🌡️ RollingBoil Daily - December 01, 2025
December begins with the Trump administration escalating its assault on America's immigration system and basic democratic norms at an alarming pace. This morning, we're tracking a sweeping halt to asylum decisions that leaves thousands in legal limbo, while the administration doubles down on its broader crackdown against legal migration pathways. But the authoritarian turn goes beyond immigration: elected officials are facing death threats after Trump's violent rhetoric, military leaders are grappling with concerns about illegal orders following unauthorized military strikes, and federal workers are being purged for speaking out. This is the playbook we warned about—using executive power to intimidate, exclude, and silence.
What connects today's stories isn't just policy—it's the systematic dismantling of accountability and the rule of law. When a senator receives death threats after presidential calls for "execution," when FEMA fires workers for criticizing the administration, when military officials worry about unlawful commands, we're watching the infrastructure of democracy buckle under coordinated pressure. These aren't isolated incidents; they're part of a pattern that demands our sustained attention and resistance. Let's dig into what happened overnight and what it means for the fights ahead.
⚡ Quick Hits
-
FBI sources criticize Kash Patel in leaked report: What to know
This article reports on internal FBI criticism of Trump-appointed Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, representing significant scrutiny of Trump administration personnel decisions. The leaked report documenting management issues under Patel's leadership is directly relevant to evaluating Trump administration governance and personnel effectiveness. The story reflects ongoing tensions between career federal employees and Trump-aligned appointees in key government positions. -
Alina Habba, Trump’s Former Lawyer, Is Unlawful U.S. Attorney, Appeals Court Says
An appeals court ruled that Alina Habba's appointment as U.S. Attorney by the Trump administration was unlawful, indicating judicial pushback against Trump's efforts to place loyalists in federal prosecutor positions. The decision reflects ongoing tensions between the Trump administration's attempts to circumvent legal and political barriers in staffing federal offices with preferred candidates. This represents a significant legal setback for Trump's strategy of consolidating executive branch control through strategic appointments. -
Appeals court disqualifies Trump's N.J. prosecutor pick Alina Habba, rejecting DOJ challenge
An appeals court disqualified Trump's nominee Alina Habba for a New Jersey prosecutor position, rejecting the DOJ's challenge to the ruling. This represents a significant setback for Trump's efforts to place loyalists in key prosecutorial positions, following a similar disqualification of another Trump-picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan one week prior. -
Dominion still has pending lawsuits against election deniers such as Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell
Dominion Voting Systems maintains active lawsuits against prominent Trump allies and election deniers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, representing ongoing legal consequences for right-wing figures who promoted false election fraud claims. This reflects the persistent legal and political fallout from the 2020 election denial movement that became central to Trump-aligned Republican politics. The litigation represents a significant accountability mechanism affecting key figures in the Trump orbit and broader election denial narrative. -
Trump’s Brand Is Tanking
Article reports on declining approval ratings for President Trump during his second term, citing policy challenges including a government shutdown and tariff disputes. The piece directly addresses Trump's political standing and public perception, which are central metrics for evaluating Republican leadership and administration performance. -
Pete Hegseth Is Finally Getting Investigated
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Trump administration appointee, faces bipartisan congressional investigations into allegations of issuing orders to kill suspected drug traffickers. This represents rare Republican-led scrutiny of a Trump official and signals potential fractures within GOP unity on executive accountability. -
Indiana lawmakers in state House to convene session with redistricting top of mind
Indiana Republicans are advancing redistricting efforts under direct pressure from President Trump to flip the state's congressional delegation from 7-2 GOP advantage to 9-0, part of a broader Trump-backed strategy to secure Republican control of the U.S. House in 2026. The article documents Trump's use of social media attacks and threats of primary challenges against GOP senators resisting redistricting, as well as subsequent threats and swatting attempts against lawmakers, illustrating the Trump administration's aggressive enforcement of party loyalty on electoral strategy. -
As regime change looms at the Fed, one candidate emerges as frontrunner for chair
Trump is preparing to select a new Federal Reserve chair, signaling potential shifts in monetary policy aligned with his administration's economic agenda. This appointment represents significant influence over US financial policy and reflects the Trump administration's focus on reshaping key federal institutions. The selection of a Fed chair sympathetic to Trump's economic priorities could have major implications for interest rates, inflation policy, and financial regulation.
