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: 17 minutes.

📜

The Senate is sending the Big, Beautiful Bill back to the House. Plus, part three of a reader question about Sudan.

Coming up.

Tonight, Editor-at-Large Kmele Foster will be answering reader questions with Executive Editor Isaac Saul on his piece about the 2020 racial reckoning. You can also listen to Kmele read his piece on the podcast here, Isaac broke down the details of the live Q&A here, and you can tune in for the event with us at 8pm ET here!

Finally, we’re going to be off on Friday in observance of July 4th, so we are sending our Friday edition a day early. Tomorrow, we’ll be featuring an essay from Isaac on what it means to love America.

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump said that Israel has agreed to a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza and called on Hamas to accept the proposal. (The announcement)
2. Elon Musk and President Trump continued their public feud over the Big Beautiful Bill, with Musk saying he would support primary challenges to Republicans who vote for the bill and Trump suggesting he would explore deporting Musk. (The feud)
3. The Education Department announced an agreement with the University of Pennsylvania that will require the school to bar transgender women from participating on its women’s sports teams and vacate the records of Lia Thomas, a former student and transgender woman who competed on the women’s swim team. (The agreement) Separately, the Education Department declined to release about $7 billion in federal funding, which Congress allocated to support after-school and summer programs, English-language programs, teacher training, and other services. (The funds)
4. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with plans to reorganize several Department of Health and Human Services agencies and lay off approximately 10,000 employees. (The block)
5. Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Trump over its editing of former Vice President Kamala Harris’s interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes in October. The funds will go toward Trump’s future presidential library and his legal fees in the case. (The settlement)

Today’s topic.

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” passes the Senate. On Tuesday, following a marathon all-night voting session, the Republicans’ taxation and spending bill passed the Senate 51–50 on a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance. Republican Senators Rand Paul (KY), Thom Tillis (NC), and Susan Collins (ME) joined every Democratic senator in voting no; all other Republican senators voted yes. The bill — known as the One Big, Beautiful Bill (or OBBB) — originally passed the House 215–214 on May 22, but due to changes in the Senate, it now requires another majority vote in the lower chamber before it can be sent to President Donald Trump for approval.

Since it passed the House, several key aspects of the bill have changed. The Senate voted to raise the initial debt-limit increase from an additional $4 trillion to $5 trillion; raise the State and Local Tax deduction cap to $40,000 for five years, instead of permanently; increase appropriations to hire immigration judges; and cut an additional $300 billion in federal healthcare spending through tightening eligibility and reporting requirements. It also amended or removed portions of the House’s asylum, private-school voucher, and green-energy provisions. Additional measures — such as barring noncitizens from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, reducing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding to zero, and forcing the federal government to sell public lands — were previously removed for violating the Byrd rule.

We covered the OBBB’s drafting in the House here and its amendment in the Senate under the Byrd rule here.

However, many features of the bill remain unchanged. The Senate’s version also increases spending on military and immigration enforcement, expands oil and gas drilling and nuclear-energy incentives, and makes most of the tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Senate’s bill, if passed, will add over $4 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years.

Senator Paul said he voted against the bill for increasing the debt limit and spending, while Senators Tillis and Collins disapproved of the decreased funding for Medicaid. Meanwhile, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) initially signaled disapproval of the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and its rollback of Biden-era clean-energy credits, but ultimately voted yes after securing exceptions for Alaskans.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has called the House back from recess to begin voting on the bill, which is expected to begin on Wednesday, and President Donald Trump has set a July 4 deadline to sign it into law. Republicans maintain a 220–212 majority in the House, meaning that Speaker Johnson can only afford to lose five Republican votes to approve the package (assuming all Democrats vote against it).

However, some moderate and hard-line conservatives among House Republicans have indicated that they intend to vote against the bill. Representatives David Valadao (CA) and Young Kim (CA) have expressed discontent about the Medicaid cuts, while Rep. Chip Roy (TX) said he doesn’t think “the math is correct yet” and Rep. Andy Ogles (TN) called the Senate version of the bill “a dud.” House Democrats, meanwhile, universally oppose the bill.

