Outrage headlines. Never-ending feeds. Everyone shouting, no one listening.

Keeping up with political news today can feel more like emotional labor than staying informed. That’s why Tangle exists.

Tangle is an independent, nonpartisan newsletter that covers one major political story each day. It breaks down the facts, shows how the left, right, and center are talking about it, and adds clear, honest analysis — without the spin, hysteria, or bias.

No sides to pick. Just clear, honest analysis from an independent source — all in under 10 minutes a day.

More than 400,000 readers — no matter their politics — trust Tangle to get the full picture and stay informed without getting burnt out.

If you’re tired of feeling overwhelmed by the news — but still want to understand what’s really happening — give Tangle a try.

Start reading for free today.

What you need to know

Serious border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia

Clashes erupted early today along the Thailand–Cambodia border at several points.

The fighting began near the ancient Prasat Ta Moan Thom temple, situated along the frontier between Thailand’s Surin province and Cambodia’s Meanchey. Each side accused the other of launching the attack.

Tensions had been mounting since a Cambodian soldier was killed during a brief firefight in a disputed zone in late May. Then, in June, a leaked phone call between former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra added fuel to the fire. The contents of the call, which hinted at back-channel diplomacy, prompted a political backlash in Bangkok and led to Paetongtarn’s suspension. The situation deteriorated further earlier this week after Thailand accused Cambodia of laying new landmines along the border. The allegation followed an incident in which a Thai soldier lost a limb to a mine blast. In response, Bangkok recalled its ambassador from Phnom Penh and ordered the expulsion of Cambodia’s envoy on Tuesday night.

The two countries share an 817km border, large sections of which remain undemarcated. That ambiguity has long made the frontier a magnet for conflict. Among the most persistent flashpoints is the area surrounding the Preah Vihear temple, an 11th–12th century Khmer sanctuary perched atop a cliff. The temple became a source of bilateral friction soon after Thailand occupied the site in 1954, shortly after French colonial forces withdrew from Indochina. In 1962, the International Court of Justice ruled that the temple lay on Cambodian soil. Although the ruling settled the question of the temple’s ownership, it left adjacent tracts of land undefined, sowing the seeds of future conflict.

The dispute resurfaced in 2003, when anti-Thai riots broke out in Phnom Penh, culminating in the torching of the Thai embassy. The violence was triggered by remarks from a Thai actress claiming the temple belonged to Thailand, a statement that provoked outrage among Cambodians. Further border skirmishes erupted between 2008 and 2011, with artillery fire exchanged near the temple, resulting in dozens of casualties on both sides.

The current crisis follows a similarly volatile pattern. In May 2025, a Cambodian soldier was shot and killed by Thai troops in a contested stretch of the frontier.

Against this backdrop, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet has called on the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting, denouncing the episode as “an unprovoked, premeditated and deliberate attack on Cambodia.” Phnom Penh continues to blame Thailand for the escalation.

At least 11 Thai civilians have been killed with at least 35 more injured so far. Thai officials say between 30,000 and 40,000 people have been evacuated from towns and villages near the border. According to the Thai military, the Royal Thai Air Force launched air strikes using F-16 fighter jets on two Cambodian military positions.

For now, the conflict remains geographically contained, but the long and bloody history of the dispute suggests that it could yet spiral into something far more dangerous. Thailand has been a U.S. treaty ally since 1954, and Cambodia enjoys close relations with China.

Move fast and break things

House panel votes to subpoena Epstein records and senior officials

The House Oversight Committee has voted to authorize subpoenas for several senior figures, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, William Barr, Merrick Garland, Eric Holder, Alberto Gonzales, and Jeff Sessions, as part of its widening investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case.

The inquiry has taken on a bipartisan character. On Wednesday, the Republican-led panel voted 8–2 in favor of subpoenaing Epstein-related records, with Democratic members having forced the vote. Representatives Nancy Mace, Scott Perry, and Jeff Van Drew joined in support. Republicans subsequently introduced an amendment to broaden the scope of the subpoenas to include communications between officials in the administration of former President Joe Biden and the Department of Justice, as well as to compel testimony and documents from a broader group of former officials.

Representative Clay Higgins, who chairs the subcommittee that adopted the Democratic motion to subpoena the Epstein files (despite personally opposing it) emphasized the need for bipartisan unity.

The Department of Justice is now officially compelled to hand over the requested materials to the committee.

