Loading summary
Transcript21 lines
- [00:00]
Isaac Saul
What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.
- [00:36]
John Law
From executive.
- [00:37]
Isaac Saul
Producer Isaac Saul this is Tangle.
- [00:51]
Will K. Back
Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of our take. I am your host editor Will K. Back and today we're going to be talking about some more of President Trump's initial executive orders in his first week back in office, specifically his decision to withdraw the United States from both the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement. We're going to talk about what went into each decision, some of the potential consequences, some of the rationale on both sides, and a little bit about how this could affect the United States global standing in the longer term. Before that, though, we do have a correction to share. In Friday's review of Joe Biden's presidency, we wrote that Biden forgave 183 billion in student loans for 150,000 borrowers. In reality, though, Biden forgave the those debts. That 183 billion number was correct, but it was for roughly 5 million student loan borrowers over the course of his term. What happened was we inadvertently carried over that 150,000 number from the headline of an article we linked to about a specific forgiveness action later in Biden's term. And then we missed that error in our review. We apologize for that error. It's corrected on the website and in the newsletter we shared a breakdown of the totality of the administration's loan forgiveness program. If you are interested in checking that out. Overall, though, this is our 127th correction in Tangle's 286 week history and our first correction since January 15th. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter and this podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with our readers, our listeners, and our broader audience. All right, with that out of the way, I'm going to pass it over to John for our quick hits and today's main topic, and then I'll be back for my take and the reader question.
- [02:56]
John Law
Thanks Will and welcome everybody. Hope your day is off to a great start. Here are your Quick Hits. First up, U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement announced it had made 3,552 arrests since Thursday, including 1,179 arrests on Monday alone. Number two, the Senate confirmed Scott Besant as Treasury secretary in a 6829 vote, with 16 Democrats voting in favor. Number three, Acting Attorney General James McHenry fired more than a dozen lawyers who were involved with Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of President Donald Trump. Separately, a Trump appointed interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. opened an internal review of the Justice Department's prosecution of hundreds of January 6th defendants. Number four, President Trump signed executive orders banning transgender service members from the US Armed forces, ending the military's diversity, equity and inclusion programs and reinstating with back pay service members who were discharged for refusing COVID 19 vaccinations. And number five, a rebel group backed by Rwanda said it had captured the city of Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country's largest eastern regional hub. Thousands have fled the city as fighting between the rebels and Congolese forces continues.
- [04:26]
Will K. Back
The next item here is the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty.
- [04:35]
Unnamed Speaker
That was the moment President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, a worldwide pact that aims to fight global warming. The United States formally entered the Paris Agreement during the Obama administration in 2016. President Trump withdrew from it during his first term. President Biden rejoined it in 2021. The only other nations not part of the deal are Iran, Libya and Yemen. In a statement, the United nations climate change executive secretary said, quote, embracing the global clean energy boom will mean massive profits, millions of manufacturing jobs and clean air. Ignoring it only sends all that vast wealth to competitor economies, while climate disasters like droughts, wildfires and superstorms keep getting worse.
- [05:15]
John Law
The World Health Organization, meantime, has urged the US to reconsider its withdrawal from the Global Health Agency.
- [05:21]
Unnamed Speaker
It comes today after President Trump signed an executive order pulling out of the UN Agency, saying it mishandled the COVID pandemic and took unfair payments from the US The WHO responded to the decision today at a United nations press briefing.
- [05:36]
We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the United States of America and WHO for the benefit of the health and well being of millions of people around the globe.
