The Signal chat controversy and everything else we missed.

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: 16 minutes.

A note from Isaac.

Dear readers,

It’s cliche to say “a lot can happen in a week.” At this point, it’s become a cliche to say that “it’s cliche to say ‘a lot can happen in a week.’” But a lot did happen while we were on break. So, today, let me start with a quick flourish on a single week in March of 2025: 

The White House, fearing a narrower House majority after a few upcoming special elections, pulled the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to be U.N. ambassador. The administration also pulled its nomination of Dave Weldon to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and replaced him with Dr. Susan Monarez, a respected establishment choice. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was effectively dissolved, with the entire organization reduced to just a dozen or so employees. The Department of Homeland Security also gutted its civil rights team, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced 10,000 jobs would be cut at HHS. 

Meanwhile, the Senate confirmed Michael Kratsios to lead the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and confirmed Jay Bhattacharya and Marty Makary to National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posts, respectively. Then, Dr. Peter Marks, a top vaccine official at the FDA, resigned, citing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s “misinformation” and “lack of transparency.” 

Separately, the administration came under intense scrutiny after a video of masked immigration officers arresting a Tufts University international graduate student on the street went viral. The allegations against the student, Rumeysa Ozturk, appear to be linked to the publication of an op-ed in Tufts’s student newspaper, in which she advocated for a ceasefire in Gaza and called on the university to divest from Israel (you can read the piece here). Ozturk is one of approximately 300 students who have had their visas revoked for “pro-Hamas” activity, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Meanwhile, immigration lawyers for several people deported to El Salvador’s maximum security prison have begun filing claims that their clients were not only falsely identified as gang members, but had legally filed for asylum and did not have any criminal records.

Trump also revoked the legal status of 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who were given parole during the Biden administration. Then, he signed a (sure to be challenged) executive order seeking to overhaul U.S. elections, which included a requirement to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote. 

Columbia University caved to Trump’s demands in order to begin negotiations to regain $400 million in federal funding, and then its interim president resigned. PBS and NPR’s leaders testified before Congress on federal funding support for public broadcasting. After the law firm Paul Weiss caved to Trump’s demands for $40 million in free legal work for causes the president supports, a second law firm struck a deal with Trump to provide $100 million of pro bono work in hopes of avoiding an executive order targeting the group’s pro bono activities and DEI initiatives.

In other court news, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden admin regulation on ghost guns, declined to hear casino mogul Steve Wynn's challenge to a defamation law, and took up a case about whether states can tax Catholic charities and religiously affiliated groups. The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to halt a judge’s order to rehire thousands of probationary federal workers, and then an appeals court refused to halt the same order. An appeals court also maintained a block on Trump’s sweeping federal funding freeze, while a judge separately ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reinstate fired employees, preserve its records, and return to work. Two law firms then sued Trump for targeting them with punitive executive orders. 

In Wisconsin, the race for control of the state Supreme Court has hit a fever pitch, with Elon Musk barnstorming the state in support of the Republican nominee. Musk offered a $1 million giveaway to attendees of a rally who had voted in the election, then deleted his post over concerns about running afoul of state law, then relaunched the giveaway for those who had signed a petition against “activist judges.” Musk also surprised everyone by announcing the sale of his social media platform X to his artificial intelligence startup xAI. Meanwhile, Democrats won a Pennsylvania state senate seat while Republicans are going on defense in a Trump-heavy Florida district hosting a special congressional election. 

With all this going on, rapid economic developments have continued. Trump announced new auto tariffs in a major trade war escalation while egg prices fell precipitously amid a sudden drop in bird flu cases and an increase in egg imports. Global stocks continue to slump on the threats of tariffs, and Goldman Sachs raised the odds of a recession to 35% while U.S. home sales rose unexpectedly in February. A key consumer confidence index slid to a 12-year low, while Trump’s net favorability ratings hit an all-time high and the percentage of Americans saying the country was on the right track reached 45%, the second highest since 2009 (make that make sense). 