We’ll cover what the left and right are saying about the OBBB passing the Senate. Then, I’ll give my take.

What the left is saying.

• The left expects the bill to pass but worries about its far-reaching fiscal consequences.
• Some say the bill is poised to uniquely benefit the wealthy.
• Others say the means by which the bill was passed undercuts faith in democracy.

In The New York Times, Andrew Duehren said the bill “puts [the] nation on [a] new, more perilous fiscal path.”

“Washington has not exactly won a reputation for fiscal discipline over the last few decades, as both Republicans and Democrats passed bills that have, bit by bit, degraded the nation’s finances. But the legislation that Republicans passed through the Senate on Tuesday stands apart in its harm to the budget,” Duehren wrote. “Not only did an initial analysis show it adding at least $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt over the next 10 years — making it among the most expensive bills in a generation — but it would also reduce the amount of tax revenue the country collects for decades.”

“Reconciliation, the special legislative procedure that Republicans used to avoid the filibuster in the Senate and pass the bill along party lines, has long included the requirement that bills cannot add to the debt for more than a decade. But Republicans decided to disregard that rule, relying on an accounting gimmick to argue that the $3.8 trillion cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts is actually zero and therefore they can continue indefinitely,” Duehren said. “Not only has that argument opened the door to an even larger increase in the debt over time, but it is also an indication that lawmakers in Washington are becoming even less serious about containing the debt.”

In The Atlantic, Annie Lowrey called it “a big, bad, very ugly bill.”

“If enacted, the OBBBA would be among the most consequential pieces of legislation in recent memory. It would cost more than Trump’s COVID-rescue bill, Joe Biden’s COVID-rescue bill, Trump’s first-term tax cut, George W. Bush’s tax cut, or Barack Obama’s stimulus package; it would dwarf the Affordable Care Act in its budget impact. Still, two in three Americans say they have heard little or nothing about it,” Lowrey wrote. “The legislation is, first and foremost, a tax cut… By one estimate, households in the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution would get a $296,160 annual tax break. Families in the top 1 percent would retain $78,650 a year. The average family in the bottom fifth of the income distribution would get a tax cut of $160.

“On the campaign trail, Trump promised to get rid of taxes on Social Security benefits. The bill does not do that. Trump also promised ‘no taxes on tips.’ The bill creates a profession-specific, fine-print loophole for tipped income. But many hairdressers and barbacks do not earn enough to pay federal income taxes anyway, and tax professionals figure that rich people will exploit the provision by making their earnings look like tips,” Lowrey said. “To pay for these tax cuts for rich people, the bill destabilizes the American medical system, guts anti-hunger programs, hikes utility costs, and makes education more expensive.”

In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote “the Big Beautiful Bill is being enacted in an ugly way.”

The bill “was put together so quickly and secretly that even members themselves don’t understand how certain provisions made it into the legislation. It’s very unpopular with the public. And yet, despite all that, the Senate passed the bill, putting it on the path to being signed into law by President Donald Trump later this week,” Bacon said. “Another illustration of our broken democracy is that policies enacted by government leaders often aren’t anywhere close to the American public’s views and preferences, while policies that voters really want remain stalled.”

“Part of the problem is today’s Republican Party — and not just Trump… GOP politicians at the state and national levels campaign largely on social issues such as immigration, but once in office, enact tax cuts for the wealthy and limits on the regulations of businesses,” Bacon wrote. “This insistence on passing policies that they know the public opposes shows that Republicans are wary of interest groups, journalists and others closely examining their proposals. So Trump’s domestic bill is being passed in the same way that legislation goes through in Republican-controlled states across the country: Bills are written in secret and voted on as quickly as possible after their release.”

What the right is saying.

• The right mostly supports the bill’s passage, arguing it advances key priorities despite some downsides.
• Some say the bill will boost small businesses across industries.
• Others say the legislation advances the GOP’s populist realignment under Trump

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said the bill “had to pass.”

