I'm Isaac Saul, and 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: 15 minutes.

What are monopolies?

Recently, Executive Editor Isaac Saul sat down for a conversation with political commentator and author of the BIG newsletter Matt Stoller to discuss monopoly and antitrust law. The two discussed the reach of corporations, the power of billionaires, the prevalence of wealth inequality, the collapse of Spirit Airlines, and more. You can listen to the interview in our podcast feed or watch it on our YouTube channel!

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump will hold a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the latest in the Iran war and peace negotiations. (The meeting)
2. The South Carolina state Senate voted down a measure to adopt a new congressional map that would have eliminated the state’s single majority-black district, which is represented by Rep. James Clyburn (D). (The vote) Separately, a circuit court judge blocked a request to temporarily pause the use of a new Florida congressional map designed to increase the state’s Republican representation in the House. Opponents of the new map said they will appeal the decision. (The ruling)
3. A chemical tank at a paper mill in Washington state imploded, killing at least one person, injuring nine, and leaving nine others unaccounted for. (The implosion)
4. President Donald Trump appointed former Attorney General Pam Bondi to the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, an advisory committee on artificial intelligence policy that includes several White House advisers and high-profile technology executives. (The appointment)
5. U.S. Southern Command announced that a strike on a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean killed one person and left two survivors, whom the U.S. Coast Guard is searching for. (The strike)

Today’s topic.

The 2026 Texas primary runoffs. On Tuesday, Texas voters participated in a slate of primary runoff elections, including a highly publicized Republican Senate primary between state Attorney General Ken Paxton and incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. Paxton defeated Cornyn by a 27.6-point margin and will go on to face state Rep. James Talarico (D) in the general election. 

Back up: President Donald Trump did not initially endorse a candidate in the Republican Senate primary. After neither Paxton nor Cornyn secured 50% of the vote in the March primary, the race moved to a runoff. Trump officially endorsed Paxton last Tuesday, drawing criticism from Republican senators across the country, several of whom warned the endorsement put a reliably red seat in jeopardy. 

In other races, state Sen. Mayes Middleton beat U.S. Rep. Chip Roy for the Republican nomination for attorney general, and state Sen. Nathan Johnson defeated former Galveston Mayor Joe Jaworski in the Democratic attorney general contest. In the race for lieutenant governor, the second-highest executive office in the state, state Rep. Vikki Goodwin won the Democratic runoff. 

Runoff Tuesday also featured other notable House races, including former Rep. Colin Allred’s victory over Rep. Julie Johnson for the Democratic nomination in TX-33. Johnson currently represents TX-32, and Allred formerly represented that district. Both ran for the new seat after the Texas legislature redrew its congressional maps to benefit Republicans. Rep. Christian Menefee won the Democratic nomination over Rep. Al Green in another race involving redrawn districts. Finally, in TX-35, Carlos De La Cruz (backed by President Trump) beat John Lujan (backed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott) for the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff Johnny Garcia advanced in a race that drew national attention after his opponent, marriage and family therapist Maureen Galindo, made remarks widely denounced as antisemitic.

President Trump congratulated Paxton on his victory and commended Cornyn on his career in the Senate. “John will remain my friend for a long time to come, as we both watch Ken become a fantastic, common sense Senator, one who is respected by all,” the president wrote on Truth Social. Speaking to supporters on Tuesday night, Cornyn indicated he will support Paxton in the general election, saying, “I’ve always supported the Republican ticket, and I intend to do so again in this general election.” 

In his victory speech, Paxton said, “We just sent a Texas-sized message to Washington.” Separately, Talarico released a statement calling Paxton “the most corrupt politician in America” and emblematic of “the broken system we’re running against.”

Today, we’ll get into what the right, left, and Texas writers are saying about the runoff results. Then, Executive Editor Isaac Saul gives his take.

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed on the result, with some arguing Cornyn’s time had come.
• Others suggest Paxton is aligned with the GOP base but presents significant risks as a general election candidate.

In PJ Media, Catherine Salgado explored Paxton’s win.

“Some of the squishier members of the Republican Party in his state — Cornyn included — find Paxton too hardcore, but Texas voters see him as a strong candidate for the same reasons,” Salgado wrote. “In contrast, Cornyn has long been a RINO and has more than once back-stabbed Trump, which probably lost him the latter’s endorsement. For instance, Cornyn promised to support Trump’s recess appointments and then blocked the nominees the very next day. Outrageously, Cornyn made the argument that Trump could face indictment for insurrection after the events of Jan. 6, 2021.”

