The EPA moves to repeal emissions regulations.

If your dog could talk, they'd beg for Ollie. The full-body tail wag, the excited little hops, the big, goofy grin, that's the Ollie effect. Oli delivers clean, fresh nutrition in five drool-worthy flavors, even for the pickiest eaters. Made in U.S. kitchens with high-quality, human-grade ingredients, Oli's food contains no fillers, no preservatives.

Just real food. Just fill out Ollie's 30-second quiz and they'll create a customized meal plan based on your pup's weight, activity level, and other health info. Dogs deserve the best. And that means fresh, healthy food. Head to ollie.com slash healthy pup, tell them about your dog, and use code healthy pup to get 60% off your welcome kit when you subscribe today. Plus, they offer a happiness guarantee on the first box. So if you're not...

completely satisfied, you'll get your money back. That's O-L-L-I-E dot com slash healthy pup and enter code healthy pup to get 60% off your first box. Does it ever feel like you're a marketing professional just Speaking into the void. Well, with LinkedIn ads, you can know you're reaching the right decision makers. You can even target buyers by job title, industry, company, seniority, skills.

Wait, did I say job title yet? Get started today and see how you can avoid the void and reach the right buyers with LinkedIn ads. We'll even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign. Get started at linkedin.com slash campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

Tired of your car insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record? You're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side-by-side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence.

Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai slash ACAST today. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this. is Tangle.

Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tango Podcast, a place you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of mind take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the latest announcement from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who said that the EPA is rolling back some emissions.

I guess you could say, mostly a major rule called the endangerment finding that helps regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It's a little complicated. We're going to explain everything that you need to know and then share some views from the left and the right who have some very strong disagreements about this issue. And then I'm going to share my take, which I think conveniently today cuts a little bit down the middle.

I mean, I have some feelings for sure that are a little bit more aligned with the concern around climate change, but I also am just not totally sure what the Trump administration can really do or if it can do what it's saying it's going to do. without being stopped by the court. So I'm going to explain why I feel that way. And I think this will be a really good roundup of this issue, which, by the way, after reading and consuming so much punditry and commentary on it.

I think is being really convoluted in the press. So today's a day where I very much feel the need for Tangle and feel like... our work can add some value and I hope it does. With that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main pod and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today.

First up, four European countries, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, agreed to buy U.S. military equipment valued at roughly $1 billion, which will then be transferred to Ukraine. Number two, President Donald Trump suggested that he may move to federalize Washington, D.C. in response to purported crime problems in the Capitol, specifically referencing the assault of a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer on Sunday.

Number three, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will halt roughly $500 million in funding for 22 projects to develop vaccines using mRNA technology.

Number four, Vice President J.D. Vance is reportedly planning to meet with top Trump administration officials on Wednesday to determine a strategy for handling documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The group may discuss whether to release the transcript from the recent Department of Justice. interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime associate. At number five, Senator Marsha Blackburn, the Republican from Tennessee, announced her candidacy for governor of Tennessee.

Environmental Protection Agency has relied on what's known as the endangerment, finding a legal determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health. The foundation for the EPA's climate regulations, the finding has influenced pollution limits on cars and power plants. Today, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced he is revoking that finding.

On Tuesday, July 29th, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency's proposal to rescind a determination that previous administrations had used to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Both the Obama and Biden administrations used this determination, called the endangerment finding, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, particularly from vehicle emissions.

The EPA cited curtailing regulatory overreach as the primary motivation for rescinding the rule, saying that the repeal would save the auto industry and expected $54 billion through deregulations. The EPA undergirded its decision with a study that questioned the adverse effects of carbon dioxide on human health and planetary warming.

For context, in Massachusetts v. EPA 2007, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant and required the EPA to regulate these emissions if the agency found that they endangered human health. The EPA instituted the endangerment finding after President Barack Obama took office in 2009, basing its authority to regulate airborne pollutants that become well-mixed into the atmosphere on Section 202A of the Clean Air Act.

At the time, the administration was having difficulty passing climate change legislation through Congress. In 2010 and in 2022, the EPA denied petitions to reconsider the endangerment finding and in 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the EPA on the legal challenge against it.

