yazzy

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 15 minutes.

📲

Phone bans are here, but are they good policies? Plus, what are the implications of the UN's climate change opinion?

Your criticism, published.

This Friday, we’re going to be sharing some of the responses to our coverage of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. We’ll be sharing criticism and praise, and replying to a few of the more critical pieces of feedback. As always, we want to involve our readers and listeners in the debate, and we think this is a great moment to elevate some dissenting voices.

Quick hits.

1. The Utah County Attorney’s office charged the suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk with aggravated murder and six other counts. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said the state will seek the death penalty. (The charges)
2. A New York justice dismissed state terrorism charges against the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, finding the evidence for the charges “legally insufficient.” The suspect is still charged with second-degree murder and also faces federal charges. (The dismissal)
3. House Republicans released the text of their stopgap funding bill that would fund the federal government at current levels through November 21, while also increasing security funding for public officials. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he expects the chamber to vote on the bill by Friday. (The bill)
4. President Donald Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and four of its reporters, alleging that they spread “false and defamatory content” about him. The Times said the lawsuit has “no merit.” (The suit)
5. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled 4–3 to decline to hear a challenge to a lower court decision that disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the criminal racketeering case against President Trump and his allies. Willis was appealing the decision to remove her from the prosecution team due to her romantic relationship with a private lawyer on the case. (The ruling)

Today’s topic.

Banning phones in schools. As the academic year gets underway, a growing number of U.S. states have enacted laws banning or restricting cell phone use in schools. 17 states and Washington, D.C. implemented new rules this year, joining several other states with existing restrictions. Scores of school districts and individual schools have also enacted their own policies. These laws range from incentives for schools to curtail phone use to prohibitions only in classrooms to outright bans for the entire school day, with different rules for different age groups.

Back up: In the 1980s and 90s, many schools banned pagers over concerns that they were being used to facilitate drug deals (in addition to disrupting classrooms). In the 2009–10 academic year (two years after the first iPhone was released), approximately 91% of U.S. public schools prohibited non-academic use of cell phones or smartphones during school hours. However, that percentage began to decrease in the following decade, oscillating between 66% and 77%.

The movement to ban phones in schools has drawn on a growing body of research that links excessive phone and social media use to lower academic achievement and psychological wellbeing. These findings are largely echoed by teachers, who report that cell phone use is increasingly causing major distractions in the classroom. However, some studies of existing phone bans in European schools have found little to no effect on grades or behavior.

Students themselves are more mixed on the value of these bans, with many saying the benefits of phones outweigh the potential harms. Some parents also oppose restricting phone use, citing the importance of reaching their child at any time in the event of an emergency. And while more states are adopting bans of some variety, a handful of state legislatures have voted down similar bills.

Congress is also taking up the issue. In February, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduced the Focus on Learning Act, which would require the Department of Education to study and report on the use of mobile devices in elementary and secondary schools, then establish a pilot program to award grants to support schools that enact phone bans.

Today, we’ll explore the debate over banning phones in schools, with views from proponents and opponents. Then, my take.

What proponents are saying.

• Proponents of phone bans say they are a simple but effective strategy to keep kids focused and present in the classroom.
• Some argue the trade-offs of bans are worth it to help students’ social and academic development.
• Others note the positive effects of phone bans in schools that have them.

In The New York Post, Marty Makary said “we’ve done enormous damage to kids with smartphones — we must ban them in schools.”

“America’s children are hurting. Behind in school after pandemic closures, many children are now struggling with another major barrier to learning — smartphone addiction. Two-thirds of American students say they are distracted by their digital devices during class,” Makary wrote. “There’s also a second-hand smoke effect: More than half of students are distracted by the devices of other students, according to a 2022 Program for International Student Assessment study. It’s a complex problem. But one solution is embarrassingly simple — ban phones in America’s classrooms.”