“Republicans say it is the start of a new economic golden age, while Democrats call it spendthrift and cruel. They’re both wrong. The bill had to pass to avoid a $4.5 trillion tax hike next year when the 2017 reforms expire, but as a reform of the post-Covid welfare state it is a disappointment,” the board wrote. “The bill’s best news is the economic certainty it will provide businesses. It makes permanent the 2017 reform’s lower marginal tax rates, 20% deduction for pass-through businesses, increased estate-tax exemption and immediate expensing for capital investment and research and development.”

“Don’t believe Democratic assertions that the bill guts the safety net. Savings from food stamps and Medicaid come entirely from policy tweaks that reduce waste and abuse such as stricter eligibility checks. The bill attempts to crack down on state scams that expand food-stamp eligibility and use provider taxes to launder more federal Medicaid matching funds,” the board said. “The bill is more than anything the triumph of GOP political necessity, and the end of tax uncertainty is its main virtue.”

In The Washington Examiner, Kip Eideberg and Alex Hendrie called the bill “a win for America’s small businesses.”

“Small businesses across the country, including the wholesaler-distributors and equipment manufacturers that we represent, have been hit by high prices and economic uncertainty and are in desperate need of policies that will help them grow. The ‘big, beautiful bill’ achieves exactly that,” Eideberg and Hendrie wrote. “For instance, the legislation makes the 199A small business deduction permanent and expands it to 20%. This will provide relief and certainty to over 25 million businesses, according to IRS data. Since it was first enacted in 2017, the deduction has helped support 2.6 million jobs, $161 billion in annual employee compensation, and $325 billion in GDP.”

“The legislation also includes key provisions that will help small businesses invest, such as the restoration of immediate expensing for research and development costs and a 100% bonus depreciation for investing in new equipment. Restoring R&D expensing — a policy that existed for 70 years until it expired in 2022 — will help businesses innovate, adopt the next generation of technologies, and stay competitive,” Eideberg and Hendrie said. “According to a report by the Council of Economic Advisers, over the next four years, the bill will increase long-run GDP by as much as 4.9% and raise annual real wages by as much as $7,200 per worker, or $10,900 for a family with two children.”

In The American Conservative, W. James Antle III suggested the bill “is the product of a GOP in transition.”

“Trump is changing the Republican electoral coalition, but substantial parts of the party remain fundamentally unchanged from the consensus that more or less reigned from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. Trump could not have won without such voters either, and neither could virtually any GOP lawmaker in either house of Congress,” Antle wrote. “The party has not fully adapted to a political moment in which it receives a majority of the vote from working-class whites — and, in last year’s presidential election at least, Hispanic men — while fairly rich white liberals in New York City vote for Zohran Mamdani.”

“If Republicans no longer view supply-side as their main theory for promoting economic growth, it is not clear what the replacement will be,” Antle said. “Before Trump, Republicans were stuck in a rut of using libertarian-sounding rhetoric to excuse themselves from solving problems at home (though seldom overseas or occasionally in outer space) while at the same time allowing the government to grow perpetually bigger, more intrusive, and more deficit-financed. The libertarian moment lasted roughly that long, in retrospect. Whether the populist realignment can last substantially longer still remains to be seen.”

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 bill could be disastrous for energy policy and Medicaid.
• Some of the provisions are genuinely good, none more than the investment in immigration judges.
• At the end of the day, this is a big tax cut that adds to the deficit and strips benefits, and I worry it will pass.

Elon Musk once said “a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both.” I’m starting to think he was right.

I’ll be direct: I think this is a very poorly constructed piece of legislation that got slightly better in the last week, mostly through removals, but the entire process has been a total mess. And, even though this bill contains some genuinely good and exciting provisions (which I will talk about!), House Republicans will struggle to take this as is. A lot of legislators are very mad, which could mean changes that trigger another Senate vote, which could mean more changes there, which could mean another House vote, etc.