“Paxton went on Real America’s Voice to accuse Cornyn of trying to incentivize Democrats to vote for him in the run-off. The Texas AG argued this is precisely why he opposes open primaries, where one doesn’t have to be registered with the party in question for a primary to cast a vote, while Cornyn supports them,” Salgado said. “Paxton has a high chance of becoming Texas’s senator now, as his Democrat opponent is likely to lose big in largely conservative Texas.”

In National Review, Jeffrey Blehar said “Texas Republicans roll the dice with Paxton.”

“There are many reasons why Texas Republican primary voters — a self-selectingly small subset of the voters who typically pull the lever for Republicans in general elections — have decided to jettison Senator Cornyn for a man who has countless scandals and public disgraces to his name,” Blehar wrote. “Most of the ones Paxton’s supporters will offer — wild claims that Cornyn is a secret amnesty-pushing gun grabber — are transparently farcical. Really it is about something more elemental and subrational: the fact that he represents the ‘old’ in a primary environment where MAGA demands the new and the different.”

“The fact that the race wasn’t terribly close suggests that it wasn’t Trump’s endorsement that nudged Paxton over the line… But even if Ken Paxton didn’t win this primary because of Trump’s intervention, Trump has every right and reason to claim him as one of his own: Paxton’s sordid and disgraceful career would have collapsed in any other era,” Blehar said. “Truly, [Trump] can ‘pick ’em’ in the primary, wielding the powers of the presidency as he does. But can he pick winners in the general election? That record is decidedly more mixed.”

What the left is saying.

• The left says Paxton’s win creates an opening for Talarico.
• Others suggest that Paxton’s alleged corruption could become the defining issue of the race.

In The New York Times, Jack Herrera explored “what Ken Paxton’s win means for James Talarico.”

“Over the past decade, the Texas Republican Party deftly navigated the rise of MAGA. It retained the backing of wealthy business interests in the state while expanding its support with middle- and working-class voters… But the party is weaker than it seems,” Herrera wrote. “Because Republican primaries, not general elections, frequently decide who is in power in Texas, politicians like Mr. Paxton often need only the votes of about 3% of the population to ultimately win office. That’s made it a lot easier for Republican politicians to drift to the right of Texas’ broader electorate.”

“This leaves an opening for a candidate like Mr. Talarico — a member of the Texas House of Representatives who blends progressive ideas with an overt embrace of his Christian faith,” Herrera said. “His most direct path to victory runs through college-educated voters, who are more likely to vote than those without college degrees. If Democrats can turn out these voters, particularly in places like Dallas and Austin, destinations for many prosperous transplants, they’ll increase the chances that he’ll prove recent polling right and eke out a narrow victory.”

In MS NOW, Paul Waldman said “Paxton’s win gifts Democrats their 2026 midterms strategy.”

“Though for years Democrats have hoped that the right combination of circumstances could turn Texas blue, the state remains consistently red… Paxton’s record, however, gives Democrats new hope. Much like Trump, it’s hard to list the Texas attorney general’s scandals because there are so many of them,” Waldman wrote. “Talarico recognized the importance of this issue early in the campaign. He held a press conference in January outside Paxton’s office to tout his own anti-corruption agenda. And after media outlets called the race for Paxton on Tuesday night, Talarico put out a video calling his opponent ‘the most corrupt politician in America.’”

“Corruption can help Democrats bridge the gap between policy and persuasion because while it absolutely implicates policy choices, it also transcends individual issues. It speaks to the profound dissatisfaction Americans are feeling about a system in which the rich keep getting richer and democracy keeps eroding further,” Waldman said. “Thanks to Trump, political corruption is already more visible than ever. Paxton’s nomination could make it the issue of the midterms.”

What Texas writers are saying.

• Some Texas writers are alarmed by the message sent by GOP primary voters.
• Others say Cornyn’s defeat marks the end of Bush-era politics in the state.

In The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Ryan J. Rusak called Paxton’s victory “bad news for Texas, America and conservatism.”

“Paxton’s ascension resonates because it is a blow for all the wrong things in politics: populism unmoored from principle, the elevation of combative personality over effectiveness, and the devaluing of character in our leaders — and, ultimately, ourselves,” Rusak wrote. “I’m struck by something a voter told Star-Telegram reporter Rachel Royster at a Keller polling place: Paxton is a crook, she said, but at least he’s not a ‘Republican in Name Only.’ Every voter gets to choose his or her own criteria for casting a ballot. But if some small deviation from a perfect voting record or perceived slight to President Donald Trump’s ego is enough to make corruption acceptable, the republic is at risk.”

