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.

Correction.

In Tuesday’s edition on Hungary’s elections, we wrote, “Neither President Trump nor Vice President Vance has commented on the result.” On Monday evening, however, Vice President Vance spoke on the election in a Fox News interview, saying he was “sad” about Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s loss but not surprised by the outcome. 

We typically write the introduction to each edition the day before it publishes, and in this case, Vance’s comments came after it was drafted. While we have processes in place to make sure we don’t overlook updates to stories on the morning of, we missed Vance’s Fox News interview during our fact-checking process. 

This is our 154th correction in Tangle’s 359-week history and our first correction since March 31. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers.

Isaac interviews Casey Newton.

Recently, Isaac Saul sat down with journalist and Hard Fork cohost Casey Newton to unpack a major shift happening in tech: the growing legal and political push to hold social media companies accountable for how their platforms are designed. You can check it out here!

Quick hits.

1. The United States and Iran are reportedly close to an “in principle agreement” to extend the current two-week ceasefire to support ongoing peace talks. A second round of direct negotiations between the sides is expected to be held in the coming days. (The report) Separately, diplomats from Lebanon and Israel met in Washington, D.C. for discussions hosted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on a potential ceasefire. Both sides said the discussions were productive but did not announce any immediate agreements. (The meeting)
2. The Justice Department requested a federal court dismiss the convictions of 12 members of the right-wing extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for crimes related to the January 6 Capitol riots. President Donald Trump previously commuted their sentences, which included convictions of seditious conspiracy. (The request)
3. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the producer price index, which measures the costs to businesses to produce items before they reach retailers, rose 0.5% in March, below economists’ expectations of a 1.1% increase. (The numbers)
4. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that Ukrainian forces had captured a Russian position using only drones and an armed robotic defense system, a first in the war. (The announcement) 
5. Vice President JD Vance said he did not think President Trump’s recent criticism of Pope Leo XIV was newsworthy but suggested “in some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality.” Vance also defended Trump’s now-deleted Truth Social post appearing to depict the president as a Jesus-like figure, calling it a misunderstood joke. (The comments)

Today’s topic.

The Swalwell accusations. Last Friday, a former staffer for California gubernatorial candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) accused the Congressman of making unwanted advances, sexual assault, and rape. Three other women also came forward to accuse Swalwell of sexual misconduct, describing a pattern of sending explicit messages through Snapchat. Swalwell denies the allegations, but apologized for “mistakes in judgment” and dropped out of the gubernatorial race after losing prominent endorsements. The Los Angeles and Manhattan District Attorneys are investigating Swalwell over the alleged misconduct.

On Tuesday, Swalwell officially resigned from Congress. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who was embroiled in a separate sexual misconduct scandal, resigned later on the same day. The two lawmakers were subjects of House Ethics probes and were reportedly facing expulsion votes if they did not resign.

According to The San Francisco Chronicle, which broke the story, the former staffer said Swalwell first began sending her unsolicited graphic pictures over Snapchat in 2019, when she was 21 years old and working in the Democrat’s district office in the Bay Area. She said Swalwell also tried to kiss her in his car on one occasion and asked her to perform oral sex on him in a parking lot on another. The former staffer further alleged Swalwell raped her after a charity gala in 2024; she said she became heavily intoxicated but recalled trying to stop him from unwanted advances and waking up naked with the Congressman the next day. Afterwards, she messaged friends to say she had been sexually assaulted and described experiencing vaginal bleeding.

Hours after the Chronicle published its report, CNN released a separate exposé that included allegations from three additional women. One said she connected with Swalwell online and ended up drunk in his hotel room with little memory of what had occurred. Two others, Ally Sammarco and Annika Albrecht, came forward publicly to accuse Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including sending unsolicited nude photos. Sammarco said she believed he was attempting “to save face” by withdrawing from the gubernatorial race. “But I also felt very vindicated that he realized it was over for him,” Sammarco told CBS News.