Looking abroad, the U.S. continues to push for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, though Trump is reportedly upset that Vladimir Putin appears to be dragging his feet. Four U.S. soldiers went missing after a training mission — their armored vehicle was found submerged in a body of water in Lithuania, and three have been found dead. Vice President JD Vance traveled to Greenland and made the case that Greenlanders should choose independence from Denmark and embrace a military partnership with the U.S. to preserve their economic and military security. Israel struck the largest remaining hospital in southern Gaza during a renewed offensive, claiming Hamas was housing operatives in the building. On Saturday, Hamas accepted a new Gaza ceasefire deal from mediators in Egypt and Qatar, which would have required the release of five living hostages in exchange for aid flowing back into the strip. Israel rejected the agreement and made a counterproposal. 

Elsewhere, South Korea’s Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was reinstated as acting president after his impeachment was overturned, Sudan’s army was accused of killing hundreds in an airstrike on a market in Darfur, and a Japanese court dissolved the controversial Unification Church. 

And all of this — this entire, incomplete list of the news from the last week — is to say nothing of arguably the biggest U.S. story of them all: The story of a reporter from The Atlantic being inadvertently added to a Trump administration group chat on the messaging app Signal for coordinating strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The story burst onto the national media stage in a way very few have in the first few months of the Trump administration. Democrats are demanding investigations into the mix-up, with some Republicans joining them. The administration spent all of last week defending itself and addressing criticisms about what had happened, and now a federal judge is ordering the administration to preserve chat logs from the conversation. 

So, today, we thought it pertinent to give that story a Tangle-style breakdown — with views from the left, right, and then my take — even though it’s a week old, because it’s still unfolding, right before our eyes. Then we’ll have today’s “Quick hits” and some of our other standard sections to round out our return from break.

Best,

Isaac & the Tangle team

Today's topic.

The Signal intelligence leak. On Monday, March 24, The Atlantic published a partial transcript of communications among Trump administration officials as they discussed impending military operations against the Houthis in Yemen over the Signal messaging app. The outlet’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, had mistakenly been added to the chat and was privy to sensitive discussions about the details of the attack (including types of aircraft, missiles and launch times, as well as the name of a CIA operative). Goldberg’s initial article omitted parts of the group’s communications on the grounds that it could jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel, but he published the entire transcript on Wednesday after several administration members disputed his characterization of their contents. 

Back up: Signal is a free messaging app that offers end-to-end encryption, a technology intended to prevent unauthorized parties from reading communication between devices as they are transmitted. This feature has made it popular with journalists and their sources; however, the app itself can still be hacked. 

Goldberg reported that on March 13, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz sent him a request to join a private Signal group that included several high-level Trump administration figures (and their staffers) to discuss preparations for potential strikes against the Houthis. The group deliberated over the next two days, with an account identified as Vice President JD Vance expressing reservations about the attack, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth advocated for immediate action. On March 15, Hegseth said that the strikes were to begin shortly and shared information on targets, weapons systems and attack sequencing; roughly two hours later, the first strikes were carried out. 

After The Atlantic story broke, Waltz said he took “full responsibility” for the leak but suggested that Goldberg could have added himself to the group or gained access through a technical error, claims refuted by Goldberg’s reporting. Furthermore, Waltz, President Donald Trump and other administration figures have sought to downplay the contents of the chat, arguing that no classified information was shared. Trump also reiterated his support for Waltz and Hegseth, saying on Saturday that he did not plan to fire anyone involved in the leak. 

Congressional leaders from both parties have called for investigations into the episode and criticized the administration’s use of Signal for sensitive deliberations. On Thursday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI) sent a letter to the Pentagon's inspector general asking him to investigate how Goldberg ended up in the chat. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she was not likely to launch a criminal investigation into the incident, saying that the information shared in the group was not classified.