đź“Š By The Numbers
- 36% - Trump's approval rating, lowest of his second term
- 115 pages - Length of leaked FBI report criticizing Director Kash Patel
- 80+ - People killed in U.S. strikes on suspected drug boats
đź“° Today's Big Stories
1. Trump administration halts asylum decisions as legal migration crackdown intensifies
Trump Administration Freezes Asylum System in Sweeping Crackdown
The Trump administration has abruptly halted all asylum decisions across the United States, marking one of the most dramatic restrictions on legal immigration in recent memory. The pause comes in the immediate aftermath of an Afghan national being charged in connection with an attack on two National Guard members, with administration officials seizing on the incident to justify a sweeping freeze that affects thousands of pending cases from asylum seekers around the world—regardless of their country of origin or individual circumstances.
This move represents an escalation in the administration's broader campaign to dismantle legal pathways to immigration, extending far beyond the southern border chaos that typically dominates headlines. By suspending asylum adjudications entirely, the administration is effectively weaponizing a single criminal case to justify collective punishment of vulnerable populations fleeing persecution, violence, and humanitarian crises. The decision affects not just new applicants but those already deep in the legal process, creating limbo for families who followed proper procedures and have been waiting months or years for resolution.
The human cost is staggering: asylum seekers who have already passed credible fear screenings, attended multiple hearings, and built lives while awaiting decisions now face indefinite uncertainty. Immigration advocates warn this creates a dangerous precedent where any incident involving a single immigrant—regardless of their legal status or pathway—can be used to justify shutting down entire categories of legal immigration. This affects Afghan allies who supported U.S. military operations, refugees from authoritarian regimes, LGBTQ+ individuals fleeing persecution, and countless others with legitimate asylum claims.
What's next: Watch for legal challenges from immigration rights organizations, which are likely already being prepared. Congressional Democrats may demand answers about the scope and duration of the pause, while advocacy groups document the mounting humanitarian consequences. The key question is whether this "pause" becomes permanent policy by another name—a tactic this administration has used before to circumvent legal immigration channels entirely.
2. Sen. Kelly says death threats have increased since Trump called for his execution
Trump's Execution Rhetoric Triggers Surge in Death Threats Against Sen. Mark Kelly
Arizona Senator Mark Kelly revealed Monday that he and his family have experienced a dramatic increase in death threats following President Trump's call for his execution. The alarming escalation came after Kelly joined other Democratic lawmakers in urging service members to refuse illegal orders—a statement that prompted Trump to publicly declare that Kelly and his colleagues should face execution for their advice to the military.
This incident represents a dangerous new chapter in Trump's pattern of targeting political opponents with violent rhetoric. Kelly, a former astronaut and Navy captain married to gun violence survivor Gabby Giffords, is no stranger to security concerns, but the spike in threats following presidential incitement underscores how Trump's words translate directly into real-world danger for lawmakers and their families. The fact that a sitting president is calling for the execution of opposition senators over constitutionally protected speech marks an unprecedented attack on democratic norms and the separation of powers.
The stakes extend far beyond Kelly himself. When the president uses his platform to paint lawmakers as traitors deserving of death, he's not just engaging in hyperbole—he's providing justification and direction to his most extreme supporters. We've seen this playbook before, from January 6th to the attack on Paul Pelosi, and the pattern is clear: Trump's rhetoric creates a permission structure for political violence. For military families and anyone concerned about democratic stability, this moment demands attention. A president weaponizing execution threats against legislators who dare to remind service members of their oath to the Constitution is authoritarianism in action.
What to watch: Monitor whether other Republicans will condemn Trump's execution rhetoric or remain silent, effectively normalizing these threats. Track any additional security incidents targeting Kelly or other named lawmakers, and watch for whether Trump doubles down or faces any accountability from law enforcement for incitement. The DOJ's response—or lack thereof—will signal how seriously institutions are taking this threat to democratic governance.
3. HHS's latest vaccine policy upheaval
HHS's Vaccine Policy Upheaval: RFK Jr.'s Influence Takes Hold
The FDA is moving toward dramatically stricter federal oversight of vaccines following a leaked memo from a top vaccine regulator last week. The policy shift comes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the controversial vaccine skeptic now leading Health and Human Services, prepares to convene a handpicked federal advisory panel this week that could further upend decades of vaccine policy and public health consensus.
This represents a stunning reversal for an agency that has long been considered the gold standard for vaccine safety worldwide. Kennedy, who has spent years promoting debunked theories linking vaccines to autism and other conditions, is now positioned to reshape vaccine regulation from the inside. The leaked memo suggests career FDA officials are already responding to pressure from political appointees, raising serious questions about whether scientific evidence or ideological agenda will drive future vaccine policy. The timing—with Kennedy's advisory panel meeting imminent—signals a coordinated push to fundamentally alter how America approaches immunization.
