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: 13 minutes.
ICYMI.
We are ramping up our podcast offerings. This year, we’ve been releasing more members-only podcast content, interviews with people in politics, and audio versions of our Friday editions. We’re also now offering a way to bundle your newsletter subscription to your podcast subscription for a discount. If you want ad-free podcasts and access to all our interviews, you can upgrade your plan to the newsletter & podcast bundle or “Thank You” tier by going here (just make sure you’re logged in on our website!).
Quick hits.
- Israel carried out large-scale airstrikes in Gaza against what it said were Hamas targets. The Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health said the strikes killed approximately 400 Palestinians, reigniting fighting in Gaza and ending a two-month ceasefire. (The strikes)
- The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to replace the district court judge overseeing the case challenging the Trump administration’s deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The Justice Department claims the judge committed an “inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction” in attempting to pause the deportations. (The request)
- President Trump said that former President Joe Biden's pardons on his last day in office were invalid because they were signed with an autopen, a machine that automates signatures on documents. Trump said those who received pardons, specifically the lawmakers who served on the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 Capitol riot, should not consider themselves immune from investigation. (The comments)
- The U.S. State Department declared that South Africa’s ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool, has until Friday to leave the country. The decision follows President Trump’s order to pause U.S. funding for South Africa over its government policies. (The expulsion)
- Texas state police arrested a Houston-area midwife on charges of performing illegal abortions, the first criminal charges brought under the state’s law banning abortion in virtually all cases. (The arrest)
Today's topic.
The U.S. strikes in Yemen. Over the weekend, the United States carried out a series of aerial and naval strikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels. President Donald Trump said the strikes were retaliation for the Houthis’ attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and surrounding waters, adding that the assault would continue until the attacks stopped. At least 53 people, including five children, have been killed by the strikes, according to a Houthi health ministry spokesperson. White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said “multiple Houthi leaders” were killed.
Back up: The Houthis are an Iran-backed political and religious group that has declared itself part of a “resistance” to Israel, the United States, and other Western countries. Shortly after returning to office, President Trump re-designated the group as a terrorist organization after President Joe Biden removed the Trump-era designation to allow aid deliveries to civilians in Yemen.
We covered President Biden’s response to the Houthi attacks here.
After emerging in the 1990s, the group took control of large parts of Yemen in the 2010s and engaged Saudi-led forces in a protracted civil war that killed more than 160,000 people and displaced four million. A UN-brokered truce has been in effect since April 2022.
Shortly after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, the Houthis began targeting merchant vessels passing through the Red Sea, which they claimed were in retaliation for Israel’s aerial bombardment and invasion of Gaza. The Biden administration and British government carried out strikes on the Houthis in January 2024 with support from Canada, the Netherlands and Bahrain, hitting an estimated 260 targets. The Houthis paused the attacks when Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire in January. On March 11, the group said it would resume attacks on Israeli ships in response to Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
After the U.S. strikes, the Houthis reportedly attempted at least two retaliatory attacks against the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier in the Red Sea, but both attempts were unsuccessful. On Monday, President Trump said further attempts to attack U.S. forces would be construed as attacks by Iran, writing on Truth Social, “IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.”
Iran has rejected the claim that it is backing the Houthis, but the country has a well documented history of supplying Yemen with weapons, including drone parts, missile warheads, and anti-tank missile units.
Today, we’ll share perspectives from the left and right on the Trump administration’s strikes on the Houthis, followed by my take.
SPONSORED
11 Foolish Things Smart People Waste Money On
You're smart about saving money and do the normal money-saving things: You're a regular at the clearance rack. You don't eat lunch out too much. And you meticulously selected the perfect combo of streaming services to watch your favs for as cheap as possible.
But there are some tips you may not know (yet) — and that's a good thing! Because once you see some of the areas where you can cut your costs, you could find some extra cash in your pocket sooner than you think.
What the left is saying.
- The left is mixed on the strikes, with many expressing concern about the U.S. being pulled deeper into conflicts in the Middle East.
- Some say the attacks are hypocritical after Trump ran on ending military engagements abroad.
- Others say the strikes are justified but require a broader strategy.
