Hello Reader,
​
The Republic grew darker this week. The shadows deepened. Troops deployed to American streets. An ominous presidential memo, floated beneath the radar. Constitutional barriers bending. When democracies slide toward authoritarianism, the early descent looks exactly like this.

1. Government Shutdown Cycle Accelerates
2. Guard Deployments Descend into Occupation
3. Trump's Domestic Witch Hunt Intensifies
4. SCOTUS Shields Fed Independence - For Now
5. American Renegade of the Week

In 1995—the halcyon days when both parties cared enough about deficits to fight over them—Speaker Newt Gingrich, flush with victory from the Republican Revolution, confronted President Bill Clinton with steep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment.
​
When Clinton refused, Gingrich triggered the unthinkable, shutting down the government for five days and furloughing 800,000 federal workers. The standoff resumed weeks later, lasting 21 tense days.
​
That moment was over a century in the making. The Antideficiency Act of 1870 forbids federal agencies from spending without congressional appropriation, but agencies had largely ignored it. Then, during the Carter administration, AG Benjamin Civiletti issued strict legal opinions declaring funding lapses required government shutdowns. What began as an effort to protect politicians from personal liability quickly became a weapon, and Gingrich learned to wield it.
​
But Clinton turned the tables, painting Republicans as extremists willing to grind the country to a halt. His gamble worked: public opinion soured on Gingrich. Republicans seemed to learn their lesson: for 18 years, there were no major shutdowns.
​
The truce ended in 2013, when House Republicans shut the government for 16 days to block the Affordable Care Act. This time, they didn't pay the Gingrich price.
​
Since then, the pace has quickened: three shutdowns during Trump's first term, including a record 35 days. The lesson was clear—wielding the shutdown weapon no longer guarantees political punishment, transforming it from last resort into routine negotiating tactic.
​
Three decades after Gingrich's gambit, shutdowns are no longer about deficits at all. They're about border walls, culture wars, and performative brinkmanship.
​
What began over a century ago as a shield against excess is now a sword in the hands of the reckless.

On Tuesday, at Marine Corps Base Quantico, the President stood before hundreds of top brass, summoned from around the world: "We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” Not for foreign threats. For American streets.
​
The machinery of federal occupation is now humming. Over 2,000 National Guard troops patrol DC. 300 remain in LA.
​
Last week, 200 more received federal orders for Portland, where protests the administration calls riots involve fewer than 30 people, according to state officials. Chicago, Memphis, Baltimore, San Francisco, New Orleans, and New York could be next.
​
The pattern is clear. Every targeted city runs blue. Yet Chicago doesn't crack America's top 20 murder rates for large cities. Portland's homicides plummeted 51% in the first half of 2025. The numbers don't support the narrative.
​
Trump claims authority through the 1807 Insurrection Act, which permits deployment to suppress "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." An 1827 SCOTUS ruling grants presidents sole authority to judge those conditions. But the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from domestic law enforcement. A federal judge declared the LA deployment unlawful, finding troops performed civilian law enforcement. The administration has appealed.
​
Actual rioting in LA presented stronger legal justification, as did federal jurisdiction in DC. Portland does not. During 2020's riots—19 deaths, $2 billion in property damage—an argument for “insurrection” could be made. But Trump's dangerous escalation makes military occupation the federal government's first answer to dissent.

As mainstream media chased the spectacle of the Comey indictment, independent journalists Ken Klippenstein and Miles Taylor exposed something equally sinister. On September 25th, Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-7—an internal White House directive that Taylor, who led counterterrorism under Trump's first administration, calls "one of the most alarming government documents I've ever read."
​
An NSPM is a presidential directive to federal agencies, different from executive orders. This one identifies "anti-Christian," "anti-capitalism," and "anti-American" views as indicators of domestic terrorism, directing the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces to investigate people before violence occurs—literal pre-crime. These aren't criminal acts but First Amendment-protected opinions, yet NSPM-7 treats them as terrorism evidence.
​
Taylor warns the directive plugs straight into post-9/11 surveillance infrastructure designed for ISIS and Al Qaeda, vastly expanding federal power to add Americans to the terrorist watchlist. Graffiti or attending the wrong protest could theoretically land you alongside suicide bombers on the Terrorist Screening Database, enabling government monitoring of movements, frozen bank accounts, denied jobs, and tracked communications—often without warrants, usually without knowledge. Even "indirect" financing of political violence triggers investigations, meaning nonprofit donors face criminal exposure.
​
Trump's justification cites the Kirk assassination and ICE attacks. Yet Washington's biggest law firms—Arnold & Porter, WilmerHale, Akin Gump—issued urgent warnings about real danger. Sources tell Klippenstein the FBI's domestic watchlist will likely double from 5,000 to 10,000 Americans within months.
​
Congress remains silent, as the bureaucracy of tyranny builds in plain sight.

Our Republic needed a win. The Supreme Court denied Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a critical victory for an independent Fed. Trump removed Cook based on unproven mortgage fraud allegations she denies; lower courts ruled he violated her due process rights. The case hinges on whether "for cause" removal protections—mandated by the Federal Reserve Act but undefined—extend to alleged conduct before her appointment. At the D.C. Circuit, Judge Gregory Katsas dissented, arguing "for cause" simply means "relating to conduct, ability, fitness, or competence," but the appeals court majority blocked Trump's removal. The Justices will hear full arguments in January, weighing enormous stakes for Presidential power and Fed independence. The institutional firewall holds—for now.
​

Freedom Fighter of the Week: Catherine Herridge

In 2017, when Catherine Herridge obtained leaked FBI documents revealing an investigation with national security implications, she knew the risk of publishing them. The veteran national security journalist had built her career on one unbreakable principle: protect your sources, no matter the cost.
​
Now federal courts are testing her principles—at $800 per day. This week, a federal appeals court upheld a 2024 contempt fine against Herridge for refusing to reveal her source.
​
Herridge had reported on an FBI investigation into Chinese-American scientist Dr. Yanping Chen, who had Chinese military ties and received federal funding for training U.S. military personnel. Chen was never charged, but when she sued the government for privacy violations, her lawyers demanded Herridge expose her source. Herridge refused.
​
The fines mount daily until she breaks.
​
Yet Herridge didn't build a 28-year career at three major networks by yielding to pressure. At Fox News, she aggressively covered Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign. At CBS, she investigated Biden's classified documents scandal. When a Biden official called her a "partisan, right-wing hack", even CNN's Jake Tapper rushed to her defense, praising her objectivity.
​
In 2020, Herridge confirmed Hunter Biden's laptop contained a million-dollar retainer from a Chinese energy firm. CBS never aired her findings. Weeks later, "60 Minutes" told Trump the laptop "couldn't be verified"—despite Herridge having done exactly that.
​
In 2024, CBS (coincidentally?) laid Herridge off and seized four boxes containing her confidential sources and files on Hunter Biden, COVID-19 origins, and Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents. Only press freedom advocacy and union pressure forced their return.
​
But Herridge has proven resilient. Since launching her independent newsletter, she has exposed an Army specialist whose heart condition was officially linked to the COVID vaccine, and whistleblowers revealing dysfunction at Biden’s border. Her first report drew 3.4 million views, crushing "CBS Evening News" ratings.
​
The fines accumulate. CBS News flails. Herridge hasn’t blinked.

​

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.

​