On Tuesday, a fifth woman, Lonna Drewes, came forward to accuse Swalwell of drugging and raping her in a hotel room in 2018. Drewes said she and the former representative were friends but believes he spiked her drink at an event and had nonconsensual sex with her.

Swalwell — who is 45 years old, married, and has three children — has denied all of the allegations. “I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s,” Swalwell said in a post on X suspending his gubernatorial campaign on Sunday. California has a “top-two” open primary for governor, where every voter can participate in the primary, and the two leading candidates proceed to the general election in November, regardless of party. Swalwell had been the leading Democratic primary field; with his campaign suspended, several candidates are vying for nominations, with Republican Steve Hilton as another leading candidate.

Gonzales admitted to sending sexually explicit text messages to Regina Santos-Aviles, a then-33-year-old staffer with whom he had allegedly had an affair, in May 2024. Santos-Aviles killed herself in 2025. Gonzales, 45, is married with six children; he was first elected to Congress in 2020.

Below, we’ll dive into what the left, right, and California writers are saying about the accusations against Swalwell and the congressmen’s resignations. Then, Senior Editor Will Kaback gives his take.

What the left is saying.

• The left says concerns about Swalwell’s behavior have long existed, and that he should have been stopped sooner. 
• Some argue Swalwell’s rapid fall shows the Democratic Party can still wield power — but only when it wants to. 

In The American Prospect, David Dayen explored “Eric Swalwell and the death of accountability.”

“The truth, which will be available for all to see before long, is that Swalwell’s conduct with interns, young staff, and female fans was an open secret for a long time, and yet the party, if not Pelosi in this case specifically, had been supporting him and raising money for him. That speaks to a larger problem,” Dayen said. “There are public claims on social media going back to 2020; this more recent one is from an aide to one of his opponents in the governor’s race, Antonio Villaraigosa. There are more private claims that go back all the way to when Swalwell entered Congress in 2013.”

“This information was suppressed by the congressman and a community of supporters in ways that make victims uncomfortable with emerging,” Dayen wrote. “If you are a politician who is aware of a serial harasser or even assaulter in your midst, there are steps you can take to encourage victims to speak out, warn your colleague about what he is doing, and so on. The very least you can do is not endorse his attempts for higher office. That was an available path not taken in a Democratic Party that has a real problem with accountability, the same way the rest of our country does.”

In Bloomberg, Erika D. Smith wrote “ousting Swalwell was easy. Now comes the hard part.”

“[Swalwell’s] decision not only upends the race for Democrats ahead of the June primary, given that Swalwell had recently emerged as the party’s frontrunner to succeed a termed-out Governor Gavin Newsom,” Smith said. “It also could upend Congress, given that Swalwell announced on Monday that he was resigning from the House ahead of a likely expulsion vote this week. However, the real takeaway of Swalwell’s swift fall is what it says about the Democratic Party, and how and when the establishment chooses to wield power.”

“This flex by the Democratic establishment represents a marked departure from what preceded it. For months, while a crowded field of Democratic candidates increased the risk of a Republican candidate getting elected governor in November, the California Democratic Party largely feigned helplessness over shaping the race,” Smith wrote. “Flexing power in this way is righteous and just, but it’s also easy. It’s just another example of what Democrats do best in the Trump era, which is showing what they are against. Still, far less clear to voters is what the party stands for.”

What the right is saying.

• Many on the right argue Swalwell’s fall was coordinated by the Democratic Party after years of protecting him.
• Others highlight the lack of an investigation into Swalwell — and question the criminality of some of the allegations against him.

In Fox News, Jonathan Turley said “Eric Swalwell’s enablers knew the truth — and protected him anyway.”

“Swalwell has spent his entire career protected by an enabling establishment and liberal media machine. He was a made man in Washington, and those who made him protected him despite years of rumors and allegations of misconduct,” Turley wrote. “His greatest patron was former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who single-handedly saved Swalwell’s career when he was found to have had an affair with an alleged Chinese spy. She told the media, ‘I don’t have any concern about Mr. Swalwell.’ For most of the media, that was enough, and they slinked away.”