- [05:54]
John Law
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed executive orders to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement as reasons for withdrawing from the who. Trump cited the political influence of member states and unfair contribution expectations of the United States. Further alleging that the health group had mishandled the COVID 19 pandemic and other health emergencies. The president stated that the Paris Agreement also put unfair burdens on the United States, removing the US from the international compact for the second time after President Joe Biden undid Trump's withdrawal order from his first term. Both withdrawals will require one year to take effect, though federal health agencies have been ordered to stop working with the WHO immediately. The World Health Organization is a United nations agency that connects nations, partners and people to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable, according to the WHO's website. Established in 1948, the WHO conducts research to inform global health policy with a mandate specifically focused on the treatment of public health emergencies and the eradication of infectious diseases. The Paris agreement, also a UN initiative, was adopted at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference COP21 or COP21, and has 195 current signators. As part of the voluntary pact, member nations agreed to adopt policies aimed at keeping the yearly global average temperature increase at or below 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, above pre industrial levels, with 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius as a secondary goal. The United States was the first country to withdraw from the pact in 2020 and remains the only country to do so, joining Iran, Libya and Yemen in abstaining from the agreement. The move immediately sparked backlash from global leaders and critics among the scientific community. The new US President's announcement to withdraw from the World Health Organization is a serious blow to the international fight against global health crises, german Health Minister Karl Lauterbach said. It is very important that the United States remain in the Paris Agreement and more than remain in the Paris Agreement, that the United States adopts the kind of policies that are necessary to make the 1.5 degrees still a realistic objective, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said. World health ripped us off. Everybody rips off the United States. It's not going to happen anymore, president Trump said while signing the order to withdraw from the who. The United States is by far the organization's biggest donor, providing roughly 18% of the organization's $6.8 billion two year budget for 2024 2025. Though membership in the Paris Accords does not cost the United States indirect funding, President Trump has said that committing to climate goals defined by the compact is unfair, hurting the United States ability to compete economically with China. Today we'll share what the right and left are saying about the withdrawals and then editor Will Kabeck will give his take.
- [09:07]
Unnamed Speaker
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [09:13]
Isaac Saul
What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.
- [09:50]
John Law
All right. First up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right supports Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, arguing it was ineffective and doomed to fail regardless of what the US Does. Many also approve of withdrawing from the who, suggesting the organization has become compromised by fealty to China, others saying the US Leaving the Paris agreement is an opportunity for Europe to adopt more realistic climate goals. National Review's editors wrote about forgetting Paris Trump regards the Paris Accord as unfair, one sided and a ripoff. While one sided is an exaggeration, European nations have done more to manage their economies in the interests of Paris than the US has otherwise. The agreement is indeed woefully misbegotten, the editor said. The emphasis placed in the Paris Accord on cutting carbon emissions has also led to a massive reallocation of resources toward renewable and other technologies that were not and are not ready for prime time. Much of that money would have been better devoted to nuclear power adaptation and strengthening resilience to whatever the climate may eventually bring our way. There is another small problem with the Paris Agreement. It is failing and it will continue to fail. Countries are quite predictably not sticking to their commitments, and their failure to abide by them will increase as their commitments become more onerous. The average Global temperature in 2024 was more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels, crossing a threshold that Paris was meant to avoid, the editors wrote. Such targets are incompatible with political stability, surging global energy demand and the reality that even as GHG emissions fall in the Western world, they are rising in other poorer countries as they too aim for a better life. In the Washington Examiner, Martin Collop argued the WHO should blame its own failures for Trump's withdrawal. The COVID 19 pandemic exposed the WHO's inadequacies on the global stage. Early in the crisis, the organization echoed Chinese Communist Party propaganda, downplaying the severity of the outbreak and delaying the declaration of a global health emergency Meanwhile, brave whistleblowers in China, including doctors attempting to alert the world to the emerging threat, were silenced, Cullip said. Beyond its communication failures, the WHO's pandemic response was marred by inefficiency and waste. Reports reveal that the organization spent $200 million annually on luxury travel and including first class flights and five star accommodations, a glaring misuse of funds meant to address urgent health crises. Given these systemic problems, the US is justified in reconsidering its relationship with the who. Terminating funding and withdrawing from the organization sends a clear message that American taxpayers will no longer subsidize an institution that prioritizes political agendas over public health, Cullip