Hello Reader,
​
This week's Dispatches reveal a U.S. citizen vanishing for three days without charges while senators vote themselves justice—for only themselves. Yet a defiant judge struck a blow for freedom, and America reclaimed economic sovereignty from Brussels bureaucrats.
​
Compared to the recent degradations of our democracy, I'll take it.

A More Perfect Union

1. Justice for Me, Not for Thee
2. Europe Can't Tell Us What to Do
3. WaPo Declares Independence
4. Contempt, Resurrected
5. American Renegade of the Week

​
Color Key: 🟢 Advances liberty 🔴 Restricts liberty

When the Supreme Court handed federal agents sweeping authority to conduct immigration stops based partly on ethnicity, language, or occupation, Justice Kavanaugh assured Americans these encounters would be "brief". U.S. citizens would identify themselves and "promptly go free," Kavanaugh wrote in the September ruling.
​
George Retes’ recent experience exposed Kavanaugh’s wishful thinking. The combat veteran spent three days in federal custody after agents refused to check his ID (see American Renegade of the Week below).
​
Last week, the Senate compounded the injustice. Tucked into the government funding bill ending America's longest shutdown was a provision allowing senators—and only senators—to sue federal officials for up to $500,000 per violation if their phone records are seized without notice. The measure strips federal employees of qualified immunity protections, applying retroactively to eight Republican senators whose data the FBI obtained during Jack Smith's January 6th investigation.
​
Senator Lindsey Graham vowed to sue, making it “so painful no one ever does this again."
​
His anger may be justified, but the bill leaves Americans like Retes unable to sue federal agents personally. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), the Supreme Court established that citizens could sue federal officers for constitutional violations. But since the 80’s, it has systematically dismantled this protection. While Retes can sue the government entity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he cannot hold individual agents accountable as they remain shielded by qualified immunity.
​
There are valid arguments for qualified immunity, but accountability for constitutional violations should never be a privilege reserved only for the powerful.
​
​As the WSJ pointed out—justice now depends on your proximity to power.
​
​Late breaking update: Yesterday, the House unanimously approved a bill to repeal the provision, with GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson calling it “way out of line.” It was not immediately clear whether the GOP-controlled Senate will consider the House bill.

Giant corporations dodge taxes by shifting profits to low-tax countries, bleeding government coffers dry. A 15% global minimum tax would stop the race to the bottom, forcing multinationals to pay their “fair share” everywhere they operate. No more Delaware shell games, no more Irish subsidiaries—just honest taxation that funds schools and hospitals.
​
Or so the argument goes.
​
But the OECD's “Pillar Two” global tax scheme would hamstring the American economy, locking us into Europe's sclerotic growth model. American taxpayers would become subjects of Brussels bureaucrats we cannot vote out, stripping away our ability to adjust rates based on market conditions and weigh for ourselves whether higher corporate taxes justify slower growth and fewer jobs.
​
Biden championed the scheme, eagerly ceding our economic sovereignty, working with the OECD to develop the framework, and pushing Congress to adopt it. Congress refused. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act retaliated via Section 899, imposing punitive taxes on foreign companies from countries with "unfair foreign taxes."
​
Europe blinked.
​
The G7 caved in June, agreeing to exempt U.S.-parented companies from Pillar Two rules. Without this deal, foreign governments could have begun imposing punitive taxes on American multinationals after December 31.
​
Without U.S. participation, the scheme collapses into an EU regulatory nightmare. European firms will shoulder compliance costs approaching €865 million annually while American companies compete freely. Now some EU members are recoiling, demanding more flexibility.
​
Cato captured the lesson perfectly: sustainable tax enforcement requires domestic law and bilateral treaties—not top-down mandates from unaccountable bodies.
​
Europe got the message—again—don’t tell Americans what to do.

"It's non-partisan and free markets and personal liberties are the North Star."
​
Those recent words from Adam O'Neal—the 33-year-old Jeff Bezos tasked earlier this year with transforming the Washington Post editorial page—were music to my ears.
​
When Bezos announced the shift in spring, critics feared WaPo was capitulating to Trump. But O’Neal is proving them wrong. His team has attacked MAGA economics and Democratic socialism with equal ferocity, from Elizabeth Warren's economically illiterate attacks on YouTube TV to Trump's government stake-taking in corporations. "No party's hands are clean," O'Neal told Reason this week.
​
​The Post's transformation mirrors a broader rebellion against partisan capture. Free Press founder and former NYT columnist Bari Weiss now leads CBS News, bringing intellectual independence to network television. Both moves signal exhaustion with the tribal journalism that demanded consumers choose their partisan bias.
​
O'Neal's background—Vatican correspondent, Wall Street Journal, The Economist—shaped his contempt for conformity. He describes facilitating robust debate and stress-testing positions he doesn't hold.
​
His words give hope for a freer and less divisive media landscape: "I'm always horrified when I see a politician…in the Republican or Democratic Party [saying]…'Hate speech is not free speech.' That's an easy one, guys. Yes, it is, right?"
​
The foundational principles guiding O’Neil align with this newsletter: defending individual liberty against government overreach, championing free enterprise over state control, and refusing allegiance to any party that abandons constitutional principles.
​
America's dying mainstream media are slowly being resurrected—by declaring their independence.