“The congressman’s alleged victims have lashed out not only at Swalwell but also at many in the establishment. They allege that they were rebuffed when they tried to bring their allegations to reporters,” Turley said. “If even half of these allegations against him are true, it shows the sense of license that Swalwell developed for years in Washington. He lost that political immunity this week and now faces real legal liability. That does not mean that Democrats will not try to control the damage. They want Swalwell to take a deal to avoid any investigations that will pull other Democrats into the vortex of the scandal.”

In The New York Post, Batya Ungar-Sargon suggested “Democrats hurt all women by covering up for Swalwell until now.”

“What happened to Eric Swalwell… was not a reckoning over gross behavior. It was a #metoo witchhunt, organized and motivated by the Democrats’ desire not to lose the governor’s race to either of the two leading candidates, both of whom happen to be Republicans,” Ungar-Sargon wrote. “Let me state clearly that I’m no fan of Eric Swalwell. I find his political persona to be gross and divisive. Moreover, if he actually raped any of these women or assaulted them, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

“But it’s also undeniable that the allegations described by CNN and other outlets include a lot of what seems like grey area. The women engaged in mutual, reciprocal, consensual flirtation in the DMs, followed by consensual heavy drinking. They may not have wanted to do it, but they did not relay those feelings to Swalwell ‘because of his position of power,’” Ungar-Sargon said. “Beyond politics, it seems like we have lost the ability to distinguish between immoral behavior — like being a married man hitting on a young woman — and criminal behavior, like assault and rape. And that doesn’t just hurt men; it hurts women.”

What California writers are saying.

• Some writers in California note the timing of Swalwell’s fall during a crowded race for governor.
• Others contend that the burden of shame has shifted from the accusers to the accused.

In The Spectator, Laura Powell said “Swalwell’s fall was electoral math not morality.”

“California’s June 2 primary uses the ‘jungle’ system so that all candidates appear on one ballot, and the top two — regardless of party — advance. Usually, that benefits Democrats. This year, it may not. That’s because Democrats crowded the field, with roughly eight candidates splitting the vote, while Republicans consolidated around two: Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco,” Powell wrote. “Before the scandal broke, Swalwell was polling in the mid-teens, alongside Hilton and Bianco, with the other Democrats clustered just behind. That distribution created a real (though still slim) risk of two Republicans advancing to November, shutting Democrats out entirely.”

“Complicating matters, it is too late for Swalwell’s name to be removed from the ballot. He will continue to draw votes from low-information voters, loyalists or those casting protest ballots. His exit reshuffles the field, but it does not necessarily resolve Democrats’ core concern about a split vote that could hand the governorship to a Republican,” Powell said. “If this were purely about misconduct, there would have been immediate calls for him to resign from Congress. There were not — at least not from his former allies. The urgency was tied to the governor’s race.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Katy Butler argued “Swalwell[’s] resignation shows that the default is no longer to shame accusers.”

“Swalwell could not erase what had been said or avoid consequences of those accusations. And, without prejudging the particulars of his case, that’s a good thing,” Butler wrote. “Until a decade ago, shame was a weapon wielded widely against female accusers to shut them up. Rich and powerful men largely dictated the public narrative. When accused of acquaintance rape or harassment, they followed a simple playbook: declare innocence or argue consent. In an era when ‘the news’ was largely defined by (male) top editors at a few gatekeeper media like the New York Times and the television networks, the tactics often worked.”

“To be sure, shame can be counterproductive… That is why we have courts, due process and sober systems of fact-finding — none of which have yet rendered any verdict about Swalwell,” Butler said. “For centuries, a small proportion of men — men we now call serial offenders — have sexually exploited and assaulted women because they knew society would usually let them get away with it. Many of them simultaneously sought public adulation. If the threat of humiliation discourages only a few of the next generation of Weinsteins and Epsteins — and they are out there already, operating in the shadows — shame will have proved its value.”

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.

• Resignation is the right step for both Gonzales and Swalwell — the legal ramifications can come in time.
• The fact that these consequences took so long to arrive reflects poorly on both parties and the media.
• That said, serious stories take time, and these outlets rightly solidified their reports before releasing them.