Ruth. While withdrawing from the who, the US must simultaneously invest in alternative mechanisms for global health collaboration. Bilateral partnerships, regional coalitions and support for non governmental organizations can ensure the US continues to play a leading role in addressing global health challenges without being tethered to a dysfunctional institution. In the Wall Street Journal, Joseph C. Sternberg said Trump gives European leaders an excuse to dump bad policies Mr. Trump's abandonment of the decade old global climate agreement is as strong a signal as Washington can send that the new administration doesn't care about an issue that Europeans have come to understand in quasi religious terms, sternberg wrote. Note, however, that Mr. Trump at least isn't perpetuating the far bigger affront President Biden committed against our European friends lying to them. Mr. Biden acted as though there were a political consensus in America in support of the policies Europeans liked when there was obviously none. The Democrat rejoined the Paris climate deal despite the Senate's refusal over many years to ratify it and Mr. Trump's first attempt to withdraw from it. Mr. Trump, for all his inconsistency as an ally, at least now is telling Europe the truth about America, which is the best thing any US leader could do for them, sternberg said. Europe can't afford its climate commitments, whether the cost is measured in subsidies dispersed by cash strapped governments or economic growth foregone. Yet European voters remain stubbornly committed to the policy goal for which they no longer want to pay. Mr. Trump is offering an off ramp for politicians struggling to manage this cognitive dissonance. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes the WHO withdrawal, but some say Trump and the organization can still reach a compromise. Many criticize the decision to pull out of the Paris agreement and the message it sends about the US's climate commitment. Others say Trump's rapid withdrawal from international agreements is already hurting the global order, the Washington Post's editorial board wrote. Trump's withdrawal from the WHO is a mistake but also an opportunity President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization could severely damage American interests. If his order stands, the US Government will find it more difficult to track and fight infectious diseases around the world. The United States relationships with allies will suffer, and its adversary's influence over the management of viral threats will increase, the board said. Yet it is still possible to avoid these outcomes. The Trump administration could make its withdrawal conditional and use it as leverage to negotiate needed reforms to the whole. Trump is right to point out that the United States funds a larger share of the organization's budget than any of its peers do, including China and India, which have much larger populations. He is also correct to note that during the COVID pandemic, the WHO made critical missteps. But the reforms the WHO needs don't involve addressing past grievances, the board wrote. The United States needs the WHO as much as the WHO needs the United States. America cannot stop pathogens from crossing its borders. It needs international organization to monitor diseases the world over, especially in countries that are unlikely to welcome US Investigators. Meanwhile, the WHO needs the United States not only for its financial support, but also for its public health expertise. In Bloomberg, Mark Gangloff called Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement a moral disgrace. It's tempting to think of ways to play down Trump's decision to abdicate global leadership on climate he's done this all before. The clean energy transition is strong enough to overcome. Maybe China will save us, gangloff said. But when you consider just how starkly isolated the US Will be from the rest of the world on this issue, along with the fact that it is history's most prolific carbon polluter and still the world's biggest economy and second largest carbon emitter after China, you can see Trump's decision for what it a moral disgrace and an act of self sabotage. Trump's sabotage adds momentum to the growing political backlash against climate action around the world, including in the European Union, which has the world's third largest economy and is the world's fourth biggest carbon emitter. Green parties took their heavy losses in parliamentary elections last spring, and climate skeptical far right parties are gaining power, gangloff wrote. It's true that the aims of the Paris Accords are rapidly slipping away, but the Paris Accords have helped focus the world on climate action, which has made some of the direst warming forecasts less likely. In msnbc, Hayes Brown said America's treaty withdrawal whiplash is making the world less safe. The phrase strategic ambiguity is often used to describe American policy toward China and Taiwan, where the US never makes it entirely clear how far it'll go in defending the island from the mainland. But that's a very specific case balancing competing interests what we're seeing from Trump is a much more random ambiguity that is bad for international relations. Withholding clarity gives other actors the chance to fill in the blanks in ways that may lead to misunderstandings that can be downright dangerous, brown wrote. The back and forth over the Paris Agreement and the WHO and whichever other international bodies come under fire next is detrimental to the US in both the short and long run. In the short term, it is entirely self defeating to remove America's diplomats and resources from a pool of resources that are meant to combat truly global threats. Pandemics and climate change don't care about lines drawn on a map, as we've seen over the last five years, brown said. In the long term, treaties and other vehicles of international law are meant to be the antithesis of ambiguity. The liberal rules based order that the United States has overseen since the end of World War II has depended on the idea that these agreements are negotiated in good faith with nations that intend to abide by these words. Alright, let's head over to Will for his take.