The endangerment finding states that the current and projected concentrations of six gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexide, in the atmosphere threaten public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Although it does not itself impose regulations, the finding provided the legal basis for agency standards on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency in the auto industry, as well as the 2015 Clean Power Plan to reduce power plant emissions and strict tail...

pipe emission standards put in place by President Joe Biden's administration in 2024. Before it can be finalized, the decision to repeal the rule moves to a 45-day public comment period, after which it will likely face significant legal challenges.

If the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding, it would strip the legal basis for existing emission standards, making them vulnerable to legal challenge or nullification. Administrator Zeldin touted the projected financial savings that would come from deregulation. With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers, Zelton said.

If finalized, rescinding the endangerment finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families. Many critics of the move say the EPA is making its decision on cherry-picked and indefensible studies. Administrator Zeldin's decision to ax this finding isn't based on science, Representative Zoe Lofgren said.

It's based on the Trump administration delivering concession after concession to big polluters, giving them permission to freely trash our air and water. Separately, an EPA analysis of the move found that repealing the finding could cause gas prices to increase. Today, we'll get into what the left and the right are saying about the rule, and then Isaac's take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. I'm Aaron Stroup, host of the Reaching Higher podcast, and I've spent 20 plus years interviewing incredible people who are making a real difference. On the Reaching Higher podcast, I sit down with CEOs, activists, actors, musicians, you name it, to explore how they're pushing society forward. Past guests include people like director Jerry Zucker of Airplane and Ghost,

U.S. Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow, Stanford's Dr. Joseph Wu, and TV personality Al Roker. Join me at reachinghigherpod.com and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and let's reach higher together. Hey, it's Matt here from P1 with Matt and Tommy, and this episode is sponsored by eBay.

Swapping out your tyres? There's nothing like it. With eBay, you find the feel you're looking for, from smooth highway rides to grip for rough terrain. Get all the tyres you need at prices you'll love. eBay. Things people love.

All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left opposes Zeldin's proposal, arguing that it will have disastrous consequences. Some question the legal foundations of the rollback. Others say repealing the rule will be damaging, but not necessarily permanent.

In the Los Angeles Times, Jody Freeman wrote, Trump's EPA proposes to end the U.S. fight against climate change. This isn't just another regulatory rollback. It's an assault on the foundation of all federal climate policy. The endangerment finding originally applied to vehicle emissions, but it also underpins every major federal climate rule in America, car and truck emission standards, power plant regulations, and limits on oil and gas facilities.

By removing this cornerstone, Trump's EPA is repudiating federal authority to limit greenhouse gases, our most powerful tool for fighting climate change, Freeman said. Companies may stay quiet to avoid crossing a vengeful administration. But they know climate change is real and that some federal regulation makes business sense. This administration's assault on climate action won't change the evidence or reality of climate change.

As scientists have predicted, storms are growing more intense, heat waves more deadly, wildfires more destructive. We spend billions annually on disaster response while other countries surge ahead in clean energy innovation and manufacturing, Freeman wrote. The question isn't whether we'll eventually return to responsible climate policy. We will because we must. The question is how much time we'll lose and how much damage we'll suffer while politics masquerades as good policy.

In the regulatory review, Lisa Heinzerling called the proposal climate denialism dressed up as law. In 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court roundly rejected EPA's decision to do nothing. It held that the Clean Air Act clearly included greenhouse gases within the category of air pollutants regulable under the Act. It scolded EPA for refusing even to form a judgment about the dangerousness of greenhouse gases based on policy concerns.

Extraneous to the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act, Heinzingler said, EPA's legal theory for its deregulatory binge bears a strong resemblance to its failed arguments in Massachusetts versus EPA. Once again, EPA is smuggling myriad policy preferences into a provision that focuses on the scientific question of endangerment.

Once again, EPA is doing so despite the fact that adjacent statutory provisions specifically instruct EPA to consider some of the concerns it mentions. And once again, EPA is trying to avoid engagement with scientific evidence by throwing legal spaghetti. at the wall and hoping something sticks, Heinzingler said. This is not to suggest that EPA's proposed approach to getting rules on climate change is doomed.