“While phones are not the sole driver of today’s child mental health epidemic, they are playing a major role. Forty-four percent of teenagers say that their cell phones make them anxious, according to a Pew Research study. That’s probably because apps can make children feel ugly, left out, and lonely. Addictions isolate people, and phone addiction is no exception,” Makary said. “Teenagers use their phones in lieu of face-to-face interaction with peers. But school is exactly where children should be developing those social muscles. In fact, they need human connections for their learning and to be a part of a community.”

In The Atlantic, Gail Cornwall explored “what many parents miss about the phones-in-schools debate.”

“Just as objects in motion stay in motion, kids who have a cellphone use it. And my daughter has very much had hers while in school, when she’s supposed to be focused on learning and engaging with the people around her,” Cornwall wrote. “I appreciate her conscientious desire to deal with things right away. I also appreciate why many parents want their kids to have a phone accessible: It can be comforting to think that kids can be reached in an emergency, and convenient to communicate on the fly when after-school plans change.

“On the other hand, as a former teacher and a writer steeped in the academic literature on psychology, child development, and pedagogy, I know that letting kids have phones in schools comes with many costs. They can distract students from learning, increase social anxiety and stress, and suppress opportunities for emotional and intellectual growth. They can also diminish kids’ autonomy, in effect serving as a digital umbilical cord tethering students to their parents,” Cornwall said. “When kids can’t avoid one another, growth happens. Exposure to little discomforts, such as accidentally locking eyes with an attractive student, can build teens’ tolerance for future discomfort and make them more likely to put themselves out there.”

In After Babel, Gilbert Schuerch wrote about “what happened” when his school banned phones for a year.

“This school year, students must hand in their phones at entry or we immediately call their parents… Consequences for smuggling your phone past entry are high. Immediate detention, call home to parents, and a personal visit from the dean mid class,” Schuerch said. “ The results have been spectacular. Teachers don’t have to fight an impossible battle against tech. Students talk to each other between classes. The cafeteria has the sound of conversation. Teachers cover material faster. Cyberbullying has fallen. When a fight happens, half the school doesn’t immediately run out of the classroom to watch.”

“When I compare the 7 years I had battling the cellphone in the classroom, vs almost an entire year of phone free schooling, there is no comparison. Our kids are smarter, more social, and more motivated to do the things they actually want to accomplish in this world when they don’t have a Pavlovian vibration derailing their attention every 20 seconds,” Schuerch wrote. “Bring on the phone free school legislation. You wouldn’t let your kid smoke cigarettes in your class, so why are we letting them consume electronic brain cocaine?”

What opponents are saying.

• Opponents of bans argue phones are vital communication tools that schools shouldn’t have the power to take away.
• Some suggest bans are ineffective and ignore the realities of modern life.
• Others say phone bans could widen attainment gaps between students.

In USA Today, Keri Rodrigues wrote “parents don’t want cell phone bans at schools. We want smarter rules.”

“I’m deeply concerned by the growing push to ban cell phones in schools, as well as the flagrant disregard governors and state legislators have shown in discounting where the majority of parents stand on this divisive issue,” Rodrigues said. “The National Parents Union and other organizations have surveyed families, and the findings are consistent. Parents see cell phones as a critical communication tool. They want reasonable and balanced school policies, not extreme measures that ignore the reality of family life in 2025.”

“Cell phones can be distracting. They can be a nuisance in the classroom. But banning them misses the point and ignores the bigger picture. Here’s the reality: More than 90% of teens have a cell phone by age 14, and nearly half own one by the age of 10. In modern day America, phones are how kids communicate with family, keep up with friends, do their schoolwork and figure out how to navigate the world around them,” Rodrigues wrote. “If phones are truly creating problems in classrooms, then the solution is not to ban but to prepare educators to manage the challenge.”

In Age of Awareness, Karen Gross said there are “better options” than banning phones.

“Yes, students are struggling in schools and with mental wellness. Banning cell phones and eradicating social media isn’t the answer… banning something oft-times increases the desire for and effort to get/use whatever is taken away from offspring. Ban candy and kids want it more. Ban contact with a particular friend/romantic interest and the desire for contact increases,” Gross wrote. Furthermore, “We know that for some students and their families, a phone creates both connection and a sense of safety. If parents know they can reach their child in an emergency, that helps them let youth have increased freedom.”