In Bloomberg, Paul Wallace suggested “hitting the Houthis ups Mideast stakes for Trump.”
“Donald Trump’s most significant military action since he returned to power — weekend air strikes on Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis — will likely have far-reaching consequences for the wider Middle East and the oil market,” Wallace wrote. “The US says for now there’s no need to consider sending in ground troops. Still, the Houthis control western parts of Yemen including the capital, Sana’a, and the crucial port of Hodeida. Past experience suggests it won’t be easy to stop them from the air alone.”
“While [the Houthis have] been weakened — their attacks dropped off in recent months — they’re still far from being toppled and continue to prevent most Western shipping firms from taking the Suez Canal route when sailing between Asia and Europe. Moreover, there’s a danger they could lash out against Trump by targeting oil-rich Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with drones and missiles,” Wallace said. “The Middle East will be watching the showdown to gauge how relentless Trump’s willing to be in backing his words with military action.”
In The Intercept, Aída Chávez wrote “Trump reasserts U.S. as the world’s policeman.”
“Framed by the U.S. as a move to protect crucial Red Sea shipping lanes, the illegal escalation is a shift from the retaliatory strikes of the Biden administration to what appears to be the return to a full-scale regime change war,” Chávez said. “The escalation makes for awkward politics in America. Trump ran on ending wars, emphasizing his desire to avoid new wars in his inaugural address. In turn, his ‘America First’ loyalists — whatever their motives — are cheering his deal-making with the aim of ending the war in Ukraine.
“Yet the administration is now barreling toward more bloodshed in the Middle East, where both Trump and Joe Biden have let brutal allies run amok while trying to extricate the U.S. itself from regional conflicts. Now the Trump administration is pushing an explicitly deeper and more involved intervention in Yemen,” Chávez wrote. “That risk of a full-blown regional conflict too is growing, as Trump himself threatens Iran, a major backer of the Houthi movement and a prime enemy of the U.S.’s top allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia.”
In Foreign Policy, Daniel B. Shapiro said “targeting Houthi leaders is warranted but not enough.”
“The Biden administration, in which I served, struggled with the Houthi challenge. President Joe Biden also authorized extensive strikes against the Houthis. Unlike the description of some Trump administration officials, these were not pinpricks nor purely responsive strikes. On at least seven occasions, U.S. forces, sometimes with U.K. participation, struck underground weapons and storage facilities and command-and-control centers,” Shapiro wrote. “But the attacks did not restore deterrence. The Houthi leadership, with its deeply anti-Israel and anti-American ideology, seemed emboldened by the exchanges.”
“In order to mount a sustained campaign against such targets, the U.S. military requires additional intelligence and needs cooperation—both analytical and operational—from key regional partners,” Shapiro said. “From Trump administration officials’ descriptions of their strikes, it sounds as though the intelligence picture has matured enough to target Houthi leaders. That is necessary and appropriate, provided care is taken to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible… But this will need to be a sustained effort.”
What the right is saying.
- The right is mostly supportive of the strikes, arguing that Trump is protecting global commerce.
- Some say the threat from the Houthis justifies military action.
- Others question Trump’s change in tack after previously criticizing Biden’s strikes.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote “Trump takes on the Houthis.”
“One of the Biden Administration’s worst failures was letting Iran’s terror proxies in Yemen shut down a crucial global shipping lane and shoot at the U.S. military with impunity. President Trump sent a better message on the weekend by ordering significant air strikes against the Houthis that are a step toward restoring deterrence in the region,” the board said. “Mr. Trump often talks tougher than he acts, so it’s important to see if this is the start of a larger campaign to target Houthi leaders and eliminate the group’s weapons stores and Iranian supply lines.”
“Notably, Mr. Trump also included Iran in his Truth Social warning to the Houthis… This is significant because the Houthis like to claim that they are independent from Iran. But Tehran is their main arms supplier. The Houthis wouldn’t be nearly as large a threat without that help,” the board wrote. “Deterring the Houthi attacks is crucial to restoring the freedom of global commerce. They have all but shut down the Red Sea route between Europe and Asia for ships that aren’t Russian, Chinese or Iranian. The cost of shipping and insurance have soared. It’s encouraging that, at least in this case, Mr. Trump believes in American global leadership.”