Almost by design, this bill contains so much that even describing it all is difficult. Trump has tried to ram through the lion’s share of his agenda in a single reconciliation bill, and the result — after all the horse trading, favor giving, and voting-for-things-you-didn’t-read — is a Frankensteinian monster of sometimes incoherent proposals, many of which seem motivated by culture wars and talking points rather than sound economic policy.

Let’s start with energy. Trump seems genuinely fixated on killing wind and solar and “doing coal,” a view on energy so retrograde it’s hard to express. “Renewable” labels and climate change aside, wind, solar, and geothermal energy are just cheaper. Red-lettering them will make electricity and energy more expensive and kill a burgeoning industry (and its jobs).

Until yesterday, this bill included an excise tax that would have throttled solar and wind energy. The provision didn’t just eliminate subsidies for solar and wind; it added a new tax on projects with components sourced from prohibited foreign entities (like China), effectively killing all future solar and wind projects through resulting price increases. At the same time, the bill still proposes taxing nuclear and geothermal energy (and battery storage) while subsidizing the coal industry. And just a reminder: Coal kills millions of people every year — and annual coal-miner deaths from cancer are larger than all the deaths from nuclear radiation exposure ever.

Derek Thompson, co-author of the book Abundance, put it plainly: “American energy policy cannot afford to be this dumb.” Thompson continued to hit the bullseye, writing, “You’ll sometimes hear conservatives accuse progressives of caring so much about climate change that they’d force ordinary Americans to bear the cost of higher prices and worse lives just to save the planet. But right now, it’s Republicans who are willing to stymie energy production, at the risk of rising electricity costs, just to own progressives and punish their favorite energy sources.”

Any administration actually pursuing energy independence for America would never do this.

The good news is that the excise tax was stripped from the bill. The bad news is the bill still removes subsidies for wind and solar that created jobs and cheap energy in red states, while subsidizing the coal industry (unsurprisingly, some coal plant-owning senators seem nonplussed by the potential job losses). It’s so bad that even former allies of the White House like Elon Musk are going to war with the bill, threatening to primary anyone who votes for it.

Changes to healthcare are frustratingly similar. While healthcare is one of the largest sectors of government spending, Congress’s proposed solution isn’t to find savings through intelligent reform or by figuring out how much waste there really is — it’s to cut eligibility for Medicaid, which provides health insurance to 71 million (mostly low-income) Americans. This would be the largest cut to Medicaid in history, and if passed would represent the biggest promise Trump has broken so far in his presidency (“We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all,” he said in May).

The cuts are so big that Republicans simultaneously included a $50 billion “rural healthcare fund” to try to offset the impact on their own constituents. Perhaps the best representation of how Republicans are handling this comes from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who voted for the bill’s national cuts while trying desperately to exempt her state from them. Just to say this plainly: Anytime you need to create a new funding mechanism to fill the gaps of the thing you are cutting, or swing-vote senators are scrambling to prevent the law you’re passing from applying to their state, then what you are doing is probably bad.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 12 million lower-income Americans will lose health insurance by 2034. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (NC), who voted against the bill after announcing he wasn’t running for re-election, has warned that Trump is breaking a promise not to cut Medicaid that voters will feel by being kicked off Medicaid in two-to-three years (conveniently, after the 2026 midterms). This is to say nothing of the cuts in funding to Planned Parenthood, which provides a huge range of non-abortion related services to women (and men) who can’t afford healthcare.

For what it’s worth, I don’t oppose everything about these Medicaid cuts. In fact, some elements of these reforms are totally sensible to me: Qualification caps for those with homes worth more than $1 million, new verifications to avoid sending money to dead people, or small copayments for people well above the poverty line could all work out well. I’m not even ideologically opposed to work requirements; the idea makes sense to me. I just haven’t seen evidence that they actually work by increasing employment or improving health outcomes — and it has backfired in states that have tried it.

Ultimately, as much as I’d really love to talk about Medicaid reform on its own, I recognize what this bill is doing in practice: kicking low-income people off their health insurance to save money that gets spent on tax cuts, immigration enforcement and the military. In that sense, it’s not far off from what its strongest Democratic critics say it is.

