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.
From today's advertiser: Snow White, Cinderella, Rapunzel — For Just $2/Share own Shares in These Iconic Characters
Did you know that Disney's Princess IP alone has generated $46.4 billion in revenue? Elf Labs is providing the biggest disruption to IP since the beginning of Disney. How? They've secured 100+ historic trademarks for some of the highest grossing characters in history. Think Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid and more — and they’re bringing these characters to life using generational tech, and 6 new franchises spanning 30+ markets.
And now you can get a piece of it by investing in Elf Labs — but only for a limited time. They’re not just tapping into the $350B merchandise market—they’re aiming at the entire $2 trillion media industry.
Today is your last chance to get in before their share price increases.
Big week in the news.
There has been a lot to cover over the past two weeks, and we haven’t gotten a chance to dive deep into a lot of it — China’s AI advancements, the TikTok saga, the government funding and hiring freeze, and more. At the same time, new events and stories are unfolding every day. To help us stay on top of it, we’re going to be covering Thursday’s Senate confirmation hearings in a special extended edition of Tangle this Friday.
Quick hits.
- A federal judge issued a temporary stay on the Trump administration’s directive to pause federal loans, grants and other financial assistance, ruling that the government cannot hold funds that were already slated to be disbursed while the stay is in place. The judge scheduled a hearing to determine next steps for Monday. (The order) Separately, the White House issued a memo offering to pay federal workers who do not want to return to the office through September if they agree to resign by February 6. (The memo)
- The Senate confirmed former Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) as transportation secretary by a 77-22 vote. (The confirmation)
- President Donald Trump signed an executive order restricting access to treatments for transgender children and teens, directing the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to cut funding to hospitals and medical schools that provide these treatments. (The order)
- Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) said he would not seek reelection in 2026, stating his desire to allow a new generation of leadership to take power. (The decision)
- The State Department advised U.S. nationals to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo following a series of attacks by protestors on several foreign embassies and a United Nations building in the capital city Kinshasa. The protests have been driven by anger over a perceived lack of support from Congo’s allies amid its ongoing conflict with Rwandan-backed rebels. (The advisory)
Today's topic.
Trump’s immigration actions. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders on immigration, which the White House says is part of its effort to establish firmer control over the southern U.S. border. Many of the actions are targeted at unauthorized migrants, but others have restricted legal immigration pathways, including orders to indefinitely pause the U.S. refugee admissions program, end parole programs, and shut down the CBP One app for asylum seekers.
On his first day back in office, President Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) until “further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States,” with exceptions for case-by-case refugee admissions determined by the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security. The secretaries will also produce a report on whether resuming the program is in the United States’s interest within 90 days of the order.
In concert with the order, the administration directed refugee resettlement agencies to stop using federal funds to integrate refugees, prompting questions over whether refugees already in the country will lose access to existing services.
Separately, officials were instructed to halt immigration parole programs, which allow non-citizens temporary legal status, usually on humanitarian grounds. The directive ends the Uniting for Ukraine policy for Ukrainians fleeing war who are sponsored by American citizens, as well as other programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. Additionally, it instructs officials not to renew the parole status of Afghans brought to the U.S. following the military’s withdrawal in 2021. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration also authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to deport migrants who had been allowed into the country temporarily under Biden-era programs.
Lastly, Trump shut down the CBP One app, which had been expanded during the Biden administration to allow migrants seeking asylum to schedule appointments with immigration officials prior to arriving at the southern border. A notice added to the service’s website on January 20 states that the app “is no longer available, and existing appointments have been cancelled.”
Today, we’ll explore reactions from the left and right to Trump’s immigration orders. Then, Editor Will Kaback gives his take while Executive Editor Isaac Saul is on paternity leave.
What the left is saying.
- The left criticizes the orders, suggesting they improperly target legal immigrants.
- Some say the orders will likely make the situation at the border worse.
- Others argue the actions are founded on false premises about immigration.
In The Washington Post, Catherine Rampell said “Trump is not just going after foreigners who break the law.”