“The idea that Cornyn lost because he wasn’t conservative enough is an excuse, a distortion of what conservatism actually means. Worst of all, it feeds a vicious cycle that will prevent actual conservative governing victories,” Rusak said. “The discounting of Cornyn’s steady but, yes, sometimes incremental achievements on behalf of conservative values and priorities reinforces a damaging fantasy view of politics: If our side only fights hard enough and never, ever compromises, we can crush the opposition and have 100% of what we want forever and ever.”

In The Texas Observer, Justin Miller wrote “Judgement Day comes for John Cornyn.”

“The well-over-$100 million that [Cornyn] and his allied GOP groups pumped into ads blasting out Paxton’s numerous and varied scandals — from letting a charged child sex offender off with a sweetheart deal to his alleged self-dealing while in office, to his sordid extramarital affairs and on and on — did nothing but line the pockets of local Texas TV affiliates,” Miller said. “Cornyn had repeatedly stated that Judgement Day would come for Paxton on runoff night. And the judgement that came was that the base of the party wants more Ken Paxton.”

“National politics observers are already handicapping the race to benefit Democrats because of Paxton’s unique weaknesses as a candidate. And there may be some truth to that. Surely Talarico has a much better chance of pulling off a generational upset in Texas against Paxton rather than the staid Cornyn,” Miller wrote. “But those who bet against Paxton do so at their own peril. As he’s proven time and time again, his perceived weaknesses have repeatedly morphed into political strengths. His victory Tuesday marks the final, if somewhat superfluous, nail in the coffin of the so-called Bush era of Republican politics in Texas.”

My take.

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

• Paxton’s victory over Cornyn puts us all in a lose–lose situation going forward.
• Trump’s endorsement probably helped Paxton as much as Cornyn’s misalignment with primary voters hurt him.
• I worry that voters tolerating Paxton’s long list of scandals is a sign our political cynicism is running deeper and deeper. 

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: There’s a lot to dislike about Tuesday’s results in Texas.

The result that overshadows all the others is the Republican Senate runoff, which will now officially pit a comically corrupt Republican against a progressive Democrat far to the left of most Texas voters in the general election. Each national party will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the contest, likely making it one of the most expensive Senate battles ever, while we all ruminate on the other things that money could have been spent on. If James Talarico wins, he’ll become a symbol of lefty politics and a lightning rod for Republican attacks about Democrats insisting on “transgender for everybody.” If Paxton wins, Republicans will have traded a longtime GOP senator with a basic respect for the rule of law for a lawless Trump loyalist.

Are we all excited?

As I said last week, I’m very curious to see how the five months between now and Election Day play out in the U.S. Senate. Republicans’ majority in the upper chamber now depends on two senators with independent streaks (Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins), one retiring senator who seems to loathe Trump (North Carolina’s Thom Tillis), one senator whom President Trump was instrumental in unseating (Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy), and now Sen. Cornyn. As a bloc, four out of the five of them could sink any Republican legislation if Democrats hold the party line. Republicans were having enough trouble passing legislation when they were relatively united, but now they’ll have to deal with the reality that Trump isn’t the only politician with a petty or vindictive streak.

While all this is interesting, the most important part of Tuesday’s result is not the vote counts, or the money that was (and will be) spent, but the radical cynicism about our political system that it will invite. A small piece of good news from the primary runoffs came from Democrats defeating an unhinged sex therapist who called for putting Zionists in detention centers and castrating pedophiles (a group which, she insisted, would also include a lot of Zionists). Yet this minor victory of political maturity over the extremism and absurdity gripping our politics is overshadowed by Paxton’s trouncing of Cornyn. 

It’s an odd dynamic to try to describe. Ken Paxton’s victory is both a symptom of the cynicism and a justification for it. I’ve blamed Trump for egging on primary voters to crush any Republicans who step out of line, but the truth is the voters themselves are the ones pulling the levers. Scott McKay at The American Spectator made this point, and a few others, in a piece criticizing my framing of Republicans’ Senate majority. Paxton is what Republican primary voters want right now just as much as Cornyn’s scalp was one of many intraparty trophies Trump is claiming for disloyalty. Paxton has supported the SAVE America Act, an election bill with two wildly popular provisions among Republicans: requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and implementing voter ID requirements. Cornyn backs the bill, too, but he refused to support blowing up the filibuster to pass it (until too late); Paxton went as far as offering to drop out of the race if Republicans got it across the finish line. 