Senior Editor Will Kaback: Like anyone, now-former Rep. Eric Swalwell retains the presumption of innocence, and we should wait to see the outcome of the investigations and any trial that may arise from them before rendering final judgment. But these accusations are detailed and numerous — and demanding that a representative facing these claims resign doesn’t require a legal burden of proof.

The details of former Rep. Tony Gonzales’s accusations are different but disturbing in their own way. He admitted to an affair with a staffer who later killed herself; he was also accused by another former staffer of making unwanted sexual advances over text. He’s not under criminal investigation, but after admitting to the affair, he too has no place in Congress. 

I imagine it's difficult to give a satisfactory explanation or apology in a moment like this (even if you are innocent of the most serious charges), but in this instance, both men offered wholly unsatisfactory explanations and apologies. When he admitted to the affair, Gonzales barely acknowledged his behavior, alluding to a “lapse in judgment.” Instead, he focused his comments on claiming the story’s public release made him the victim of a “very coordinated attack.” Hardly contrite. 

Swalwell, for his part, has engaged in a kind of doublespeak that feels insulting to our collective intelligence. In announcing the end of his gubernatorial campaign, he apologized for “mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past” but vowed to fight the “false” accusations against him. In announcing his Congressional resignation, he again apologized for unnamed mistakes in judgment but again called the specific allegations false. I’ve seen enough PR speak to know a carefully crafted statement when I see one, but this is just incoherent. 

To be honest, these feeble statements and half-assed apologies aren’t worth any more attention than I’ve given them. What’s been seared into my mind since the Swalwell story broke last week are the stories of the women who came forward. The details are upsetting, but if you can, you should read the original San Francisco Chronicle and CNN reports and watch the videos of three of the women speaking about their experiences. Clearly, Swalwell’s alleged actions have caused years of anguish. Going public with their stories comes with risks to their personal and professional relationships and will invite scrutiny into their credibility. That scrutiny is inevitable — some of it will be in good faith, but much of it won’t be. I find their accounts credible, regardless of whether the women opted to identify themselves publicly, especially after reading about how the Chronicle and CNN corroborated their specific claims.

It can be difficult to balance the desire for consequences with the patience justice often requires, but as with Gonzales, the breadth and consistency of these stories should disqualify Swalwell from any position of power. In fact, depending on what the investigations uncover, that could be just the beginning of his extended reckoning.

Now, both political parties have questions to answer. Why did it take so long for these accusations to come to light? Swalwell’s Democratic colleagues spent years supporting his career and elevating him to powerful positions — even as his alleged misconduct reportedly became an open secret. Who knew about this, what did they know, and why didn’t they speak up? The same questions can be asked of Republicans about Gonzales, whose relationship with his staffer was reportedly also regarded as an open secret. 

The timing of Swalwell and Gonzales’s resignations also invites questions. It seems blatantly like a backroom handshake deal between Democratic and Republican leaders to avoid messy expulsion votes: We’ll sacrifice one of ours if you sacrifice one of yours. Are we really supposed to believe Gonzales’s colleagues, particularly on the Republican side, all became convinced he should resign at the exact same time the accusations against Swalwell became public? Again, it feels like an insult to our intelligence. 

Then there’s the media. Over the weekend, a handful of posts from reporters previously in Swalwell’s orbit suggested his alleged sexual misconduct was also widely known for years. A CNN article from 2017 described “more than half a dozen interviewees independently named one California congressman for pursuing female staffers.” Politico also ran a lengthy story about the “whisper network” surrounding Swalwell, writing, “Warnings about the lawmaker had long circulated privately.” 

My immediate reaction to these posts was anger. What exactly is a reporter’s job if not to investigate this kind of story immediately? Why let them fester until enough accusations pile up that the dam breaks? Many writers on the right (and a few on the left) picked up on this dynamic and published forceful criticisms of Swalwell’s media “enablers.” 