- [19:03]
Will K. Back
Alright, that is it for what the right and left are saying. Which brings us to my take. Reminder. I'm editor Will K. Back and I authored today's My Take. When I read about President Trump withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement, I wasn't surprised, but it still felt like a bit of a gut punch. The withdrawals felt like an abrupt withering of the US's interest in global leadership. And while Trump can justify his decisions based on some of the recent failures of the WHO and the Paris Agreement, the withdrawals still carry significant risks for public health and climate change mitigation, which the Trump administration has not shown a plan to address. I come to this topic as someone who thinks the missions of the WHO and the Paris Agreement serve US interests. However, I also think both have failed to execute their missions in meaningful ways and shoulder their considerable share of the blame for growing U.S. skepticism about cooperating with them. First, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement won't change our climate change outlook much, but it's a missed opportunity to redirect U.S. climate policy toward a more realistic and effective path. The treaty's goal of keeping global surface temperatures to roughly 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels is now practically unachievable after record hot years in 2023 and 2024. And its secondary 2 degrees Celsius goal also appears to be in peril. A 2024 UN Environment Program report stated that emissions must fall 28% by 2030 and 37% from 2019 levels by 2035. To maintain that 2 degrees Celsius goal and achieving those reductions would ultimately require massive destabilizing changes to economic systems around the world, including our own economic system, and those are neither desirable nor plausible. However, that reality provides more justification for the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement, not drop out of it. In his executive order announcing the withdrawal from the treaty, Trump said the US Must play a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment, end quote. But how can we lead from the sidelines? Withdrawing is a huge missed opportunity to direct international climate policy towards its biggest problems China's rise and advancing alternative fuel sources. To wit, right now Western countries are actually doing a pretty good job of reducing their CO2 emissions, particularly the U.S. the rhodium group consultancy recently estimated that even if the Trump administration rolls back all of Biden's climate executive actions and repeals the Inflation Reduction Act's incentives, U.S. emissions would still be 24 to 40% below 2005 levels in 2035. The problem is that China's output has increased enough to offset that positive momentum. Addressing that challenge is only possible through global partnerships. And by pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Trump is saying that the US has no interest in even trying domestically. Trump is also missing a huge opportunity to combine a center right quote all of the above energy policy policy with a center left quote abundance agenda, one that maintains a seat at the table for petroleum and natural gas while we continue to invest in renewable technologies. Nuclear energy should also be a part of that effort, and its adoption is squarely in line with both the Trump administration and the Paris Agreement's stated goals. However, the impacts of withdrawing from the Paris Treaty are less immediately concerning and also less tangible than the repercussions of withdrawing from the whole for one, we're just emerging from a global pandemic that should serve as a stark reminder of just how easily infectious diseases can spread in our connected world. If the memory of COVID wasn't enough, growing fears about the spread of bird flu right now underscore the serious threats we're currently dealing with. The WHO does critical work tracking these new disease outbreaks and identifying emerging pathogens, and the US withdrawal threatens its ability to continue this work and the benefits we receive as a result of it. Furthermore, our status as a global health leader within WHO is smart diplomacy and advances our national security interests, too. We can guide ongoing efforts to eradicate polio, protect children from diseases, and mitigate future outbreaks. We also receive benefits from our membership, like communications on transnational spread of dangerous viruses, scientific collaboration for each year's seasonal flu vaccine, and access to information about emerging threats. Lastly, we can investigate global threats as we did when US scientists joined the Hu delegation that visited China in February 2020 to assess its Covid response. As with the Paris agreement, though, the WHO has significant problems that warrant scrutiny. Both Trump and public health experts have rightly criticized the effusive praise the WHO offer China in the early days of the pandemic, even as questions swirled about the virus's spread. In a critical moment for its mission, the WHO seemed more occupied with keeping China happy than fulfilling its obligations to the rest of the world. The organization's other failures at the start of the pandemic, like the length of time it took to acknowledge that Covid was airborne, add credence to the idea that it was ill prepared to meet the moment. The WHO also has significant other issues. For one, its reliance on voluntary contributions from members has, by its own assessment, created pervasive challenges for operations on a year to year basis, which has also been exaggerated by some pretty questionable spending practices. Trump is also right that the US Contributes a disproportionate amount to the WHO compared to China, even though Trump has exaggerated the magnitude of that difference and we should push for fairer standards. While it is now starting to diversify its revenue sources, the organization's reliance on the US is really evident in the measures it has already taken since Trump announced the withdrawal order, freezing recruitment and drastically scaling back its travel budget. Furthermore, the organization's decentralized governance structure seems to have contributed to its lackluster response to other recent public health threats, like the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Also, its dual role as a public health agency and an international coalition creates an inherent tension. With all those issues in mind, leaving the WHO is still not the answer. In fact, leaving will make the who's problems worse. In our absence, China would likely seek to step up to mold the decisions to its will. And it's fair to ask, how does that help the U.S. if Trump wants to play tough with the who, why not stay involved but slash our funding commitments? At the end of the day, my criticism of the Paris and WHO withdrawals is fundamentally the same. We should be using our leverage in these commitments, not dropping out entirely. We should push for other countries to pay their fair share and call out failures where they exist. We should seek to balance the US's international commitments with its domestic ones, and we should be comfortable with changing our relationships if those issues persist. But instead, Trump has chosen to cut off our nose to spite our face.