“We need to use the cellphones FOR and TO ADVANCE educational goals. Rather than confiscate them, we must collaborate on how to use them,” Gross said. “Ask students for their solutions. How do they want cellphones treated in school? Empower them to talk about it, reflect on differing perspectives, come up with compromises. How powerful would that be, enabling students themselves to address an issue. That would be a life lesson well worth replicating.”

In USA Today, Brandon Cardet-Hernandez suggested “the real crisis isn’t in your kid’s hand.”

“[I have] been a teacher, a principal, a senior education advisor to former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio who oversaw the country's largest school system — and now the president of an education company. And I’m telling you: this is a distraction. Of course we don’t want kids using their phones throughout the school day without purpose and intentionality. But the real crisis isn’t in your kid’s hand. It’s in their reading scores,” Cardet-Hernandez wrote. “We reach for easy fixes, fueled by nostalgia and fear. But banning phones won’t turn back the clock on childhood. It will just widen the gap between the kids who have and the kids who don’t.”

“When you take away cell phones, you don’t create equity — you erase it. In underfunded schools, smartphones are calculators, translators, research tools and sometimes the only reliable internet connection a student has. For multilingual learners, for kids without Wi-Fi at home, that device is a lifeline,” Cardet-Hernandez said. “The anxious generation isn’t our kids — it’s us. We’re the ones struggling to navigate a changing world, grasping for control. But our children don’t need us to fear the future. They need us to prepare them for it.”

My take.

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

• The stories about smartphones’ harms on socialization and teaching alone make me supportive of school phone bans.
• Research is mixed and I’m generally against blanket bans, but this position feels overwhelmingly like common sense.
• Giving students the ability to shape the policy in their schools seems like the best way to introduce bans.

A few weeks ago, I was talking with my father-in-law about this very subject. He retired last year after teaching in public schools for about 20 years, and he said two things that really struck me.

The first, and maybe most disheartening, observation was just how much the lunch periods and time between classes had changed. Before, he said, you’d see high school kids socializing, fighting, flirting, and generally just being kids together. Now, between periods, most kids would roam the hallway — zombie-like — looking down at their phones and barely interacting with each other. He found the change in behavior incredibly sad.

The second was his description of being a teacher in this environment. In effect, he said, you are competing for every kid’s attention with their favorite TV show, video game, and best friend at every moment. He put it like this: Imagine a teacher trying to deliver a lesson while a TV behind them blasts every student’s favorite show. This is what it's like trying to teach when kids can just look under their desks and break out their phones, and preventing that is not as easy as telling them to put them away.

I’ll be honest: These two points alone make me think we should all support phone bans in school. I just can’t shake the idea that we are both losing something deeply human — this critical period of social development for kids — while also asking teachers and kids to do something impossible, which is focus and learn when students have the biggest, most intrusive distraction possible right there in their pocket at all times.

While some data from overseas shows no improvement in grades after these bans were implemented, other findings from the U.S. show students’ moods, focus, and health all improve with less screen time. But, to be honest, I’m less interested here in the research than I am in common sense.

We know what phones are like — we all use them. We know how distracting and addictive they are. Think about your own smartphone usage and habits; how would you have done in school if you had that with you at all times?

I have a theory that we’re starting to see a generational shift toward less screen time and less phone time. Millennials — the last generation to experience an era before smartphones — are now parenting toddlers and children entering adolescence, and are seeing their kids lose out on many of the experiences they remember fondly. So many of my friends who have kids are horrified at the inclusion of tablets and phones in school; they are saddened by watching their kids spend too much time inside playing video games or scrolling social media. In response, I’ve observed a growing movement to push kids away from these technologies and toward outdoor play, individualism, and “real life” experiences. Right now, I think this movement is mostly contained to wealthier, highly educated homes — but I can see it growing. We may not see the impact of that movement paired with policy for years, but I do think we’ll see that impact with time.