DNI Gabbard refers Obama for prosecution

The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has formally referred former President Barack Obama to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution, in what marks the most dramatic escalation yet in the administration of President Donald Trump’s confrontation with former officials from previous governments.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Gabbard accused Obama and senior members of his national security team of having orchestrated what she described as “a deliberate and fraudulent intelligence operation,” centering on a high-level assessment produced by the intelligence community in early 2017. That document concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the intent of aiding Trump’s candidacy.

According to Gabbard, “There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Barack Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.” She did not elaborate on the nature of the alleged evidence but asserted that the referral to the Department of Justice includes classified annexes documenting internal communications, tasking orders, and backchannel discussions between intelligence officials and members of the Obama administration.

The move is likely to send shockwaves through Washington. Never before has a sitting Director of National Intelligence recommended the criminal prosecution of a former president. It also raises the stakes in an already polarized political landscape, where investigations into the origins of the Russia assessment have now taken on a prosecutorial character.

The Trump administration has repeatedly signaled its determination to investigate what it refers to as “the weaponization of intelligence” by political rivals. The decision to target Obama directly may serve both legal and political aims: distracting from the Epstein files issue, while laying the groundwork for a broader confrontation with former administrations.

Whether the Department of Justice chooses to act on the referral remains uncertain. Legal experts note that prosecuting a former president would set a precedent without parallel in U.S. history and would require an evidentiary threshold that goes well beyond political rhetoric. Nonetheless, the referral itself underscores the widening rift between the current administration and its predecessors, with intelligence and law enforcement agencies caught increasingly in the middle.

Instability from Sahel to Horn of Africa amid state fragility, Russian interference, & Islamist insurgencies

Rising tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea over Tigray

Tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea are once again on the rise, amid renewed uncertainty over troop deployments along the shared border and concerns about potential Eritrean involvement in northern Ethiopia. Although Eritrean forces officially withdrew following the November 2022 Pretoria Agreement, local reports and international observers suggest that elements of the Eritrean Defense Forces remain active near the Tigray region. This unresolved military presence has aggravated friction not only with Tigray but also between the Ethiopian federal government and Eritrea itself.

Simultaneously, political tensions are escalating within Ethiopia, particularly concerning the Tigray region. The Pretoria Agreement, intended to end the two-year war between the Ethiopian federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), is under mounting strain. One of the most contentious issues is the federal government’s quiet backing of a newly formed Tigrayan opposition party, viewed by many in Mekelle as a proxy effort to sideline the TPLF and fracture regional unity.

This maneuver has triggered protests in Tigray, where residents and former fighters accuse the federal authorities of violating the spirit of the peace deal by trying to reshape the region’s political landscape from Addis Ababa. The TPLF, though weakened militarily and politically, still commands broad support in Tigray and perceives the federal moves as a renewed attempt to marginalize its leadership and autonomy.

With border tensions involving Eritrea and domestic unrest simmering in Tigray, the fragile peace established by the Pretoria Agreement is at risk. These developments are raising alarms across the Horn of Africa, where unresolved grievances and competing national interests have repeatedly fueled cycles of violence.

Europe's center of gravity shifts east, politics moves right, hostility to migrants from the south rises, as ties with the U.S. fray

Tense EU–China summit in Beijing

Chinese President Xi Jinping opened the EU-China summit with a pointed message to European Union leaders, urging them to "make correct strategic choices."

The phrase, though diplomatically worded, conveyed Beijing’s frustration with recent European policies, including newly imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and heightened scrutiny of Chinese investment practices. Xi called for the two sides to manage their "differences and frictions properly," particularly in areas such as rare earth exports, where China retains a dominant position and the EU depends heavily on supplies for its green technology and defense sectors.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa responded by voicing concern over China’s industrial overcapacity, which they said was distorting global markets in sectors ranging from steel to solar panels and electric cars. They also criticized China’s equivocal stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling for greater clarity and accountability. One of the most contentious issues was China’s tightening control of rare earth exports, which Brussels views as a strategic lever threatening Europe’s economic autonomy and energy transition.

Though initially planned as a two-day event, the summit was compressed into a single session, underscoring the widening diplomatic rift. The event marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the EU and China, but the mood was far from celebratory.

Key focus areas included the EU’s widening trade deficit with China, prompting calls in Brussels for more equitable market access; the imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, with some rates reaching 38 percent; and China’s recent export restrictions on rare earth materials. The war in Ukraine also featured prominently, with European leaders urging Beijing to take a clearer stance and use its influence with Moscow to push for peace.

The meeting did little to close the gap between the two powers. Rather than produce breakthroughs, it only served to delineate strategic boundaries more sharply. The trajectory of EU–China relations is shifting toward a more guarded, transactional footing.

Center of Gravity sign up link: https://www.namea-group.com/the-daily-brief