A couple of theories from conservative writers caught my attention. National Review’s Jeffrey Blehar said, “Anyone who had the power to push it as a story had no incentive to make it into one. As long as Swalwell was content to play ‘replacement-level representative,’ it apparently didn’t matter whom he might victimize; he was useful.” Jonathan Turley wrote (under “What the right is saying”), “The media will cover a scandal involving a leading Democrat if there is no real alternative.” 

I think each of these perspectives contains some truth. To Blehar’s point, Swalwell emerged as a TV-savvy critic of President Trump during the president’s first term; as the congressman’s star rose, some insiders may have been more interested in building rapport than digging into uncomfortable rumors. To Turley’s point, we’ve seen prominent Democrats receive fawning coverage, only for the public to later discover years of misbehavior that seemed like an open secret among insiders. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) was one such media darling at the start of Covid, only to be brought down by widespread claims of sexual misconduct; independent investigators later reported a pattern of this behavior dating back to 2013. 

Turley’s condemnation of media silence, however, risks brushing over the complicated reality of reporting on rumors. A select few journalists discussed these rumors openly when they knew about them. Others may have known but were unable to run with the story. The American Prospect’s David Dayen wrote that he chased down some leads about Swalwell’s misconduct after Swalwell entered the governor’s race, but Dayen found that alleged victims were already working with other reporters. “Victims decide when the story breaks, and it would actually be monumentally harmful and disrespectful to jump out in front of them without the hard evidence,” he wrote. 

I think he’s right. Turley claims in his piece that the media will only cover these stories if their hand is forced, but I don’t think any reporter would ignore a story like this if they had the opportunity to be the one to break it. As for TV networks — to be blunt, a Democratic congressman willing to go on TV to trash the president isn’t some rare commodity. The media wasn’t “protecting” Swalwell because he was uniquely valuable to them; the standard to publish the story wasn’t met until the accusers came forward. 

Remember: These stories have to go through rigorous scrutiny before they can be published, and having at least one victim willing to submit their story to media scrutiny and the discomfort of public attention is key, even if they remain anonymous. That can take years of building trust, conducting interviews, and going through multiple layers of review. Serious stories require serious process.

That doesn’t mean the media should get a free pass, or that the journalists who knew about Swalwell’s rumored behavior acted completely ethically. It just means that scrutiny is better applied to political leaders who worked and bonded with Swalwell over the years. Journalists have standards for what they publish and when, but virtually no one is in a better position to identify and call out misbehavior in their ranks than lawmakers themselves. 

Take the survey: What do you think of Swalwell’s resignation? 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.

We're skipping the reader question today to give our main story some extra space. Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

Recent studies and reports indicate that AI chatbots exhibit political biases that may be influencing users’ perception of events. A new report from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) recently found that various artificial intelligence systems show center-left political bias that influences the way their users think. Separately, a March study by Yale researchers found that chatbots exhibited liberal bias and that chatbots’ biases were persuasive to users. Fox News and YaleNews have the story.

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered the U.S.–Iran nuclear talks.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was a link to Jason Manning’s Substack describing honor culture.
• Nothing to do with politics: One man’s treasure trove of over 10,000 concert recordings is getting digitized.
• Our last survey: 2,232 readers responded to our survey on Hungary’s elections with 72% encouraged that Orbán lost and that Magyar won. “Too early to tell, but this might be just a reset for a postliberal way forward,” one respondent said. “I’m happy that Magyar won, but I have a bad feeling he has some aces up his sleeve,” said another.

Have a nice day.

The Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River in New Jersey entered rail service in 1910, serving as a key link in the journey between Newark, New Jersey, and New York City’s Penn Station. As the bridge aged, it became a source of congestion and delays on the railway; in particular, its low clearance over the Hackensack River required it to open to allow maritime traffic to pass through. In March, NJ Transit and Amtrak placed the first track on the new Portal North Bridge, which rises more than 50 feet over the river and will not have to shut down for river traffic. A second track will go into service in the fall, completing the broader program to double rail capacity between Newark and New York. Amtrak has the story.