Separately, on Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to preserve its communications on Signal (the app allows users to automatically delete messages after a set amount of time) from March 11 to March 15. 

Today, we’ll share perspectives on the incident from the right and left. Then, my take.

Agreed.

• Commentators on the right and left agree — to varying degrees — that the Trump administration is at fault for the leak.
• Many also say that Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat was a significant security lapse.

What the right is saying.

• Many on the right say the episode reflects poorly on some members of the administration but note the important insights it provided into their foreign policy.
• Some argue the story is being blown out of proportion by the left.
• Others worry about the leak’s ramifications for America’s global security standing.

The Washington Examiner editorial board wrote about “the Trump administration’s Signal group chat leak and its consequences.”

“The use of Signal, a commercially made end-to-end encryption application available on most mobile devices, to discuss sensitive national security matters certainly predates the Trump administration. CIA Director John Ratcliffe also testified under oath that Signal was loaded onto his work computer and that he was briefed on the application’s permissible use to discuss sensitive matters with administration colleagues,” the board said. “National security adviser Mike Waltz has admitted that he ‘built the group’ in question… Waltz shared information about the outcome of the attacks, including that ‘the first target, their top missile guy, we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.’ It is hard to imagine how this could not be classified information.”

“If there is a silver lining to the release of the Signal chat, it is that the discussion portrays a thoughtful, collaborative, and candid group of advisers doing their best to provide counsel to Trump. This is not an echo chamber of ‘yes-men.’ There is disagreement, it is expressed professionally, the disagreement is acknowledged and responded to, and the group moves on,” the board wrote. “But no one outside the administration should have ever seen it. Trump was lucky that his team’s sloppiness did not get anyone killed.”

In Townhall, Ben Shapiro explored “security breaches and the infamous Signal chat.”

“First, this was obviously a mistake. It was not a purposeful leak of intelligence information to our enemies. And Hegseth has claimed that it did not include names, targets, locations, units, routes, sources, methods or other classified information. This would mean that no criminal activity occurred,” Shapiro said. “Second, procedure-based scandals have gone the way of the dodo bird. When James Comey refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton in 2016 on the basis that she had not intended to disseminate classified information — and that her negligent handling of classified information did not constitute lawbreaking — he essentially wiped out all similar potential scandals in the future.”

“This scandal is procedural in nature. It doesn't match up to the ire unleashed by some of the Trump administration's loudest critics. One cannot help but guffaw while listening to Susan Rice — who presided over the Russian invasion of Crimea as Obama's national security adviser, and then served in the Biden administration as he presided over the collapse of Afghanistan — label the Signal chat ‘the biggest national security debacle that any professional can remember,’” Shapiro wrote. “In the end, this is what Americans will care about: Is the Trump administration steadfastly pursuing American security?”

In National Review, Noah Rothman said “the Signal leak’s fallout is serious.”

“The text thread burns intelligence provided to the U.S. by our Israeli counterparts, which hostile counterintelligence analysts can trace back to its sources to limit or prevent future disclosures. In the worst case, the leak exposes the human sources on the ground inside Yemen who provided information that was eventually captured by Israeli and U.S. intelligence networks,” Rothman wrote. “Even more troubling is the potential that this leak will convince America’s allies to throttle U.S. access to their intelligence products in the legitimate fear that such candor would imperil their own sources, methods, and assets.

“It is still best practice to avoid the temptation to catastrophize. The conversation that this leak exposed provided the public with some reassurance that a pretty conventional inter-agency process still governs U.S. military action abroad, and it shows that the elements in this administration who would dismantle America’s alliance structure aren’t in the driver’s seat — at least for now. But the fallout from this leak continues to settle over the geopolitical landscape, and it is slowly poisoning America’s relations with its allies and undermining U.S. security in measurable ways.”

What the left is saying.

• The left is alarmed by the administration’s handling of the incident, criticizing its refusal to accept accountability.
• Some call on Congress to lead a bipartisan investigation into the leak.
• Others say the leak revealed little about the administration that we didn’t already know.