In National Review, Charles C.W. Cooke said “blow the Houthis out of the water.”
“Has there ever been a case for American military action as strong as the case for our hitting the Houthis,” Cooke asked. “The internationalists ought to be happy that the federal government is protecting trade. The nationalists ought to be happy that the federal government is retaliating against attacks on U.S. Navy assets. If consumer inflation is your preoccupation, this helps. If respect for the United States is your concern, this works out. If you want an interventionist government, you’ll like it by default. If you want a government that acts only in extremis, this counts.”
“The federal government exists to represent and to protect the United States on the world stage, and the Houthis present both a direct and indirect threat to that charge. They have attacked our ships — which is an act of war that the executive branch is permitted to respond to unilaterally. And they have attacked our economy,” Cooke said. “That President Trump has chosen this course of action is surprising only because his predecessor chose to dillydally. Sometimes, sending a gunboat is both the simplest and most righteous response.”
In Reason, Matthew Petti criticized Trump for “reopening” the conflict in Yemen.
“Candidate Donald Trump thought that bombing Yemen was ‘just a failed mentality' when then-President Joe Biden did it. ‘It's crazy. You can solve problems over the telephone. Instead, they start dropping bombs. I see, recently, they're dropping bombs all over Yemen.’... Trump is now dropping bombs all over Yemen,” Petti wrote. “Instead of calling Biden a warmonger, as he had a year ago, Trump claimed on Sunday that Biden's ‘pathetically weak’ policy had allowed an ‘unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism’ against American shipping.
“In fact, those attacks had already stopped earlier this year—thanks to Trump picking up the phone. The Houthi movement, one of two rival governments in Yemen, had tried to blockade the Red Sea in support of the Palestinian cause. After Trump brokered an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, the Houthis declared an end to their attacks on foreign shipping; American ships then returned to the Red Sea.”
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.
- Days like today make it difficult to weigh pragmatism against my own humanity.
- I can’t blame Trump for his decision, but it’s not as if his approach is new.
- Striking against the Houthis carries clear risks for the region, the United States, and Trump politically.
I try to be pragmatic in my political commentary, but I also try to be human. Those goals are often contradictory, especially on days like this — when the world shows that it can be a cold, hard place full of violence and destruction.
Case in point: This morning, after working on this take yesterday, I woke up to the devastating news that the Israel–Gaza ceasefire had gone up in flames. After a couple weeks full of stories about halted aid, exchanges that included deceased hostages and ramped-up clashes in the West Bank, Israel carried out one of its largest attacks ever in Gaza — an attack whose lasting image will almost certainly be a dead Palestinian baby in a rainbow onesie that went viral on social media. The image, which I won’t be linking to here, was verified by a Fox News war correspondent. As a new father, it’s hard to process that kind of media, even amid reports that key Hamas fighters were also killed in the strike.
War has a way of breeding more conflict, not just on the ground but internally. When I read news correspondences and see these images, my brain and my heart — the pragmatic and human — are set against each other. The Trump administration’s strike on Yemen might read like a simple show of force, but the Houthis are claiming we killed dozens of civilians, including five children. How do we possibly weigh that human reality against the pragmatism of deterring future Houthi attacks?
Since there still seems to be some debate about this, I’ll steal from my previous writing to make the case quickly that the Houthis are not “the good guys”:
Newsflash: The Houthis are not doing this because they care about the Palestinian cause. They are not bent out of shape about civilian deaths, as evidenced by their (and Saudi Arabia's) total disregard for civilian casualties in Yemen, where their own people are dying by the hundreds of thousands. Nor is this all new: Long before the latest incursion into Gaza, Houthi rebels were attacking and hijacking ships in the Red Sea.
They are doing this because they are literally pirates — Islamic extremists who want money, power, and death to the infidels. Their slogan is a call for death to America, Israel and Jews, and victory for Islam. They are working hard to bring back slavery in Yemen. They are not the Yemeni government and shouldn't be conflated as such. Attacking foreign ships that are not part of the conflict in Gaza as they try to transport goods through the Red Sea is also not an effective way to wage a war against Israel.