“I believe that justice requires me to move promptly on this”
​
With those words yesterday, widely respected Judge James Boasberg resurrected criminal contempt proceedings against Trump officials who defied his March order to turn around deportation flights carrying Venezuelans to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison. The investigation targets officials who allegedly ordered planes to continue despite explicit judicial commands—establishing whether executive branch officials deliberately told federal courts to go to hell.
​
At the hearing's center: Erez Reuveni, the 15-year Justice Department veteran fired in April after exposing what he witnessed. In a March meeting, Reuveni alleges DOJ official Emil Bove—Trump's former personal attorney—told assembled lawyers the deportation planes "need to take off, no matter what," then added they might need to tell any court blocking them "f*** you."
​
See the full Reuveni story in the October 23^rd edition of Dispatches.
​
​The contempt inquiry sat frozen for months while appeals courts deliberated. Friday's ruling cleared Boasberg to proceed, with evidentiary hearings potentially beginning December 1st.
​
Meanwhile, Trump's Alien Enemies Act deportations remain legally embattled. The Supreme Court ruled in April that deportees must receive "reasonable time" to challenge removals—blocking mass deportations while requiring due process. Multiple federal judges have since barred the law's use, though one Pennsylvania judge permitted it with 21 days' notice. The high court hasn't ruled on the Act's constitutionality itself, leaving Trump's efforts stalled across conflicting jurisdictions.
​
Boasberg appears set to force the executive branch to finally answer for its “contempt” for the judiciary.
​

American Renegade of the Week: George Retes

The bouncy house was reserved, the Minnie Mouse decorations ordered, and the invites delivered. George Retes just needed to finish his shift as a security guard before celebrating his daughter’s 3^rd birthday.
​
He never made it.
​
On July 10th, the 25-year-old Army combat veteran—a U.S. citizen who served in Iraq—was on his way to work at a legal cannabis farm when he was surrounded by protesters. As he approached, he encountered federal agents blocking the road. Retes exited his car, identified himself as an American citizen and veteran, and asked to pass.
​
The masked agents refused.
​
What happened next was a travesty of American justice. As protestors and agents clashed, tear gas engulfed his vehicle. An ICE officer broke his window. Another pepper sprayed him. They dragged Retes out of his car and forced him to the ground. Though he did not resist, one agent put a knee on his neck. Another put one on his back.
​
Retes disappeared into federal custody. No lawyer. No hearing before a judge. No shower to wash off the chemicals burning his skin. Denied a phone call to his terrified wife, he was placed on suicide watch in an isolation cell.
​
Then, after three days and three nights, federal agents simply released him—no charges, no explanation, no apology.
​
Never make a father miss his little girl’s birthday.
​
Retes struck back, publishing a searing op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, DHS claims Retes “became violent” and was arrested for “assault.” Their timing was obvious: five days after the op-ed, but nearly three months after the incident. Yet no agency has filed charges. No prosecutor has pursued the case.
​
Now, the Institute for Justice—an exemplary non-profit law firm—is taking up Retes’ case, suing the federal government for “unconstitutional detention” under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
​
"I served my country," Retes wrote. "I wore the uniform, I stood watch, and I believe in the values we say make us different. And yet here, on our own soil, I was wrongfully detained."
​
Never make a father miss his little girl's birthday—especially not a warrior.

Gaffes & Corrections

In last week’s story on Trump’s burgeoning crypto empire, I claimed the GENIUS Act “created a stablecoin framework but exempted presidential families from profit limits that bind Congress—a carve-out written for Trump”.
​
Thanks to a reader’s sharp scrutiny, I learned this statement contained two inaccuracies.
​
During GENIUS Act deliberations, Republicans rejected Democratic efforts (Warren, Merkley) to apply the stablecoin restrictions to the President, leaving only Congress and most of the executive branch covered. The Republicans knew they would lose Trump's support for the bill if it contained the presidential restriction, but that does not equate to "writing a carve out".
​
Additionally, the “profit limits” phrase was imprecise. It should have said that Congress is barred from issuing or sponsoring stablecoins, while the President is not.
​

Refer a Friend:

If you've enjoyed this episode of Dispatches from the Rebellion, please consider referring a friend. Forward this email and ask them to click on the "Subscribe" button below to sign up.

​