In The Washington Post, Philip Bump wrote about “what the lack of consequences for the Signal scandal means.”

“It remains possible that political pressure or a latent sense of self-respect might lead to the resignation of one of those culpable for the most egregious elements of the incident: the creation of a secret conversation on a third-party, transitory messaging app; Vice President JD Vance’s suggestion that Trump wasn’t fully briefed on the matter; or Hegseth’s boisterous delineation of where and when the strikes were to take place,” Bump said. “But it still seems very unlikely. Trump — and by extension his party — have proved increasingly likely to rise to the defense of anyone seen as under fire from any perceived opponent.”

“Without accountability, the damage here would not simply be that the U.S. government will continue to be led by people who don’t know or don’t care why communications about military operations occur over secure channels. It is also that there will be no public signal that the actions of these officials were bad,” Bump wrote. “It is bad that senior officials, including the vice president, were in a disappearing chat that included an unauthorized participant… It is bad that this conversation included a heads-up about forthcoming military action alongside a discussion about whether the commander in chief even wanted to go ahead with it. Just because the media and Democrats are noting that these things are bad does not mean that they are not bad.”

In MSNBC, Symone D. Sanders-Townsend argued “only Congress can get to the bottom of the Signal scandal.”

“This is no ordinary offense. The conduct here raises questions about the handling of America’s secrets, the safety of our troops and the accuracy of our public records. And the Trump administration has already shown that it can’t be trusted to police this matter itself, while a Republican call for the Defense Department’s inspector general to investigate is insufficient. Only Congress can do this job,” Sanders-Townsend said. “It’s clear this administration is hoping the colossal failure blows over and Americans move on. We — as a nation — cannot allow that to happen. Now is not the time for lawmakers to sit idly by.”

“At stake is whether our allies continue to trust us with their most sensitive intelligence. Whether an enemy spots a covert operation before it’s complete. Whether a soldier makes it home to see their child grow up,” Sanders-Townsend wrote. “It must be Congress that leads an investigation because the uncomfortable truth is this: The administration cannot be trusted to investigate itself… Only Congress can actively pursue a full-scale investigation to answer the questions raised by this scandal. It is up to the public to demand real accountability from their representatives.”

In The New Yorker, David Remnick described “the greater scandal of Signalgate.”

“The comedy of Goldberg’s reports resides, at least in part, in the discovery that the Vice-President and the heads of the leading defense and intelligence bureaucracies deploy emojis with the same frequency as middle schoolers,” Remnick said. “More seriously, but not astonishingly, when prominent members of the Administration were confronted with their potentially lethal carelessness, they did as their President would have them do: they attacked the character and the integrity of the reporter (who proved far more concerned about national security than the national-security adviser), and then refused to give straight answers to Congress about their cock-up and the sensitivity of the communications.”

“This is an Administration that does not have to slip on a Signal banana peel to reveal its deepest-held prejudices and its painful incapacities. You get the sense that we would learn little if we were privy to a twenty-four-hour-a-day live stream of its every private utterance,” Remnick wrote. “It would be unwise to dismiss the importance of secrets in this or any other Administration, but the point is that Trump and his ideological and political planners have made no secret of their intentions. While Richard Nixon tended to save his darkest confidences and prejudices for private meetings with such aides as Henry Kissinger and H. R. Haldeman, Trump gives voice to his id almost daily at the microphone or on social media.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• The administration is trying to muddy the waters on this story, but there’s no way to hide their clear and significant errors. 
• Still, it’s unlikely that the episode results in major political blowback from Trump’s base.
• We should insist on greater accountability (and honesty) for these mistakes.

