🌡️ RollingBoil Daily - December 09, 2025
While many Americans are focused on holiday preparations, the machinery of authoritarian power is working overtime. Today's newsletter brings you three deeply interconnected threats to democratic governance: Trump-backed gerrymandering advancing in Indiana that would lock in Republican control regardless of voter preferences, a Supreme Court poised to hand the incoming president unprecedented power to purge the federal workforce of anyone who won't pledge personal loyalty, and Trump himself refusing to rule out military intervention in Venezuela. These aren't isolated incidents—they're coordinated moves in a broader strategy to concentrate power, eliminate checks and balances, and insulate the GOP from accountability to voters.
The through-line couldn't be clearer: rigging the maps so your vote matters less, capturing the courts to rubber-stamp executive overreach, and normalizing the threat of military force to distract from domestic power grabs. Indiana's rushed redistricting process, blessed by Trump and designed to maximize Republican seats, is happening in statehouses across the country. The Supreme Court case that could let Trump fire independent regulators at will would fundamentally reshape the separation of powers that has defined American government for centuries. And his casual refusal to rule out invading a sovereign nation? That's the authoritarian playbook—keep people off-balance with shocking statements while the real work of dismantling democracy happens in committee rooms and courtrooms.
This is why we track these stories daily. Because democracy doesn't die in one dramatic moment—it's dismantled piece by piece, in procedural votes and legal precedents that seem technical until you realize what's at stake. Let's dig in.
⚡ Quick Hits
-
Pardon me — Have presidential pardons run amok?
The article critiques Trump's use of presidential pardons, suggesting they have become excessive and irrational compared to historical precedent. This directly addresses a significant Trump administration policy action that has generated substantial political debate and controversy among both supporters and critics. -
Honduras seeks to arrest Trump-pardoned former president
President Trump's pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández has created an international diplomatic incident, with Honduras's attorney general now seeking his arrest despite his release from US prison. This action highlights Trump's use of executive clemency powers and raises questions about the administration's foreign policy approach to Central American leaders with corruption allegations. -
As Prices Increase From Tariffs, Trump Administration Goes on the Defensive About Affordability
The Trump administration's tariff policies are creating inflationary pressures on consumers, prompting defensive messaging and a $12 billion farmer bailout to maintain political support among a key Republican constituency. This reflects core Trump administration economic policy and the political trade-offs between protectionist trade measures and domestic price increases. -
Supreme Court Is Asked to Take Another Ax to Campaign Finance Limits
Republican officials are petitioning the Supreme Court to strike down campaign finance restrictions that limit coordination between political parties and candidates. This case represents a significant effort by the GOP to increase fundraising flexibility and spending power, aligning with broader right-wing positions favoring deregulation of political contributions. The outcome could substantially reshape campaign finance law and Republican electoral strategy. -
Listen live: Supreme Court considers GOP challenge to campaign finance law
The GOP's official campaign arms are challenging federal restrictions on coordinated spending with candidates, framing the issue as a First Amendment free speech matter. This case represents a significant Republican effort to expand political spending capabilities and reduce campaign finance regulations through Supreme Court action. The outcome could substantially reshape campaign finance rules favoring Republican fundraising and coordination strategies. -
DeSantis designates Muslim civil rights group a terrorist organization
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued an executive order designating CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations, aligning with similar Texas action. This represents significant right-wing policy action targeting Muslim civil rights groups and reflects broader Republican efforts to restrict Islamic organizations' influence in the US. -
Susie Wiles: Trump 'going to campaign like it's 2024' ahead of midterms
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles announces that President Trump will maintain an active campaign presence ahead of midterm elections, departing from traditional midterm dynamics where sitting presidents typically take a backseat. This signals a centralized campaign strategy with Trump as the focal point for Republican midterm efforts, indicating the party's reliance on Trump's political brand and mobilization capacity. -
Supreme Court weighs major campaign finance challenge backed by Vance
Vice President Vance is a key challenger in a major Supreme Court case that could strike down federal restrictions on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. This represents a significant conservative legal effort to expand campaign finance freedoms, with implications for Republican fundraising and party coordination strategies. The case reflects the right-wing movement's broader push to reshape campaign finance law through judicial action.
đź“Š By The Numbers
- 6-3 - Indiana Senate committee vote advancing Trump-backed redistricting map
- 9 - Indiana congressional seats Republicans aim to control completely
- $12 billion - Trump administration bailout for farmers amid tariff price increases
đź“° Today's Big Stories
1. Indiana Senate committee advance redistricting legislation backed by Trump toward final floor vote
Trump's Redistricting Power Play Faces Resistance in Indiana
Indiana's Republican-controlled Senate advanced controversial mid-decade redistricting legislation Monday, moving Trump-backed gerrymandering one step closer to reality—but the final outcome remains uncertain. The Senate elections committee voted 6-3 to send the proposal to the full chamber for a Thursday vote, despite significant GOP resistance. The proposed map would eliminate both of Indiana's Democratic congressional seats by carving up Indianapolis into four Republican-leaning districts and diluting minority voting power in northwest Indiana's diverse communities near Chicago.