This is a challenging position for me to hold personally because it is antithetical to many other views I have. I’m generally skeptical of government bans on anything, and in this case would be making an exception for one of the most ubiquitous technologies on the planet. I acknowledge the weakness of these inconsistencies here, but also… we know, don’t we?

Just look around. Do we need a book like The Anxious Generation to see that far too many teenagers and adults are addicted to their phones? Do we need double-blind studies to understand that a 16-year-old is going to pay more attention in class without a dopamine pump in their pocket? Does anybody doubt that attention spans are plummeting and that teachers have an impossible job in this environment?

Still, in the interest of some ideological consistency (and because it’s probably the right way to think about this, too), I’ll caveat my position a few ways:

First, these bans should not come at the federal or state levels. Instead, they should be decided locally, by individual districts and school boards. They are very different issues, but this view is similar to my argument that individual governing bodies of specific sports should be able to make their own rules around trans athletes, rather than have those rules dictated by Congress or even state governments. Here, too, the solution is to empower local governments to regulate. I think and hope school boards across the country will enforce such bans, and if my kids were in a school district and I had a vote, I would certainly support a local board member who ran on a platform calling for phone bans.

Second, parents must understand that a phone ban in school is not going to unlock a cultural shift away from screen time and social media obsession by itself. That has to start at home and, actually, with parents. When I read some parents argue that it’s “important for them to be able to contact their child in the event of an emergency,” my immediate thought is, well… is it?

What are the circumstances where a kid being able to text their parents in the middle of an emergency at school, or vice versa, is going to actually solve much of anything? In the nightmare scenario of something like a school shooting, kids are still bound by emergency protocols at school. They’ll be locked down or evacuated, the school will be swarmed by police and cordoned off, and only after the situation is stabilized will kids be reconnected with parents. If the goal is to just know your kid is safe, that’s possible without a smartphone — Apple watches, “dumb” cell phones, or updates from the school can do the trick. And the examples of parents having the ability to intervene are vanishingly rare. The upside is mostly just contact — the illusion of access and protection. Is that trade-off worth allowing phones in school at all hours?

This is actually a key part of this entire story: It’s just as much about the parents’ anxiety as the kids’ addiction. Karen Gross argues (under “What opponents are saying”) that “if parents know they can reach their child in an emergency, that helps them let youth have increased freedom.” Actually, what would give kids genuine freedom is not monitoring their every movement, obsessing over their location at all times, and expecting to be able to contact them instantly. This is, after all, how kids were raised for millennia. It’s how I was raised as a high schooler just 20 years ago. Are we really so far detached from that era that we can’t remember kids can be okay on their own, without instant access to parents, for eight whole hours a day?

Third, and finally, is that most schools should think about this with a student-first approach, one that includes students in the policy and facilitates some kind of buy-in. Trying to strong-arm students, especially teenagers, inherently risks eliciting rebellious behavior. If phones become forbidden fruit the same way alcohol or marijuana are for teenagers, then we know what’s going to happen: Kids will just misbehave and deceive in order to use their phones. High schools could, for instance, create a list of options about how to approach a phone ban and then allow a student body to vote on the finer details. Do you get X amount of hours of phone access a day? Or get your phones only between classes? Do you have to put them in lockers or can you not bring them to school at all? Honestly, I don’t think anyone has the best answer yet — and if we let the kids drive the ship a bit, then they’ll probably commit more to the changes.

However these bans play out over the next few years, I’ll say this: I’m glad to see the backlash against screens. I’m happy to see so many parents rallying behind a call to get their kids offline and get them outside. I’m happy we’re identifying and pushing back against the detriments of reliance on this technology. For the last decade or so, we’ve been conducting a massive experiment on what happens when you give millions of kids with underdeveloped brains unlimited access to intentionally addictive social media platforms where they can go from watching fight videos to accessing porn to bullying a classmate, all with a few swipes.

It turns out the results aren’t great, and now we want to chart a different path forward. I, for one, am happy to see the change. I just hope more parents start embracing it.