Voters in Texas, apparently, much prefer Paxton’s seppuku-style support for the bill over Cornyn’s reticent abdication of the norms of the Senate, an institution whose value is not clear to them anymore. The prevailing mood of the country right now is dead set against the establishment, and Trump and his cohort have understood that mood better than anyone for more than a decade.

My concern is that if someone like Paxton continues to gather power, that political cynicism will compound. Paxton is a poster boy for unethical and corrupt political behavior. He is a walking embodiment of everything a cynic would wrongfully assume is true for all politicians, when really he is a farcical outlier. Juliana Lightsey at the Texan news outlet The Barbed Wire skillfully summarized the arc of his political career, which I’ll give an incomplete retelling of here:

Early on in his time in Texas politics, as a state House representative, Paxton profited from helping to approve government contracts awarded to companies he was invested in. He did not disclose his investments and claimed to have no knowledge of the state contracts. In 2015, he moved his investments into a blind trust, and then — in the kind of story that breeds the cynicism I’m talking about — got caught texting the trustee (a friend of his) to manage his stock trades in 2020.

Paxton has been indicted for defrauding investors, starting as far back as 2015. At one point he told other state legislators to invest in a company based in the town he was representing, without telling them that he’d make a commission on their investments. He misrepresented himself to the legislators as an investor in the company, which itself was later charged with securities fraud for misleading investors about its technology. Paxton was state attorney general by the time this went to court, and he managed to delay the case for nine years before striking a deal with prosecutors in 2024 to pay $300,000 in restitution and complete 100 hours of community service in exchange for the charges being dropped.

In 2020, a group of conservative attorneys in Paxton’s own office reported him to the FBI for bribery and abuse of office, accusing Paxton of misusing the office to aid Nate Paul, his friend and political donor, during an FBI investigation. Paul was later hit with felony wire fraud charges; the resulting investigation into Paxton led to his impeachment by the Texas state House, though the Texas state Senate voted not to convict him. Texas federal prosecutors handed the investigation off to U.S. Justice Department officials in late 2024, who quietly declined to prosecute him in the final weeks of Biden’s term. 

Meanwhile, four of the attorneys who reported Paxton were fired, and they then sued the attorney general for violating the Texas Whistleblower Act. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately ordered Paxton to pay $3.3 million to the attorneys and issue an apology, but the money had to come from state funds. The case bounced around the legal system until a separate judge ruled the office of the attorney general had to pay $6.6 million in April 2025, leaving Texas taxpayers on the hook for the settlement.

Paxton’s list of scandals goes on and on like this. It includes mortgage fraud investigations, publicly reported infidelity, backroom deals with donors and secret Uber accounts (shared with Nate Paul) so he could move his mistress to Austin and then transport her around Texas without being caught, lawsuit after lawsuit against organizations in his own state, and even the State Bar of Texas suing Paxton for professional misconduct after he brought forward unproven allegations that the 2020 election was stolen (Paxton, you might remember, tried to sue Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2020; the Supreme Court threw out his case). 

Now this man is one step away — and likely the odds-on favorite — to become one of 100 people in the “greatest deliberative body in the world.” 

Again: Paxton is both a symptom of political cynicism, and he justifies it. He is both an extraordinarily corrupt politician and also what the most cynical Americans view every politician to be. He’s an exception among politicians and proof of political corruption, all at once. 

In the end, I’m not sure how we break out of this cycle. I’m under no illusions that Washington, D.C. was once some sacred space that’s now being sullied; Paxton is a breed of politician that has always walked the halls of Congress. But, as of late, they seem to be spawning in bipartisan fashion: Bob Menendez, Henry Cuellar, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Eric Adams, Matt Gaetz, George Santos, Cory Mills and, of course, the sitting president. This is bad for my prediction of a return to decency, but it supports my theory of our new dividing lines, which include nihilists vs. existentialists and sycophants vs. dissenters. Paxton’s victory is a win for those nihilists and sycophants, and if he ends up as a U.S. senator then I’m certain his behavior will breed more of both. 

I just hope that whenever we realize that rolling a grenade into the room isn’t the best way to renovate it, it won’t be too late to reverse course. We better see the light soon, though. 

Take the survey: Who do you think will win the Texas Senate election in November? Let us know.

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

Your questions, answered.

Q: Given you have such a small team and include staff dissents in your articles, does this create tension between team members? How do you manage the potential or reality of this tension in an industry that deals in such heated topics?