The Trump administration has not even begun to mount a coherent response. Trump just keeps insisting Medicaid isn’t being touched, while Vice President JD Vance has dismissed the cuts as “minutiae” and insisted the only thing that matters in this gigantic, impactful bill is how it will limit illegal immigration. This is a bizarre and unconvincing defense, since according to both the administration and official government numbers, illegal immigration is already at all-time lows — a crowning achievement early on in Trump’s second term. The bottom line? This bill is going to add trillions to the deficit and debt, substantially worsen our fiscal situation, and offer no path forward for our fiscal future that leads away from the brink. As Musk said on X yesterday, “What good is DOGE saving $160 billion when this bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion?” Putting aside the dubiousness of Musk’s $160 billion claim, that sounds a lot like a point someone else I know has been making.

If you step back for a moment, it is actually remarkable to consider how something this flawed made it to the finish line at all. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who in May made a compelling argument in The New York Times against cutting Medicaid, condemned the cuts and then voted for the bill anyway. Murkowski, whose commitment to her constituents is commendable, did one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen a senator do: She cast the deciding vote for the bill, then immediately dragged the bill in the press and said she hoped the House would send it back to the Senate. Longtime deficit hawks are now proudly voting to increase the deficit. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the budget chair, confessed that he didn’t even know how the solar and wind excise tax got into the bill. And don’t forget: Now that the bill is back in the House, its odds of passage with a thin Republican majority are substantially higher because three Democrats have died in office since January, and their presence would have been enough to sink the bill in May.

Of course, this bill is not all bad. In fact, it’s replete with wise provisions and promises kept. Extending the 2017 tax cuts will provide economic certainty to businesses and could spur some economic growth. A version of Trump’s “no tax on tips” policy will allow service workers to deduct up to $25,000 in tips and $12,500 in overtime pay from their taxable income (at least until 2028, and we don’t yet know for which professions). The bill increases the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200, introduces new deductions for Social Security taxes and encouragingly (and finally) caps graduate student loans, which should make it harder for colleges to keep raising tuition while seeking more loan subsidies.

Perhaps most excitingly, though, the bill does something I’ve been begging for for (literally) years: It nearly triples the appropriations for immigration court staff, enabling the hiring of up to 100 more judges. That might help substantially towards clearing the backlog of asylum cases. Republicans will be thrilled about this change because, under the Trump administration, it will limit immigration, while Democrats can look forward to the day they regain power and can enforce current asylum law to their own preferences. Either way, we need more judges to have more order, and we need order to have a functioning immigration system, and I’ve been screaming this from the rooftops for so long my voice is nearly gone — but now it could finally happen.

Unfortunately, the bill also pours billions of dollars into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border security, at a time when we drastically need savings and, again, when illegal immigration has hit record lows.

This one-two punch on border enforcement is representative of the bill largely: Sprinkles of good news overshadowed by glaring failures of imagination and poorly thought-out policy. In a fantasyland, Republicans in the House would reject this, or send it back to the Senate, or extract some of the stronger provisions and try not to do nine million things all at once via reconciliation. In this reality, though, I think a likely outcome is enough members get browbeaten into accepting something they know is bad, and then fall in line for fear of facing the president’s wrath.

Take the survey: Do you think of the Big, Beautiful Bill will pass by July 4? 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: We hear so much about the humanitarian situation going on in Gaza, but so little about other global conflicts. I know that there’s a dire situation in Sudan, but I don’t know how bad it is or what is causing it. Can you explain what’s going on in Sudan?

— Anonymous from Syracuse, NY

Tangle: This is part three of a three-part answer to this question. You can read part one here and part two here.

Part Three

Today’s Sudanese Civil War is not as clearly delineated as the two north–south, Arab–African, Muslim–Christian Sudanese Civil Wars that preceded it. It’s not even truly a battle between the government’s Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia. Instead, it’s turning into a proxy war between greater powers.

