards on steel imports, which hadn't been part of the negotiations over the summer. The U.S. trade Agreement with China is another example of this kind of ongoing fluidity. In November, the White House announced that it had reached an agreement with China in which both countries would reduce tariff rates and China would purchase agricultural exports, including Soybeans, from the U.S. while both countries have adjusted their tariffs as promised, Bloomberg reported just this week that China's agreed upon soybean purchases have stalled, though Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said he expects China to fulfill its commitments by the end of the crop season. Additionally, President Trump recently announced a framework deal allowing Nvidia and other US Chip makers to sell some of their most advanced artificial intelligence chips to, quote approved customers in China, with the stipulation that the US government would receive a 25% cut of the profits. For a more detailed look at the status of these various trade deals, the law firm Reed Smith has a tariff tracker on its website that includes information on the tariff status of each country, whether the US has reached a deal with them, and if any other progress has been made on that deal. And we recommend checking that out if you want to learn more. All right, with that, I'm going to pass it back over to John to take us home on the rest of the newsletter. Thanks as always for listening and we'll talk to you soon. John, over to you.

D (35:24)

Thanks, Will. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. On Monday, the developer of Iceblock, an app developed to track reported signs of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, sued the Trump administration, alleging that it had improperly pressured Apple to remove the app from its App Store. In October, Apple pulled iceblock and other similar apps for violating the company's policies on apps that provide location information about law enforcement officers that can be used to harm such officers, individually or as a group. However, iceblock creator Joshua Aaron claims in the lawsuit that the Trump administration's efforts to remove the app violated free speech protections and asked the courts to confirm that he cannot be sued for creating the app. The Associated Press has this story and there's a link in today's episode description.

D (36:13)

Alright, next up is our numbers section. The number of times China is mentioned in the second Trump administration's NSS is 21 times, while in the first Trump administration's NSS it is mentioned 33 times. The number of times Russia is mentioned in the second Trump administration's NSS is 10 times, while in the first Trump administration's NSS it is mentioned 25 times. The number of times Europe is mentioned in the second Trump administration's NSS is 49 times, while in the first Trump administration's NSS it is mentioned 28 times and the number of times Iran is mentioned in the second Trump administration's NSS is three times, while in the first Trump administration's NSS it is mentioned 17 times.

D (36:57)

And last but not least, our have a nice day story Randy Filisfold managed a large farm near Antler, South Dakota that grew soybeans, canola and about 1,400 acres of corn. In September, Randy tragically lost his life in a crash, leaving his wife Kara grieving and his fields unharvested. That is until Randy's neighbors stepped up. Led by Wyatt Thompson and Andy Gates, 75 volunteers running 12 combines worked together to bring in Andy's last harvest in a matter of days. Days the love and friendship that made this harvest possible are impossible to put into words. The day was full of emotion, but I found so much peace in watching it unfold. Kara Phillisfoltz Shared on Facebook Sunny Skies has this story and there's a link in today's episode description alright, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled member membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'.

C (37:57)

All.

B (37:58)

Peace Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate Editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Head Bailey Saw, Lindsay Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.

D (38:38)

Hey, it's Marc Marin from WTF here to let you know that this podcast.

E (38:42)

Is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

D (38:45)

And I'm sure the reason you're listening.

E (38:46)

To this podcast right now is because.

D (38:48)

You chose it well.

E (38:50)

Choose Progressives Name your price tool and.

D (38:52)

You could find insurance options that fit.

E (38:54)

Your budget so you can pick the.

D (38:56)

Best one for your situation. Who doesn't like choice?

E (39:00)

Try it@progressive.com and now some legal info. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states. From holiday hosting to unforgettable gifts, Omaha Steaks delivers the world's best steak experience gift, family and friends, USDA Certified Tender steaks, juicy burgers, cozy and convenient comfort meals and so much more. Save big on gourmet gifts and more holiday favorites with omaha steaks. Visit OmahaSteaks.com for 50% off site wide during their Sizzle all the Way sale and for an extra $35 off, use promo code Holiday at checkout. Terms apply. See site for details. That's omahasteaks.com code holiday blood donation is Now More Inclusive More people are able to donate blood with the American Red Cross through FDA guidelines that eliminate eligibility questions based on sexual orientation. The Red Cross celebrates this historic change and welcomes those who may be newly eligible to donate blood. There's a place for for everyone in the mission of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is committed to achieving an inclusive blood donation process that treats all potential donors with equality and respect while maintaining the safety of the blood supply. Join us and help save lives. To learn more and make your appointment to donate blood, visit redcrossblood.org LGBTQ that's redcrossblood.org LGBTQ.