No member of the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA still sits on the Supreme Court. Much more conservative and assertive justices have joined the court, and the court has become notably hostile to ambitious regulatory actions. In Bloomberg, Mark Gongloff asks, how much damage can the new unprotective EPA do?

The good news is that this dangerous state of affairs doesn't have to be permanent. If a reality-based president ever returns to the White House, he or she can tell the EPA chief to reboot the endangerment finding and restart the regulation engine, Gongloff said. That process might be slow. It will take Trump and Zeldin several months to formally repeal the finding, including public comment and rulemaking periods. And that's before the inevitable lawsuits, which could delay the action even more.

with one huge exception, which I'll discuss soon. The EPA's endangerment finding has long shielded oil and gas companies from environmentalist lawsuits. You don't have the right to make us pay for our climate damage, they'll say, because that's the EPA's job. The EPA getting out of that business could be a dinner bell for plaintiff's lawyers. Again, a conservative Supreme Court might find a way to build fossil fuels a new shield, but that's several steps down the road, Gongloff wrote.

Alternatively, our theoretical rational future president could work with a theoretical rational future Congress to simply pass a law properly bulletproofed against a conservative Supreme Court with the necessary spells and incantations. ordering the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports the rural rescission and praises the administration for challenging Massachusetts versus EPA. Some say the rollback will correct years of regulatory overreach. Others support Zeldin's push but question his tactics. National Review's editors wrote, Lee Zeldin's EPA liberates American industry.

The Supreme Court, in a dubious 5-4 decision in Massachusetts versus EPA in 2007, ruled that Congress in 1970 meant to classify carbon dioxide as an air pollutant, notwithstanding the fact that it is naturally present in the atmosphere and is exhaled by humans and animals. The court required the EPA to provide a reasoned explanation for why it was not regulating greenhouse gases. The Obama and Biden administrations each rushed to pile such regulations on the carmakers, the editor said.

The EPA administrator can rescind the 2007 ruling on one or both of two grounds, that he does not consider such omissions to endanger public health or welfare, or that he believes that the court read the statute wrong. The former step is well within the discretion of the EPA administrator, but its basis could be challenged in court. The latter would require the EPA to argue for overturning Massachusetts v. EPA, a harder task.

But court challenges are inevitable, so there will be ample opportunity for the administration to make that case. The EPA is pursuing both, the editors wrote. The court may be more hesitant today to reverse that decision, given the weight of precedent in cases of statutory interpretation, but it should do so.

In the interim, we applaud Zeldin and the EPA for the boldness to liberate American industry to compete in world markets. In Real Clear Energy, Brett Bennett and Cullen Neely said the EPA makes the right call. Even if the EPA could eliminate all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions within this decade, the action would reduce global temperatures in 2050 by roughly .05 degrees Celsius. less than the margin of error in global temperature measurements, Bennett and Neely wrote.

The Obama and Biden administrations used this finding to justify dozens of regulations, including mandating 70% of cars and 45% of trucks be electric by 2032, restructuring the electricity sector, and imposing methane regulations. on oil and gas. Repealing the finding will take an axe to Aldo's regulations. The EPA's proposed rescission wisely recognizes that Congress has repeatedly considered and rejected GHG legislation from cap-and-trade to carbon taxes.

When lawmakers addressed GHG emissions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, they chose tax incentives and a methane tax rather than broad regulatory authority. Now the EPA needs to take the next steps to prove that CO2 is not air pollution and that Massachusetts versus EPA is fundamentally flawed, Bennett and Neely said. It will be an epical restoration of constitutional governance, and American businesses and families will benefit enormously.

In Reason, Jeff Luce argued, the Trump administration risks perpetuating the regulatory ping pong that has plagued Washington, D.C. The EPA's draft rule does not appear to call into question the climate impacts of GHG emissions, which some suspected it would. Instead, it argues that the EPA overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare, Luce wrote.