Take the survey: Do you support banning smartphones in schools? 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: How big of a deal is this International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion [on climate change]? What happens as it butts up against the current US administration's approach to energy and regulation? What are the implications for public opinion and the political will for climate action in the United States?

— Tobi from Overland Park, KS

Tangle: The implications of this opinion from the ICJ — the legal arm of the United Nations — are as significant as they can get for the international body. This ruling states that climate change represents a global existential threat, countries have a responsibility to act in due diligence to protect the shared environment, and injured states could have standing to sue others for reparations. Furthermore, the advisory opinion says that any state can sue, with the injured state’s consent, not just that state itself.

For those who agree with the UN that climate change presents an existential threat, this ruling will matter because it signals the seriousness with which the UN is approaching climate change. The UN has now provided guidelines to countries that have voluntarily agreed to prioritize global issues like human rights, nuclear disarmament, and greenhouse gas emissions. Each state is still sovereign, and the UN does not have the authority to enforce this advisory opinion on any country unwilling to abide by it. That’s a limiting factor of rulings like this, but it doesn’t make them meaningless — they’ll still matter a great deal to countries that prioritize climate change.

But, obviously, the current U.S. government has a different set of priorities.

Recall that President Trump ran on a party platform that didn’t mention “climate” once, and he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Accords on day one of his current term. Maybe a future administration will see things differently, but the immediate impact of this ruling on the current administration’s decision making is probably none. If anything, it could prompt them to make a show of disregarding the ICJ’s guidance.

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, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the United States and Qatar were on the verge of finalizing a defense agreement. The announcement follows Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar’s capital, which President Trump and Qatari officials rebuked. Qatar has acted as the primary mediator between Israel and Hamas in ceasefire negotiations over the war in Gaza, and Rubio said the U.S. views the country as an important security partner in the region. “We want them to know how much we appreciate and respect all the time and work and effort they put in in the past to these negotiations, and we hope they’ll re-engage despite everything that’s happened,” Rubio said. The Hill has the story.

Numbers.

• 11. The number of U.S. states with a statewide ban or restriction on cell phone use in schools as of April 30.
• 17. The number of U.S. states with statewide legislation introduced to restrict cell phone use in schools as of April 30.
• 74% and 19%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they support and oppose, respectively, banning middle- and high-school students from using cellphones during class, according to a June 2025 Pew Research poll.
• 44% and 46%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they support and oppose, respectively, banning middle- and high-school students from using cellphones for the entire school day.
• +12%. The increase in the percentage of U.S. adults aged 18–29 who support banning middle- and high-school students from using cellphones during class from 2024 to 2025.
• +7%. The increase in the percentage of U.S. adults aged 18–29 who support banning middle- and high-school students from using cellphones for the entire school day from 2024 to 2025.
• 77% and 38%. The percentage of U.S. public schools with bans on using cell phones during class and outside of class, respectively, according to the School Pulse Panel.
• 33% and 72%. The percentage of public school middle- and high-school teachers, respectively, who say that students being distracted by their cell phones is a major problem in their classroom.

The extras.

• One year ago today we explained the U.S. Steel deal.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the Washington Post columnist fired over Charlie Kirk posts.
• Nothing to do with politics:The favorite Halloween candies in each state.
• Yesterday’s survey: 2,520 readers responded to our survey on the possibility of a direct conflict between Russia and a NATO country with 45% saying they believe one is likely within the next 12 months. “It depends on what the US does or does not do,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Leena Albinali, a 14-year-old who lives with her grandmother in California, noticed that many seniors had become disconnected and lonely. She also noticed that her own grandmother had many skills that she didn’t, and that her generation hadn’t learned. Leena saw an opportunity — she created the “Golden Connections Club” to bridge the generational gap, providing companionship to seniors and giving her generation access to lost skills like writing cards, embroidery, and making jewelry. What started as a monthly meet-up has now become a four-week summer camp. “These younger generations are really eager to learn,” volunteer instructor Shameem Syed said. “Their inspiration gave us hope and a purpose.” Nice News has the story.