Every administration has a “denial tree” — the way in which they handle damaging stories, and how their defenses change over time as more information comes to light. In this case, I think it’s important to take note of the Trump administration’s denial tree: 

First, the administration attacked Goldberg, calling him a lying, sleazy journalist and suggesting that his reporting was not to be trusted. Then, the administration claimed that no war plans or classified info were sent via Signal, and that they had no idea how Goldberg “infiltrated” the chat — implying he did something nefarious. Then they conceded Goldberg’s story was largely true, but insisted no classified information was shared. Then, once Goldberg released the chats, they effectively admitted that battle plans were sent, but tried to distinguish them from war plans or classified information, and continued to insist they were investigating how Goldberg was added to the chat (despite the chat logs showing clearly that Mike Waltz added him). Then, they criticized Goldberg for releasing the full texts of the chats, which proved they were not being honest in their initial downplaying of the materials shared in the chat. Then, they invoked controversies involving Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Then they were reduced to arguing that Goldberg oversold what he had because the Signal chat didn’t actually blow the cover of a CIA agent. 

In moments like this, when an administration is flooding the zone with mismanaged talking points, denials and whataboutism, I find that people who have consistently criticized both sides are best at seeing things clearly through the mud. 

Justin Amash, the former Republican representative from Michigan, posted on X that he could “confidently say this information was classified at the time it was revealed to the journalist. If this had been presented to members of Congress, we could not have walked out of the SCIF with it. It’s bizarre to pretend otherwise.”

Glenn Greenwald, the muckracking journalist and frequent critic of the left, asked, “If Goldberg had published all of this before Yemen bombing began, would the Trump WH have said: ‘no problem; it's not classified?’”

Saagar Enjeti, the host of the Breaking Points podcast, argued that “At this point, Waltz thinks MAGA and Trump are so stupid they will believe his implication that Jeffery Goldberg deliberately went into HIS phone to put his phone number in it under a different contact.”

It can also be helpful to look abroad: Israeli officials, for instance, were incensed about the irresponsibility of the chat because “it included sensitive intelligence Israel provided to the U.S. from a human intelligence source in Yemen.”

There is just no good way to spin this. Yes, the chat showed some interesting and thoughtful deliberation (at least from Vice President Vance) about the decision to carry out the strikes. But it also read a bit like a teenage group chat — full of emojis and false bravado — as the U.S. killed dozens of people, including civilians. And most importantly, no one in a group of top military and intelligence officials noticed a journalist present or took responsibility for him being there in the first place. 

The most disappointing part about the entire episode is that there has been no accountability. This administration has made meritocracy a central point of its entire ethos. President Trump repeatedly and rightly criticized President Biden on the campaign trail for not firing anyone for major mistakes in his administration, like the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. New members of the administration, like Tulsi Gabbard, have pledged up and down that they would introduce a new era of radical transparency. Then, the moment they have their first public relations crisis, that all goes up in flames.

Gabbard, for instance, looked and sounded like every other politician while refusing to answer questions about the chat before Congress (and then she was dishonest about what was in the chats). So much for radical transparency. Trump has opted not to fire Waltz because he doesn’t want to give a scalp to The Atlantic. Hegseth, whose mantle of meritocracy was always something I was skeptical of, has completely dodged any ownership of how bad this looks. 

Will the administration pay for this, politically? It seems unlikely. If you watch a few minutes of Fox News’s coverage of the story, you get the sense that much of Trump’s base won’t have to grapple with the seriousness of what happened. Despite my enthusiasm about what we’re building here at Tangle, the unfortunate reality is that — for the most part — our two political tribes are still living in totally different information ecosystems. Republicans in the Senate are still using Hillary Clinton to deflect from their own misconduct. It has to be said that it has now been 20 years since Clinton was elected to any office, 10 years since her email scandal broke, and her own mistakes (which she paid a heavy price for, politically) should not absolve this administration in any way. Perhaps most frightening, I saw several prominent right-wing influencers insisting the entire episode was intentional — that the Trump administration wanted the leak to happen for some yet-to-be-seen benefit. 