None of this is to absolve Israel for the mass civilian deaths in Gaza or the U.S. for its funding of Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen or the Saudis for inflicting so much horror in Yemen over the last 10 years. But it is to say the Houthis are not fighting some moral battle, nor have they demonstrated they care at all about the deaths of Palestinians or Yemenis.
In our cold, hard, and violent world, a show of force from an unrestrained U.S. military against pirates like the Houthis can be incredibly effective. However, it can also dramatically worsen an already bad situation.
So, in one way, I don’t know what other kinds of action Trump can take — which is more or less what I said when Biden ordered strikes against the Houthis in 2024. Biden took criticism from just about everyone — from the left for risking a wider war in the region, from some conservatives for not attacking the Houthis persistently enough, and notably from Donald Trump, who suggested he pick up the phone and find a way to resolve the issue.
In the year and a half since the Gaza war broke out, the Houthis have been attacking ships that pass the Red Sea near their coastline. These attacks have often been carried out against cargo ships that are totally uninvolved with the conflict in Gaza. In that time period, the Houthis have targeted over 100 commercial vessels with missiles or drones, sunk two ships, and killed four sailors. That’s to say nothing of the 174 attempted attacks on U.S. Navy assets (and even an attempt against a U.S. fighter jet).
The U.S., United Kingdom, and Israel have expended a great deal of resources trying to protect commerce passing through the area, and we’ve had to put our own Navy in harm’s way. Nothing this coalition has done — aside from reaching a now-broken ceasefire agreement between Israel and Gaza — has dissuaded the Houthis. If the Houthis have decided they will attack ships in the Red Sea without a peace deal in Gaza, which Biden, Trump, Israel, Hamas, and the international community have now failed to deliver, then they can expect continued military reprisal for their decision. That’s the destructive pragmatism of the often violent world we live in.
At the same time, escalating with this particular group doesn’t seem wise. For starters, the Houthis have survived encounters like this going back to George W. Bush. They have survived the onslaught from the U.S.-backed Saudi forces. They became more entrenched during the Biden administration's strikes. Nothing about the latest U.S. response is particularly novel, and the Houthis appear undeterred, attempting a retaliatory strike on the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and promising to soon find new ways to inflict pain on our troops.
“The idea that you’re going to do this massive wave of airstrikes and the Houthis are just going to lay on their back and take it is absurd,” Mohammed Albasha, founder of U.S.-based Middle East security advisory Basha Report, told The Wall Street Journal. “They’re going to retaliate and retaliate severely. It’s going to be a vicious cycle.”
While the safety of the USS Harry S Truman is probably not at stake here, the Houthis could turn their attention to U.S. bases in Djibouti, just across a narrow strait from Yemen, or outposts some 800 miles away in the United Arab Emirates. Their “solidarity” with the Palestinian cause — if you believe it’s earnest — has earned them a great deal of support in the Arab world, and it seems that the group feels the wind at their backs despite taking heavy losses in the last year. That kind of confidence could embolden them to continue to escalate rather than look for an off-ramp.
A military response also creates genuine political questions for Trump. Since 2016, he’s been running on a kind of isolationist, anti-war position that appeals to a generation of Americans who deeply resent getting dragged into Iraq and Afghanistan. One can reasonably argue that his anti-war campaign rhetoric has never matched his actions, but his administration is now openly promising a “sustained” campaign against the Houthis while also warning Iran that they could be next. This latest strike has snapped U.S. Navy ships into action and put our soldiers in the region on heightened alert. It’s not unreasonable to think this opens Trump up to dissent from his own ranks — especially the ascendant isolationist right — who might view his response as the first step to dragging our troops into another Middle East conflict.
Again: I understand Trump’s predicament. As someone reacting to this conflict, I’m pulled in different directions by my head and my heart. The president has his own dilemma: Risk appeasement through inaction, or risk entrenchment with a response. In the absence of a ceasefire, the Houthis have not been dissuaded by tough talk or the occasional strike, so a reasonable next step could be a large-scale, sustained onslaught. But if Trump doesn’t get the Houthis to back off, he’ll risk not just more violence in the region — and more danger for U.S. troops — but also political blowback at home.