Since war broke out in 2023, both armies have struggled over control of Sudan’s capital, Khartoum. While the SAF has more infrastructure at its disposal and a more legitimate claim to governance as the nation’s army, the RSF has control over smuggling routes in the south and west and has been more aggressive.

To be able to strike targets far from the front, the RSF has been using Chinese drones imported through the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — which can tighten its control over the Red Sea shipping channel by adding another key port in Port Sudan. To check the UAE, Turkey and Iran have been supporting the SAF with long-range weaponry. The conflict has turned into a full proxy war, with Russia’s Wagner Group (now “Africa Corps”) and Libya backing the RSF and Israel and Ukraine supporting the SAF.

Although the conflict is officially a civil war, foreign weaponry and personnel have been targeting weapons depots, air strips, and drone factories. The strikes have been mostly logistical, resulting in relatively few casualties — 150,000 — for a years-long civil war; however, the war has massively disrupted the country. Regular bombings and sectarian violence have displaced roughly 8,000,000 civilians, who are suffering from malnutrition and disease, and several international organizations are calling the Sudanese displacement the largest ongoing humanitarian disaster in the world.

Now, the war may be about to enter a new phase. On May 3, the SAF struck a cargo plane it said it believed to be carrying suicide drones but instead was carrying soldiers and mercenaries — including Emeratis. The UAE responded by attacking Port Sudan, which had previously been untouched in the war. The SAF accepted a UN-backed weeklong ceasefire on Friday, but it’s still unknown how the RSF plans to respond.

Did you find this series helpful? Want other multi-part answers to complex questions? Simply reply to this email to let us know.

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.

In June, factory activity in the United States contracted for a fourth consecutive month, raising concerns about the impacts of tariffs on manufacturing and a broader economic slowdown. In particular, the employment index for factory workers fell to a three-month low, and an index of order backlogs fell 2.8 points, the most in a year. The slowdown coincides with government data released last week showing that consumer spending in May declined by the largest amount so far this year. “Business has notably slowed in the last four to six weeks. Customers do not want to make commitments in the wake of massive tariff uncertainty,” Fabricated Metals, a U.S.-based manufacturer, said. Bloomberg has the story.

Numbers.

• 887.The approximate number of pages in the Big Beautiful Bill.
• 23% and 42%.The percentage of U.S. adults who support and oppose, respectively, the Big Beautiful Bill changing tax, spending and Medicaid policies, according to a June 2025 Washington Post-Ipsos poll.
• 34%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they have no opinion on the bill.
• +59%. Net support for increasing child tax credits from $2,000 to $2,500 in the bill.
• –20%. Net support for ending tax breaks for solar, wind, and geothermal energy.
• $817 billion.The estimated cost to the federal budget over the next 10 years of permanently increasing the child tax credit to $2,200 in the bill, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis.
• $32 billion. The estimated cost to the federal budget over the next 10 years of allowing workers to deduct tips from taxable income for tax years 2025–2028.
• $29 billion. The estimated savings for the federal budget over the next 10 years of rolling back tax credits for wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal power.

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about the Supreme Court granting Trump partial immunity.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the Big, Beautiful Bill passing the Senate.
• Nothing to do with politics: Sweaty passengers are setting off TSA alarms.
• Yesterday’s survey: 2,804 readers responded to our survey on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor with 63% opposing the legal arguments and likely outcomes. “How about parents who want to keep their children out of classrooms where the Ten Commandments are posted? Such a slippery slope,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

67-year-old Steve Mills is a book collector in Hockley, England, who recently discovered something amazing about some of his books. Mills was rearranging a collection of children’s books by Enid Blyton when he noticed a familiar name a child had written in the book. “I opened the front cover and I was shocked to see my brother-in-law's name in it," Mills said. After asking his wife, he confirmed that the books had belonged to her as a child — nearly 50 years ago — when she lived about 170 miles away in Staffordshire. “She was equally shocked,” Mills added. “It was actually quite a cute thing to look at.” The BBC has the story.

Don’t forget...

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