The stakes couldn't be higher for public health. Stricter oversight could delay or block approval of lifesaving vaccines, reduce immunization rates, and trigger outbreaks of preventable diseases. We've already seen measles cases climb in communities where vaccine hesitancy has taken root. If the FDA's credibility is undermined or vaccine development becomes mired in politically-motivated red tape, the consequences will fall hardest on children, immunocompromised individuals, and communities with limited healthcare access. This is the anti-vaccine movement's long-sought breakthrough into federal policymaking.
Watch this week's advisory panel meeting closely—the composition, agenda, and recommendations will reveal just how far Kennedy plans to push his agenda. Also monitor whether career scientists at FDA push back publicly or resign in protest, and whether congressional Democrats launch oversight investigations into political interference with vaccine science.
4. Fears grow inside military over illegal orders after Hegseth authorized follow-up boat strike
Military Personnel Sound Alarm as Hegseth's "Kill Everybody" Order Raises Legality Concerns
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing mounting scrutiny after reportedly ordering troops to "kill everybody" during a boat strike operation in September, sparking fears within the military ranks about potentially illegal commands. The incident has triggered a surge in calls to the Orders Project, a legal resource that provides free counsel to service members concerned about the lawfulness of their orders—a troubling indicator that those in uniform are increasingly worried they may be directed to violate the laws of war.
The controversy centers on Hegseth, a former Fox News host with no senior military command experience who was tapped by Donald Trump to lead the Pentagon. His authorization of a follow-up strike with such sweeping language has alarmed military legal experts and service members alike, who are trained to refuse orders that violate international humanitarian law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The "kill everybody" directive raises serious questions about whether proper protocols for distinguishing combatants from civilians were followed, and whether Hegseth understands the legal constraints that govern military operations.
This isn't just about one controversial order—it represents a potential erosion of the military's commitment to lawful warfare and could expose service members to war crimes liability. When troops lose confidence that their civilian leadership understands or respects the laws of armed conflict, it undermines military discipline, puts American personnel at legal risk, and damages U.S. credibility internationally. For progressive readers, this underscores the dangers of installing ideologically-driven loyalists with minimal qualifications into positions requiring expertise, judgment, and respect for institutional norms.
Watch for potential Congressional oversight hearings, calls for Inspector General investigations, and whether any service members formally refuse orders or seek whistleblower protections. The Orders Project's caseload will be a key indicator of how widespread these concerns become, while military legal officers may face pressure to either enable or constrain Hegseth's decision-making. This story could become a defining test of whether military institutions can maintain their professional standards under political leadership that may not share their commitment to the laws of war.
5. FEMA Won’t Reinstate Suspended Workers Who Signed Letter Criticizing Trump
FEMA Won't Reinstate Suspended Workers Who Signed Letter Criticizing Trump
In a troubling display of political retaliation, FEMA has reversed course on reinstating federal employees who were suspended over the summer for signing a letter critical of President Trump. The workers, who had briefly been told they could return to their positions, now find themselves permanently sidelined—their careers apparently sacrificed for exercising their First Amendment rights. This whiplash decision underscores the administration's continued efforts to purge dissent from federal agencies and enforce loyalty tests across the civil service.
The suspended employees were among federal workers who signed onto a letter raising concerns about Trump's policies and leadership. While career civil servants are permitted to engage in certain political activities under the Hatch Act, the administration has increasingly blurred the lines between protected speech and grounds for dismissal. FEMA's initial decision to reinstate the workers suggested cooler heads might prevail, but the reversal indicates that political pressure—likely from administration officials—overrode any commitment to due process or employee rights.
This matters because it's part of a broader pattern of weaponizing federal agencies against perceived enemies and dissenting voices. When disaster response professionals at FEMA can be fired for political speech, it compromises the agency's ability to function as a nonpartisan emergency management organization. It also sends a chilling message to the entire federal workforce: criticize the president at your own peril. As climate disasters intensify and Americans increasingly depend on FEMA's expertise, politicizing the agency threatens public safety itself.
What to watch: Legal challenges from the affected workers and their unions are likely, which could reveal the actual justification for these suspensions. Also monitor whether this purge extends to other FEMA employees and whether the agency's disaster response capabilities suffer from the loss of experienced personnel. This story fits into the larger Project 2025-style agenda of transforming the civil service into a loyalty-based system—a fundamental threat to democratic governance.
RollingBoil • Tracking right-wing actions and accountability
Stay informed. Stay vigilant.