Reconsidering the rule on procedural grounds rather than scientific ones may be a wiser strategy for the EPA, but it would still have to pass strict legal scrutiny, especially since the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference last year. Now, federal agencies have less leeway to interpret broad regulations, including the Clean Air Act.

The Trump administration has taken effective steps to reduce regulations that hurt American energy security and affordability for minimal environmental benefits, Luce said. Despite these successes, the Trump administration is taking the wrong approach to fixing the endangerment finding.

By repealing it through executive rulemaking, the effort is sure to be held up in courts and rescinded by a future presidential administration, perpetuating the regulatory ping pong that has plagued Washington, D.C. for decades. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. I'm not going to bury the lead. I don't think the endangerment finding is all that endangered. In order to really understand this issue... and what might happen next, you have to comb through a lot of puffery in the punditry. Predictions that this decision will unleash a new golden age or set climate regulation back decades.

I don't think Zeldin's announcement will actually have any significant impact because the Trump administration is on very shaky legal ground. And like the Obama administration, won't be able to affect lasting change without Congress passing a meaningful amendment to the Clean Air Act, which a brief analysis of the vote counts, constituent concerns...

and Congress's reliable ineptitude tell me isn't going to happen anytime soon. Consider the following. First, trying to undo the endangerment finding is a fool's errand. The only question relevant to the statutory language is whether greenhouse gas emissions may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

That's the very low bar that needs to be cleared for the Clean Air Act to allow the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. And greenhouse gases quite clearly meet this threshold.

They did when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that they did in 2007. They do now, and they will in the future. As Jonathan Adler notes in Reason, judging whether the endangerment finding can legally be rescinded, is not a question of whether climate change is going to catastrophically impact the planet or whether regulating consumer products is a better method than promoting innovation for addressing climate change or whether the scientific theory of climate change is settled.

It is, but that's actually not relevant here. Instead, the only question is whether the EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate that greenhouse gas emissions can pose a risk to public health, which they can. This is not ambiguous. Second, the push from conservatives to undo the Chevron doctrine is now coming back to bite them. Before the Supreme Court's ruling in 2024, agencies like the EPA had broad latitude to interpret statutory language that might be ambiguous. Today... They do not.

The Trump administration is trying to repeal the endangerment finding by claiming that climate change regulation harms industry and the threat of climate change is overstated. But again, the only relevant legal question is whether the Clean Air Act created statutory authority to...

regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court's previous 5-4 ruling and all the court interpretations since have not been ambiguous. One could reasonably argue that carbon dioxide is not properly classified as a pollutant. but one cannot argue that it isn't classified as a pollutant. If you want that to change, the law needs to change. No executive or agency action can do that.

Even with the current composition of the Supreme Court, I think the Trump administration would lose a legal challenge to this rule if it were implemented. Third, and finally, the endangerment finding needs to be updated. A few weeks ago, Tangle Managing Editor Ari Weitzman published a piece on all the ways climate change models and their findings have changed in the last 20 years. Many of the scientific projections argued in the initial Massachusetts v. EPA cases

are now different in meaningful ways. The statutory language should reflect these changes. It would actually be a good thing if Congress could panel an independent group of scientists appointed on a bipartisan basis to review the latest models, update the law, and offer new recommendations.

Do I think this administration or this EPA will do that? No. But it would make a nice surprise if rather than creating regulatory chaos, flexing executive power, and fighting this battle in the courts, Trump and Zeldin just asked Congress to do its job and then updated the Clean Air Act or wrote new greenhouse gas legislation as a companion to it in order to address the areas where it felt these regulations were holding us back.

On a more solutions-oriented note, I think there are a few other things about this saga worth considering. For one, Zeldin's draft rule argues that the EPA overstepped its legal authority, but it does not argue that greenhouse gas emissions don't have climate impacts as some people thought it would. This is a quiet concession on the basic fact that climate change is happening, which Ari has also written about.