“Donald Trump promised to crack down on illegal immigration, a vow many Americans support. But so far, his administration has been much more fixated on punishing legal immigrants,” Rampell wrote. “The president and his supporters rebut accusations of xenophobia by claiming they have nothing against immigrants per se. They merely want immigrants to wait their turn and come to America the ‘right’ way… But this rhetoric is at odds with Trump’s record. In his first term, he had almost no effect on illegal immigration levels, but he did manage to demolish legal immigration levels.”
“This week, Trump suspended the entire refugee system and canceled flights of refugees already cleared and scheduled to come here. Among those stranded are 1,700 Afghans, including many who helped American military efforts or are family of active-duty U.S. military personnel,” Rampell said. “Meanwhile, Trump canceled interviews for asylum seekers who have been waiting in Mexico for months to come into the United States legally through ports of entry… Shutting down these legal, orderly routes for immigrating to America not only betrays the people who waited patiently and followed our laws. It also incentivizes more illegal immigration, since desperate people fleeing war and persecution will still find ways to come.”
In Foreign Policy, Edward Alden argued “Trump’s immigration orders will bring chaos to the border.”
“U.S. President Donald Trump took office this week and inherited the most secure southern border in decades, with recorded illegal crossings plummeting over the past year despite a strong U.S. economy that continues to be a magnet for foreign workers,” Alden wrote. “So, what did Trump do on day one? He declared a national emergency at the southern border and ripped up most of the Biden administration initiatives that had brought it under control. Amid a slew of executive actions on Trump’s first day, those on immigration stand out. The new president’s approach will bring back the very crisis that he claims he was elected to resolve.”
“If the deterrents—fences, walls, technology, Border Patrol agents, legal bars on asylum claims—are sufficiently harsh and widespread, then illegal crossings can be halted, the thinking goes. But there is nothing in the history of U.S. border control efforts to suggest that such an approach will be effective,” Alden said. “Trump’s first term was revelatory; despite the president implementing harsh border measures—including separating children from their parents—illegal crossings surged in the strong economy of 2019, exceeding the numbers in any year of the preceding Obama administration. It was only with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which brought border closures and spiking unemployment, that illegal crossings again dropped significantly.”
In The New Yorker, Jonathan Blitzer wrote about “the unchecked authority of Trump’s immigration orders.”
“A central theme in all of Trump’s immigration orders is recasting migration as a form of ‘invasion.’ As a piece of political rhetoric, the word has become numbingly histrionic. But as a legal notion, in the world of these executive orders, it triggers a response that goes far beyond the President’s already broad powers to manage immigration,” Blitzer said. “Both Trump and President Joe Biden have sought to bar entry to asylum seekers through an expansive reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is the main statute covering federal immigration law. These new orders aim to cast aside the I.N.A. and allow Trump to seek recourse in the Constitution as a President defending his country from a foreign threat.”
“Many of these orders reinforce the fiction that mass migration constitutes some kind of war. At the moment, following months of sharply declining numbers of migrants at the border, the government is arresting fewer people than it did in the final months of Trump’s first term,” Blitzer wrote. “Even in late 2023, when there was a legitimate crisis, with two hundred and fifty thousand people apprehended by Border Patrol in the month of December alone, the idea that the country was in the midst of a hostile foreign takeover would have been absurd.”
What the right is saying.
- The right mostly supports the orders, noting that they align with Trump’s campaign promises.
- Some say the message sent by the orders will amplify their impact.
- Others say congressional action is needed to build on Trump’s start.
In The New York Post, Andrew Arthur explored “how Trump’s border orders are reversing the migrant crisis.”
“President Trump identified immigration as the issue that put him over the top in the 2024 election, and now he’s moving quickly to fulfill his promises — taking a slew of actions to recalibrate our immigration system,” Arthur wrote. “While foes and friends have focused on his directives to end birthright citizenship and designate foreign drug cartels and criminal gangs as terrorist organizations, Trump’s other immigration initiatives will be much more impactful, at least in the short term.”
Trump “issued a proclamation suspending illegal entries outside the ports of entry that will — once implemented — restrict illegal migrants’ ability to apply for asylum, in an effort to protect states from criminal aliens and preserve limited public resources… A separate Trump executive order resumes construction of the federal ‘border wall system,’” Arthur said. “Trump has also vowed to ‘Make America Safe Again’ by reinstating ‘Remain in Mexico,’ a program started in his first term that sent illegal entrants back across the border to await their asylum hearings… In less than 48 hours, the second Trump administration established a road map that will bring security and sense back to our immigration system.”