- [26:38]
Unnamed Speaker
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [26:44]
Isaac Saul
What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.
- [27:23]
Will K. Back
All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This question comes from Dan in Minnesota. Dan asks, is the ability for a President to sign executive orders and pardons in the Constitution? It seems like a pretty unchecked balance of power and highly undemocratic. Also, is the lack of a voting process and terms for Supreme Court justices constitutional? I'm guessing the argument is that the President is voted in, so that makes it democratic. But according to that logic, the President could just as well appoint all the Senate and or Congress, right? Why is the SCOTUS different? We elect judges at a state level but not a federal one. And finally, given the two realities mentioned above, what would you suggest for a 40 year old non white male like myself to do to challenge these issues? Ari Weitzman, Tangle's Managing editor, writes, first, yes, pardons are defined under the powers of the President in the Constitution. For executive orders, you can think of them as how the President executes the laws rather than what the laws are. In abstract, they're perfectly legal, but they can be challenged as ordering negligence in enforcing the laws, breaking existing laws, or defying the Constitution. Next, yes, the power to appoint justices is granted to the President by the Constitution with Senate confirmation, but our founders conceived of the legislature as the real voice of the people. Also, some judges and justices are elected, but others aren't. You could argue that electing Supreme Court justices is theoretically democratic, but an independent or quasi independent judiciary is arguably in the country's better interest. Finally, I always recommend that people should volunteer to support initiatives that are important to them, whatever they are. Not everything has to be about the government or politics, but if you feel strongly about checking executive power, you could join, say, a citizen action group to push for reform. I'm sure there are some of your friends or your neighbors or family members who are also getting suspicious about pardon power after the last few weeks we've had all right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back over to John for the rest of the podcast and I will talk to all of you later this week. Have a great day.
- [29:50]
John Law
Thanks, Will. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about an attempt to create the country's first religious charter school. In 2023, the Oklahoma statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve the online Catholic school Saint Isidore as a charter school, but Oklahoma Attorney General Gettner Drummond challenged the decision, arguing it violated state law requiring charter schools to be non sectarian. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with Drummond and the school appealed to the Supreme Court, which will now hear arguments in the case in April. The case is the latest test of the Court's willingness to allow public funds to support religious entities. SCOTUS blog has this story and there's a link in today's episode Description alright, next up is our numbers section. The range in annual U.S. contributions to the World Health Organization over the past decade is 163 to $816 million, according to KFF. US global health funding as a share of the federal budget in fiscal year 2024 is less than 0.1%. The percentage of total international health assistance contributed by the US in 2022 was 32%. The percentage of the WHO's 2022-2023 budget that came from voluntary contributions is 88%. The projected global temperature rise of pre industrial averages by 2100 under the current climate policies of the Paris agreement signators is plus 4.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2.7 degrees Celsius, according to the Climate Action Tracker. The percentage of Americans who say the United States should participate in the Paris climate accords is 68%, according to a September 2023 Chicago Council survey. The percentage of Republicans and Democrats, respectively, who say the United States should participate in the Paris climate accords is 45% and 88%, and the percentage of Americans who think the federal government should do more to help reduce the efforts of climate change is 56%, according to a June 2023 Pew Research survey. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Fast fashion typically creates low quality, cheap products that are worn a handful of times and then discarded. However, the Swedish company Circulose has made a huge step towards changing this pattern, creating a new method for recycling textiles into brand new high quality clothing made 100% of recycled material. Popular clothing brands such as Zara and H and M have already taken steps to bring these products into their stores. Reasons to Be Cheerful 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, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. You can also head over to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up for a premium podcast membership which gets you ad free daily podcasts, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content and so much more. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Will and the rest of the team, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day y'all. Peace.
- [33:02]
Unnamed Speaker
Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Duke Tully Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will K. Back daily, Saul and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website@readtangle.com that's readtangle.com.
- [33:39]
Isaac Saul
If you wear glasses, you know how hard it is to find the perfect pair. But step into a Warby Parker store and you'll see it doesn't have to be. Not only will you find a great selection of frames, you'll also meet helpful advisors and friendly optometrists. Yep, many Warby Parker locations also offer eye exams. So the next time you need glasses, sunglasses, contact lenses or a new prescription, you know where to look. To find a Warby Parker store near you. Or to book an eye exam, head over to warbyparker.com retail.