All the while, the quote-unquote abundance movement, which demands climate action but acknowledges that burdensome regulations have stifled innovation, progress, and abundance of all things, including energy, is gaining traction on the left. In between these two sides, on this particular front of the partisan firefight, is a no man's land of possible consensus, where we can appreciate Zeldin, whose nomination I said Democrats should be happy about.

tacitly acknowledging climate change, and also criticized the way in which emissions regulations may impose undue costs. Ultimately, I think there are good arguments for reevaluating some dated climate change regulation that is built around older models.

I think conservatives' inclination to embrace innovation and deregulation to address climate change has merit. I think liberals' understanding of the risks of climate change has spurred emissions regulations that have quite obviously had positive impacts for all of us. And I sincerely wish this administration and this Congress would show itself capable of doing more than just trying to put old laws through the shredder and figuring it out in court battles.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone could get these people in the same room to find consensus on a more comprehensive solution? I doubt that would happen, but the opening is hard to ignore, making it all the more tragic. We'll be right back after this quick break. From real world inspiration to the industrial metaverse to total immersion.

Innovate at the speed of software within the industrial metaverse. Transform the everyday with Siemens. You know what's wild? Most people are still overpaying for car insurance just because it's a pain to switch. That's why there's Jerry. Jerry's the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurers in minutes and helps you switch fast with no spam calls or hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year.

Before you renew your car insurance policy, do yourself a favor. Download the Jerry app or head to jerry.ai slash ACAST.

All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your question's answer. This one's from Alicia in West Virginia. She said, what is Tangle's opinion on the fighting that broke out in Cambodia and Thailand? Okay, so first of all, obviously... We're not experts on Cambodia and Thailand and their relations, but we do have an editorial team that is extremely good at researching topics like this and distilling the things that you need to know. So we did that over the last few days.

We're going to break down our response to this question into two parts over two separate podcasts today. We're going to describe what led to the recent exchange of firing along the border between Cambodia and Thailand. And tomorrow, we'll give a little take on an interesting storyline on one side of the disputed border, a story that most people in the United States are probably not aware of.

In a much more familiar and common story, Thailand and Cambodia have shared a tense, contested border with one another since the partition of the French colony of Siam in 1907 along a ridgeline boundary with several culturally significant ancient structures along the border providing focal... points of disagreement. That should sound familiar. One of these locations is the Temple of Prava here. In 2008, the Thai government supported Cambodia's nomination of the temple as a UNESCO heritage site.

prompting populist backlash in Thailand that led to a political crisis. The temple was also the focus of fighting along the border in 2011. Recently, tensions came to a head around another significant site called Prasattamontam by the Cambodians and Prasattamontam by the Thais, following a series of escalating events.

In May, Thai troops shot and killed a Cambodian soldier along the border. On July 23, a landmine explosion in a disputed area injured five Thai soldiers, causing one to lose his leg. It was the second such incident in a week's time. Then, conflict broke out into heavier fighting on July 24th around the temple.

The armed conflict was mirrored by a war of words in the press. Cambodia said Thai soldiers deliberately attacked Cambodians first in an attempt to claim territory around the holy site, prompting them to return fire. Thailand said that Cambodia had fired rockets into civilian areas in four Thai provinces, prompting Thailand to send F-16 fighter jets to strike targets in Cambodia.

After days of fighting that claimed at least 43 lives and displaced over 300,000 people on both sides of the border, the two sides reached a ceasefire deal on July 28th. President Donald Trump was active in the process that led to the ceasefire agreement, threatening an elevated tariff of over 36% on each country.

To us, the most interesting aspect of the story isn't that this strategy seems to have worked, that Trump announced a 19% tariff on Cambodia and Thailand, or that Cambodia's deputy prime minister has floated nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, it's teased out from a detail in the peace talks that Thailand's head of state at the time was also its acting prime minister.

We'll get into the interesting implications of that detail tomorrow, explaining why Thailand's prime minister had been suspended when peace talks were finalized and what that tells us about the relationship between Cambodia and Thailand, as well as the unique relationship between Thailand and Thailand.

government and its military. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of today's story, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. A July 2025 report from AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving found that roughly 63 million U.S. adults, nearly one in four, provide care to an adult with health or functional needs or to a child with a serious mental...

condition, or disability. The figure is a record high, up from 53 million in 2020 and 43.5 million a decade ago. The responsibility that caregivers assume often comes with financial challenges, as they may be forced to leave their jobs or turn down career advancement opportunities, often while shouldering some of the cost of the care.