In The Daily Caller, John Loftus suggested the optics of Trump’s orders “are just as important as the numbers themselves.”
“The actions taken to shore up border security are all impressive. So, too, the numbers. But the optics of Trump’s border blitz are just as important, if not more. Under President Joe Biden’s administration, Americans were increasingly alarmed over the prospect of increased crime rates, drugs, potential terrorism, and a heavier taxpayer burden stemming from illegal immigration,” Loftus wrote. “Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, Americans want to feel safe in their own country, their own city, and their own neighborhood.”
“Unfortunately, though, Americans have grown accustomed to fear and paranoia in 2025. Why? Because illegal immigration and lawlessness have eroded trust,” Loftus said. “Trump’s optics on the immigration crisis are a small but crucial step toward restoring trust throughout America and trust in government, which has cratered in recent decades… They will also act as a deterrent. Border encounters are already dropping just weeks into the Trump administration, and illegal aliens currently residing in the United States are reportedly hiding in fear of the next ICE raid. If the raids are to continue long into 2025, those numbers will only further decrease.”
In Newsweek, Sean Spicer wrote “executive orders are a good start, but we need lasting immigration reform.”
“On day one, [Trump] kept his campaign promises. He signed a series of executive orders that addressed the border crisis head-on… These moves sent a clear message: This administration is serious about securing the border,” Spicer said. “But while executive orders make headlines, it is also time for my fellow Republicans to deliver the long-term solutions Americans deserve that future presidents can't unravel with a stroke of a pen. The truth is, our immigration system is outdated, inefficient, and overburdened. It demands a comprehensive legislative overhaul, and Congress needs to step up to the plate.”
“One of the biggest hurdles we face is staffing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been under-resourced and overworked for years. Despite the growing number of encounters with noncitizens at the border, CBP has struggled to meet its staffing goals,” Spicer wrote. “Then there's the issue of backlogs. Right now, nearly 4 million immigration cases are stuck in limbo. The backlog has doubled over the past decade, and the system is grinding to a halt… President Trump has the mandate and the opportunity to lead. It's time for Congress to get to work and pass a comprehensive solution that secures our borders, streamlines the process, and restores faith in our government's ability to manage immigration effectively.”
My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion from our editorial team. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
- Trump was voted into office as much for his stance on immigration as anything, and he’s following through on his promises.
- Even if these reforms are popular, they may not be legal — and they may not remain popular forever.
- I also doubt that Trump’s orders will stick and that deterrence will be as effective as he hopes.
President Trump campaigned in no uncertain terms on what he would do if re-elected, and he’s started his term clearly intending to follow through on those promises. A historic volume of executive orders on day one sent a clear message to Congress, the courts, and voters: “I’m ready, are you?”
This is clearest with immigration. Trump didn’t just campaign on mass deportations, he linked immigration to every societal ill — housing shortages, crime, loss of community, and more.
An increasing number of Americans seem to agree. A June 2024 Gallup poll found that the percentage of Americans who want lower levels of immigration has increased by 27 points since 2020, and all party groups notably shifted toward favoring decreased immigration between 2023 and 2024. Furthermore, a recent Axios/Ipsos poll found that 66% of Americans support deporting all unauthorized immigrants (though that support drops when certain mechanisms to conduct those deportations are described). Before the election, poll after poll showed that voters ranked immigration as a top concern and were dissatisfied with Democrats’ handling of the issue (or saw Trump as the better leader to address it). Whether or not Trump’s victory qualifies as a mandate, it’s clear that much of his electoral win is due to his stance on immigration, and he’s following through on his campaign promises.
Simply put, Trump is seeking to change the idea that all immigration strengthens the country, to challenge the belief that we should be a safe haven for people fleeing persecution, and to move progressive slogans like “no human is illegal” out of the mainstream. Vice President Vance summed up this attitude in an interview with CBS News on Saturday, saying, “Just because we were founded by immigrants, doesn't mean that 240 years later that we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world."
The scale of the Trump administration’s executive orders on immigration — suspending refugees, ending humanitarian parole programs, shutting down asylum claims, carrying out mass deportations — sends this message loud and clear: The U.S. wants less immigration of all kinds.