The real truth is much simpler and perhaps more sinister. This group likely created a chat on Signal precisely to avoid transparency laws, despite warnings from our government about the vulnerability of such apps. Then, they inadvertently added a journalist, without anyone noticing his presence, before sharing sensitive and classified information about an impending war plan — all of which put soldiers and sources at risk. They responded to the entire episode not by punishing anyone or owning the mistake, but instead by trying to smear a journalist for doing his job and then insisting to Americans they were not seeing what they were very obviously seeing. 

Is this a Watergate-level scandal? Obviously not. But it shouldn’t require history-defining misconduct to have some fire in your belly about what happened. Collectively, we should all insist on living in reality — on accountability, and being told the truth. That’s true regardless of what past or future administrations have done, and it’s a standard we should apply unblinkingly to the one in power now. 

Take the survey: What do you think about Trump administration officials adding a journalist to a Signal group chat discussing attack plans? Let us know here.

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

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.

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump suggested that he would bomb Iran if the country’s leadership did not reach a new deal with the U.S. on its nuclear program. (The threat)
2. The personal consumption expenditures price index, the Federal Reserve’s key measure of inflation, increased 2.8% year-over-year in February and 0.4% from the previous month, both slightly higher than economists’ expectations. (The report)
3. The death toll from Friday’s 7.7-magnitude earthquake in Myanmar reached 1,700, with an additional 3,400 injured and over 300 missing as of Sunday. (The latest)
4. Israel conducted airstrikes against what it said were Hezbollah targets in southern Beirut, the first strikes on Lebanon’s capital since November. The operation followed rocket fire targeting the northern Israeli city of Kiryat Shmona on Friday. (The strikes)
5. The Taliban released U.S. citizen Faye Hall, who had been detained by the group in February. The release followed President Trump’s decision to remove multimillion-dollar bounties on several senior Taliban members. (The release)

Under the radar.

Last week, the biotechnology company 23andMe — which offers users a profile of their genetic heritage based on a saliva sample — filed for bankruptcy and announced that it would seek a sale. The news has raised concerns about whether customers’ personal data will be sold off as part of the sale, as the company’s databases contain genetic information about millions of users. While the bankruptcy filing won’t change the company’s data protection measures, many privacy experts have urged users to delete their information from 23andMe due to uncertainty about how the data could be used by whichever entity eventually buys the company. NBC News has the story.

Numbers.

• 1,100. The approximate number of accounts on encrypted platforms registered to cell phone numbers for U.S. government workers and elected officials, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
• 18. The number of government officials in the Signal group chat. 
• 74%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the conduct by Trump administration officials in the Signal group where they discussed military plans is a serious problem, according to a March 2025 YouGov poll.
• 89%, 72%, and 60%. The percentage of Democrats, independents and Republicans, respectively, who think the officials’ conduct is a serious problem. 
• 22%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the media is making too big of a deal out of the story. 
• 17%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the media is treating the story appropriately.
• 37%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the media is not making a big enough deal out of the story.

The extras.

• One year ago today, we had just announced our spring break.
• The most clicked link in our March 20 newsletter was the classic early internet site Garfield minus Garfield.
• Nothing to do with politics: An elderly British couple turned the heat up in their home so much that a thermal scan indicated it was a cannabis farm.
• Our March 20 survey: 2,690 readers answered our survey on the resumption of the war in Gaza, with 68% holding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu most responsible. “Netanyahu long ago lost any clout he had from the original October 7 attack. He’s moved down the road to murder of innocents in order to achieve a selfish political goal,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

An increasing number of Nepali Sherpas have left for safer employment opportunities abroad after three Sherpas died in 2023 while working to help climbers through one of the most treacherous sections of Mount Everest. However, drones may prove to be a helpful tool to reduce the chances of fatal accidents and ease the burden on Sherpas. This season, specialized drones will be tested to transport loads up to 35 pounds, removing waste and moving ladders for climbing routes in hopes of making Sherpa’s work faster, safer, and more efficient. The New York Times has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 370,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!