Take the survey: What do you think of the U.S. strikes against the Houthi rebels? Let us know!
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.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
Q: You didn't do your homework on the last article about the Palestinian who Trump deported. Since he had a green card (which is a privilege, not a right) and he's not an American citizen, then deporting him is legal and the President has the authority to do so. Did you see Marco Rubio's interview with Margaret Brennan?
— Ruth
Isaac Saul, Executive Editor: Yes, I saw Rubio’s interview, which came out well after our edition on Khalil’s arrest. Rubio did give another statement much more shortly after that edition (though still after it), and I talked about how it was the best argument we’d encountered yet in favor of Khalil’s deportation on our Sunday podcast. However, I still thought his argument fell short, for two reasons.
1) Rubio conflated the process of granting a green card with the process of revoking one. He also repeatedly muddied the water on “student visa” versus “green card holder.” It’s all well and good for Rubio to say that the State Department has the authority to reject green card applications at its discretion, but revoking one after issuing it is a different matter because 2) U.S. residents with valid green cards are conferred constitutional protections. And as clearly stated in our constitution, these rights are inalienable and not privileges to be meted out at the Secretary of State's discretion.
That said, Rubio has also argued that the Secretary of State has the discretion to deport a visa holder if the secretary deems their presence or activities “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” If Khalil is granted his due process, we’ll see the Trump administration argue that this rarely used power can be applied to him in court — but I’m skeptical they’ll succeed.
Either way, we've yet to see a clear argument for Khalil’s deportation (even under this obscure law) that spells out the specific threat he constitutes or describes any crime he committed — beyond protesting in a manner the government didn’t like. So, for now, I stand by the argument that this is a dangerous infringement on free speech that could easily be used against a wide range of permanent and legal U.S. residents.
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.
Gen Z is gradually trying to break into the housing market, filing 13% of U.S. home mortgage applications in 2024 — up from 10% in 2023. As this age group (roughly, ages 12–28) grapples with high housing costs and limited supply, many are choosing to buy homes in relatively affordable parts of the Midwest and South while eschewing coastal metropolitan areas. Omaha, Detroit and Salt Lake City were among the cities with the highest share of Gen Z homebuyers in 2024, while Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco were among the lowest. Axios has the story.
Numbers.
- 21.6 million. The number of people in Yemen — two-thirds of the population — whom the United Nations classifies as in dire need of humanitarian assistance and protection services.
- 4.5 million. The estimated number of people internally displaced in Yemen.
- 5 million. The number of people in Yemen at risk of famine.
- 313. The number of attacks carried out by the Houthis in the Red Sea between October 19, 2023 and March 7, 2025, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project.
- +270%. The percent increase in the cost of shipping a container from Asia to Northern Europe from December 2023 to December 2024 according to Freightos.
- 35%, 28%, and 25%. The percentage of Yemenis living in Houthi-controlled areas, government-controlled areas and areas of divided control, respectively, with a positive view of the Houthis’ Red Sea operations, according to a February/March 2024 poll from the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies.
- 8%, 3%, and 3%. The percentage of Yemenis living in Houthi-controlled areas, government-controlled areas and areas of divided control, respectively, with a positive view of Houthis as a whole.
The extras.
- One year ago today we covered the Georgia election-interference case.
- The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was President Trump’s executive order disbanding seven federal agencies.
- Nothing to do with politics: A potential goal of the year and some fancy sumo feet in some under-the-radar sports highlights.
- Yesterday’s survey: 2,909 readers answered our survey on Senate Democrats voting to advance a bill to fund the government with 40% opposing the bill but supporting Democrats advancing it. “A long government shutdown seemed likely, which is scary. We don't need further chaos,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
On average, 951 soccer jerseys are sent to UK landfills every minute. An annual campaign called Green Football’s Great Save aims to encourage players to keep sports uniforms and equipment in use for longer by upcycling, reusing, or donating them. The initiative has organized the secret drop of star players’ used and signed jerseys to charity shops across the country and incorporates on-site repairs for old kits. “I love the idea that instead of sitting unused, it can now help someone else stay in the game, while also reducing waste,” professional soccer player Demi Stokes said. Positive News 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!
Member comments