If you are an immigrant thinking of coming to the U.S. to seek economic opportunity, the Trump administration is telling you not to come. If you are fleeing a wartorn country, seek refuge elsewhere. If you came to the U.S. through pathways provided by the Biden administration, your legal status is no longer recognized.
This may sound harsh, but again: Trump is doing exactly what he said he would, and those views seem to have a lot of support, which makes his actions fundamentally democratic. To win on immigration in the future, Trump’s opponents are going to have to convince voters that his approach hurts the country’s interests, not just that it is cruel or immoral.
Of course, popularity doesn’t make a policy legal. Trump’s first administration advanced similar views on immigration but was largely unprepared for the legal pushback it received. This time around, they are clearly more prepared, with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller orchestrating a “flood the zone” strategy to overwhelm Trump’s opponents. That’s working so far, but as the legal challenges come in, many of these orders may not stand up to scrutiny.
One federal judge has already blocked Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, and any effort to permanently suspend asylum applications and stop accepting refugees has to get around the protections for these groups codified in the Refugee Act of 1980. And although the Trump transition team did more legwork this time around, using a team of lawyers from outside the Justice Department to vet its day-one executive orders on immigration, that preparation is probably not enough — those non-governmental lawyers probably worked backward from their desired conclusions in approving the actions, and a federal judge might not see it the same way.
However, we shouldn’t assume that any of Trump’s orders — even the most drastic ones — will be struck down. For instance, his order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program requires the secretaries of homeland security and state to submit a report after 90 days on “whether resumption of entry of refugees into the United States under the USRAP would be in the interests of the United States.” If Kristi Noem and Marco Rubio simply say that resuming the program is not in America’s interest — and Trump decides to maintain the pause indefinitely — courts could plausibly find that process legal (especially as more Trump appointees are confirmed to the federal bench).
The law is one thing, but practical implications are another. We’re already seeing signs that the deterrence message is landing with other countries. Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia (more on this in the reader question), and others are all preparing to receive an influx of deportees from the U.S. However, I’m skeptical that these reforms will bring order to our immigration system, and thus to the southern border writ large, especially with Trump shutting down a tool that Biden used to help with exactly that: the CBP One app.
When the Biden administration announced the app’s expansion to schedule asylum appointments in January 2023, encounters at the southern border were on their way to record highs. While the app dealt with some rollout issues, and we can’t definitively claim CBP One as successful, encounters fell sharply to levels similar to Trump’s first term by January 2024 and have remained low ever since. The app — in concert with much tougher rules for unauthorized migrants claiming asylum at the border — clearly shifted incentives for migrants toward pursuing legal pathways, and now that CBP One is shut down, I’ll be watching to see if more migrants risk illegal crossings and border encounters start to rise again.
For me, it boils down to two basic questions, starting with this: Which matters more, careful policy or vocal deterrence? I think many people experiencing hardship in places like Venezuela or Haiti will still take the risk of coming to the U.S., regardless of Trump’s policies and postures. Citizens of these countries live in constant fear of violence at the hands of gangs or the government, and their economic outlook is increasingly dire. A hostile attitude toward immigrants from the U.S. government still pales in comparison to what these people are experiencing, and I don’t think Trump’s orders meaningfully change their calculus.
Second, will Trump’s views on immigration remain popular as voters see them rolled out? I think many voters will rethink their stances once they see that it means rejecting Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war (and who have financial sponsors in the U.S.) or people like Tanitoluwa “Tani” Adewumi (featured in Monday’s “Have a nice day” story), who fled Boko Haram in Nigeria and is now a chess prodigy representing America. Trump has earned the right to take that risk if he wants to, but his popularity on this issue is not set in stone.
Ultimately, immigration policy involves navigating many factors that are out of our immediate control, and any long-term solutions should be multifaceted. Trump is trying to slam every immigration door at once, but I’m skeptical that he can keep them all shut on his own.
Take the survey: What do you think of Trump’s executive orders on immigration? 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.
Your questions, answered.
Q: I feel like item 2 [in Monday’s “Quick hits,” on a dispute between Colombia and the United States on a flight of deportees] could use a little more unpacking and perhaps even a correction?