— Mark from St. Petersburg, FL

Tangle: The short answer is: We disagree internally every day, and that does create a degree of tension among the editorial staff. 

The longer answer is: We welcome ideological differences, and we’ve gotten used to navigating the tension that comes with that commitment. Hiring bias is one of the practices that foments media bias as a whole, and since Tangle began building out its editorial team beyond Isaac three years ago, we’ve put a premium on bringing editors into the fold who have a range of political views. 

How do we handle the ideological clashes that naturally follow? We adhere to a few guiding principles. One, we debate ideas, not the other person. Almost never does a disagreement devolve into personally directed statements. If it does, it’s quickly called out. Two, we think of disagreements as a sign of respect; that is, a willingness to raise a conflicting viewpoint directly shows that we value each other’s ability to handle disagreement. Three, iron sharpens iron — by challenging one another’s arguments, we make them better. Lastly, we spend time together to get to know each other as our whole selves, not just coworkers. When you understand someone’s background and interests (and have fun together) it’s easier to argue in good faith. 

As you note, certain topics are more heated than others, and we don’t always reach a clean resolution by the time we publish a given piece. In those instances, we’ll clear the air in an internal chat (often by acknowledging what disputes remain and how we might resolve them when the issue comes up in the future) or by checking in individually. Of course, we also use the staff dissent feature to highlight different views.

A final note: Earlier this year, we “leaked” our internal messages to show how we handled challenging topics in four separate editions. If you want to see how we try to model constructive disagreement in real time, it’s a great peek behind the curtain.

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.

This day in history.

On May 27, 1937, a new steel cable suspension bridge painted in bright, international orange officially opened to the public. It broke the record for longest suspension bridge in the world at the time, spanning 4,200 feet and rising 220 feet over the Golden Gate waterway to connect San Francisco to Marin County. The bridge’s chief engineer, Joseph Strauss, commemorated the occasion. “The Golden Gate Bridge — the bridge which could not and should not be built — stands before you in all its majestic splendor, in complete refutation of every attack made upon it,” Strauss said.

Today, the Golden Gate Bridge is a vital piece of Bay Area infrastructure, a main economic artery for the state of California, and a global icon exemplifying the harmony between human achievement and nature. It carries an estimated 40 million cars, 2.3 million bikers and pedestrians, 2.2 million transit riders, and 800,000 freight vehicles annually — through the coastal fog, over choppy waters, despite occasional earthquakes, and set against stunning sunsets. You can learn more about the bridge’s four-year construction in this incredibly detailed 90-minute video — or share it with an engineering nerd you know and love.

Numbers.

• $19.9 million. The amount of advertisement spending and reservations on behalf of John Cornyn in the Texas Senate runoff, according to AdImpact.
• $5.1 million. The amount of advertisement spending and reservations on behalf of Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate runoff. 
• $7.4 million. The amount of advertisement spending and reservations in the 2022 Texas Congressional District 28 primary runoff, the most expensive primary runoff on record prior to the Texas Senate runoff. 
• 55%. The percentage of GOP primary voters who said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate in the Texas Republican Senate primary if the candidate was endorsed by President Trump, according to a January 2026 University of Houston/YouGov poll. 
• 9%. The percentage of GOP primary voters who said they’d be less likely to vote for the Trump-endorsed candidate in the Texas Senate primary. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered Trump criticizing Putin for an escalation in Ukraine.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the list of money-saving habits sponsored by The Penny Hoarder that appeared for free readers.
• Nothing to do with politics: The Cosmic Odometer.
• Our last survey: 2,274 readers responded to our survey on Tulsi Gabbard’s tenure as director of national intelligence with 56% strongly disapproving. “She failed as DNI. It was her job to inform the president to make an intelligent decision based on intelligence assessments,” one respondent said. “She was a somewhat intriguing wildcard who ultimately toed the party line once the chips were down,” said another.

Have a nice day.

At the Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society in Delta, British Columbia, a foster mother is teaching four owlets important skills to use in the wild — like fearing humans, flying, and catching prey. This caregiver is a great-horned owl named Casper, and she has been taking fledglings under her wing since 1999. Casper’s missing talons prevent her from returning to the wild, but her hands-on instruction has allowed volunteers to limit contact with the babies, which should help them survive when they are released. “She’s our trusted mom for the last 26 years, and hopefully she gets another 26 years,” Rob Hope, the manager of the society, said. CBC has the story.