Consequently, the report found that approximately 2 in 10 caregivers have taken on more debt, 3 in 10 have used up short-term savings, 3 in 10 have stopped saving, and 2 in 10 are leaving bills unpaid or paying them late. The cost, complexity, and emotional weight of care has only grown. with employees navigating longer lifespans for loved ones, rising care expenses, and increasingly intense responsibilities, Lindsay Juris-Rosner, CEO of a caregiving support company, said.

Yahoo Finance has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. 387.6 in parts per million. That was the global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in December of 2009, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As of June 2025, the global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 429.6 in parts per million.

In December 2009, global methane concentration in the atmosphere was 1,796.7 in parts per billion. Global methane concentration in the atmosphere in January 2025 was 1,935.3 in parts per billion. In December 2009, global nitrous oxide concentration in the atmosphere was 322.8 in parts per billion. In April 2025, global nitrous oxide concentration in the atmosphere was 338.7 in parts per billion.

According to a 2023-2024 Pew Research survey, the percentage of U.S. adults who say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost is 60%. while 38% of U.S. adults say it would cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. 39% of Republicans say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, while 59% say they are not worth the cost.

And 82% of Democrats say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, while 17% say they are not worth the cost. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have previously identified a sugar molecule that cancer cells use on their surfaces to hide from the immune system. But the team recently discovered that the same molecule may help treat type 1 diabetes.

Whereas cancer cells use the molecule, known as sialic acid, for harmful purposes, the mechanism may have positive applications by distinguishing pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin and are attacked by the immune system when a person has diabetes. A goal would be to provide transplantable cells without the need for immunosuppression, Dr. Virginia Shapiro, who led the study, said. Though we're still in the early stages, this study may be one step toward improving care.

The Mayo Clinic has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace.

Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kabak and associate editors Hunter Kasper. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com. Hello.

This is Paige, the co-host of Giggly Squad. I use Uber Eats for everything, and I feel like people forget that you can truly order anything, especially living in New York City. why i love it you can get chinese food at any time of night but it's not just for food i order from cvs all the time i'm always ordering from the grocery store if a friend stops over i have to order champagne

I also have this thing that whenever I travel, if I'm ever in a hotel room, I never feel like I'm missing something because I'll just Uber eats it. The amount of times I've had to Uber eat hair items like hairspray, deodorant, you name it. ordered it on ubereats you can get grocery alcohol everyday essentials in addition to restaurants and food you love so in other words get almost

Anything with Uber Eats. Order now for alcohol. You must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region. See app for details. If your dog could talk, they'd beg for Ollie. The full body tail wag, the excited little hops, the big goofy grin, that's the Ollie effect.

Oli delivers clean, fresh nutrition in five drool-worthy flavors, even for the pickiest eaters. Made in U.S. kitchens with high-quality, human-grade ingredients, Oli's food contains no fillers, no preservatives. Just real food. Just fill out Ollie's 30-second quiz and they'll create a customized meal plan based on your pup's weight, activity level, and other health info. Dogs deserve the best.

And that means fresh, healthy food. Head to ollie.com slash healthy pup. Tell them about your dog and use code healthy pup to get 60% off your welcome kit when you subscribe today. Plus they offer a happiness guarantee on the first box. So if you're not. completely satisfied, you'll get your money back. That's O-L-L-I-E dot com slash healthy pup and enter code healthy pup to get 60% off your first box.

This episode is brought to you by Nordstrom. Summer's almost out and fall's calling. Luckily, Nordstrom has everything you need for the season ahead, all under $100. Discover new arrivals from your favorite brands like Mango, Princess Polly, Free People.

EDG, and more. Whether you're planning a last-minute getaway, heading back to class, or refreshing your office looks, you'll find the latest trends and beauty must-haves without breaking your budget. It's easy with free shipping, free returns, and in-store order pickup. Shop today. in stores, and at nordstrom.com.