This story follows a pattern, where the Trump administration creates a problem, there is pushback, then they cease causing the problem and claim victory.
My understanding — and correct me if I'm wrong! — is that Colombia refused to accept U.S. military planes because the immigrants would not be treated with dignity (e.g., shackled). This was framed in many media outlets on both sides as a capitulation by Colombia, but it was exactly backwards: It was the U.S. that backed off (its insistence for shackles).
— Chris
Will Kaback, Editor: I don’t think the item requires a correction, but it’s certainly worth unpacking.
It’s true that Petro framed his decision to reject the military deportation flights by saying that deportations must be carried out with “dignity and respect.” However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said in a statement that, “Petro had authorized flights and provided all needed authorizations and then canceled his authorization when the planes were in the air,” and CNN reviewed documents that support Rubio’s assertion. By all accounts, the White House was surprised by Petro’s refusal to accept the flights, so I don’t think this was a case of Trump instigating the problem.
Also, much of the conversation about the treatment of passengers didn’t actually apply to the flights to Colombia that President Petro turned back, but to conditions on another flight of deportees from the U.S. to Brazil. That flight — aboard a passenger jet — had several issues: a layover in the Amazon, broken air conditioning, some deportees transported in handcuffs, and eventually passengers climbing out through emergency hatches to call for help. While the use of military planes to transport the Colombian deportees may have seemed off-putting, there’s no indication that they were mistreated.
The incident could be framed as a “win” for Petro in the sense that he was able to address his concerns about the deportees’ treatment by getting Colombian military planes to transport them without restraints, or as a diplomatic bungling by Trump. But I think we framed this story accurately based on the sequence of events: Petro decided to pull authorization for the flights while they were in the air, the planes came back to the U.S., Trump responded with threats, then the deportations were carried out.
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.
On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) sightings in New Jersey and other East Coast states in late 2024 were drones authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration. “Many of these drones were also hobbyists, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones,” Leavitt said. “In time, it got worse due to curiosity. This was not the enemy.” The White House did not elaborate on how it had reached this conclusion, but the finding supports the determination the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reached in December. National Review has the story.
Numbers.
- 48%. The percentage of Americans who say they approve of President Donald Trump’s approach on immigration, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week.
- 84,994. The number of refugees admitted to the United States in fiscal year 2016, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
- 30,000. The number of refugees admitted to the United States in fiscal year 2019.
- 100,034. The number of refugees admitted to the United States in fiscal year 2024.
- 72%. The percentage of Americans who say taking in civilian refugees from countries where people are trying to escape violence and war should be a policy goal, according to a September 2022 Pew Research survey.
- 9.62 to 1. The ratio of asylum applications received to applications granted in the United States in fiscal year 2016, according to the Justice Department.
- 11.49 to 1. The ratio of asylum applications received to applications granted in the United States in fiscal year 2019.
- 15.14 to 1. The ratio of asylum applications received to applications granted in the United States in fiscal year 2023.
- 63%. The percentage of Americans who favor temporarily prohibiting individuals from seeking asylum when the Southwest border is overwhelmed, according to a June 2024 Gallup survey.
The extras.
- One year ago today we covered the ICJ’s ruling on genocide in Gaza.
- The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was our ad in the free newsletter for The Penny Hoarder.
- Nothing to do with politics: The Brooklyn Botanic Garden is attracting visitors with a plant that smells like a rotting corpse.
- Yesterday’s survey: 3,015 readers responded to our survey on the WHO and Paris Agreement withdrawals with 73% disapproving of both decisions. “This is a bad move that puts the US in the position of having very little global influence on both climate and health matters that will have a significant impact on everyone,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
In the fourth quarter of the NFL playoff game between the Baltimore Ravens and Buffalo Bills, Ravens tight end Mark Andrews dropped the ball (literally) in a pivotal opportunity to tie the game, ending the Ravens’ season in dramatic fashion. Andrews faced a hurl of online criticism and negativity following the game, but Buffalo’s fans came to his defense. The Bills Mafia, who have a reputation as some of the most positive fans in the league, created a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for a charity that Andrews supports. That effort has raised over $125,000 in donations to support children with Type 1 diabetes. Sunny Skyz 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 310,000+ 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