This fight represents a critical test of Trump's grip on the Republican Party and his nationwide push to preemptively gerrymander away Democratic gains before the 2026 midterms. After Senate leader Rodric Bray initially rejected the redistricting push, Trump unleashed social media attacks and threatened primary challenges against resistant lawmakers. The intimidation campaign escalated into something far darker: approximately a dozen state senators faced threats and swatting incidents—dangerous hoax calls designed to trigger armed police responses at their homes. Republican State Sen. Greg Walker's defiant committee testimony captured the stakes: "I refuse to be intimidated. I fear for all states if we allow intimidation and threats to become the norm."
The implications extend far beyond Indiana's borders. Republicans currently hold seven of nine Hoosier State congressional seats, but Trump wants a clean sweep as part of a coordinated national strategy that includes similar mid-decade redistricting in Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina. The proposed Indiana map would specifically target Rep. André Carson, the state's only Black member of Congress, and Rep. Frank Mrvan, effectively erasing Democratic representation in a state where Republicans already dominate. Proponents cynically justify the power grab by pointing to Democratic control in Massachusetts and Connecticut, ignoring that mid-decade redistricting violates democratic norms and the traditional once-per-decade redistricting cycle.
What's next: Thursday's full Senate vote requires 25 votes to pass, triggering a tiebreaker from pro-redistricting Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith. Several Republicans who voted to advance the bill indicated they may still oppose final passage, making the outcome genuinely uncertain. If the Senate rejects the map, Indiana's early February filing deadline would effectively kill the effort. Meanwhile, parallel redistricting battles are intensifying in Missouri and Utah, making this week pivotal for determining whether Trump can successfully bully state legislatures into rigging the 2026 elections before voters even cast ballots.
2. Indiana Senate moves Trump-backed House map toward final vote
Trump Pressures Indiana to Gerrymander His Way to Impeachment Insurance
Indiana Republicans are advancing a brazen mid-decade gerrymander designed to hand the GOP two additional House seats—and the White House isn't even pretending this is about good governance. A state Senate committee approved the Trump-backed redistricting plan on a party-line 6-3 vote this week, moving it closer to reshaping the state's congressional map specifically to protect the president's narrow House majority ahead of the 2026 midterms. The explicit goal, according to reporting and White House allies: making it nearly impossible for Democrats to retake the House and pursue impeachment proceedings against Trump.
This represents an extraordinary level of federal interference in state legislative matters. Senior Trump administration officials have personally lobbied Indiana state senators, framing the map as essential to the president's political survival. The proposed lines would convert two currently competitive or Democratic-leaning districts into safe Republican seats, further entrenching GOP power in a state that's already heavily gerrymandered. Yet even some Indiana Republicans are balking at the pressure campaign, with one unnamed GOP senator telling reporters, "There's a lot of pressure being applied, but at the end of the day we have to live with this map back home." Their concerns aren't about fairness—they're about potential voter backlash in suburban areas and the political optics of being seen as Trump's rubber stamp.
The stakes extend far beyond Indiana. With Republicans clinging to a razor-thin House majority, adding two virtually guaranteed GOP seats could determine whether Democrats have any mathematical path to a majority in 2026—and whether there's any congressional check on Trump's second term. Democrats and voting rights advocates have condemned the plan as partisan gerrymandering that deliberately dilutes competitive districts, but they have limited power to stop it in Indiana's Republican-dominated legislature. The move also sets a dangerous precedent for mid-decade redistricting driven by naked partisan advantage rather than population changes.
What's next: The full Indiana Senate will vote on the legislation in the coming days, and passage is not guaranteed given internal GOP resistance. If approved, the map would need brief reconciliation with the state House before landing on the governor's desk. Watch whether wavering Republican senators can withstand White House pressure—or whether Trump's demand for impeachment insurance proves too powerful to resist. Any legal challenges would likely take months to resolve, potentially too late to affect the 2026 maps.
3. SCOTUS’s GOP Justices Are About to Hand Trump Way More Power
SCOTUS Poised to Demolate Independent Agencies in Gift to Presidential Power
The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority signaled during Monday's oral arguments that they're prepared to hand presidents—starting with Donald Trump—sweeping new powers to fire commissioners of independent federal agencies at will. The case threatens to dismantle the structural independence of crucial regulatory bodies like the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Trade Commission, which were designed to operate with expertise and insulation from raw political pressure.
The Republican-appointed justices' skeptical questioning left little doubt about their intentions to overturn longstanding precedent protecting these agencies from presidential whims. This represents the latest salvo in a decades-long conservative legal movement to concentrate executive power and strip away the administrative state's ability to regulate corporations and protect consumers. For Trump, who has openly promised retribution against perceived enemies and pledged to bend government agencies to his personal will, the timing couldn't be more convenient—or dangerous.
If the Court rules as expected, the ripple effects will be staggering. Independent agencies that investigate financial crimes, protect consumers from predatory practices, ensure fair elections, and maintain economic stability could become extensions of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Expertise and nonpartisan analysis would give way to loyalty tests. The guardrails preventing authoritarian overreach would crumble, replaced by a system where regulatory decisions serve political interests rather than public welfare.
What's next: A decision is expected by late June or early July—potentially just months before Trump could return to office with these expanded powers in hand. Progressive advocates and congressional Democrats need to prepare contingency plans now, including potential legislative fixes and public pressure campaigns, before this window of accountability slams shut.
4. Supreme Court signals support for broader presidential firing power
Supreme Court Poised to Hand Trump Sweeping Power Over Independent Regulators
What Happened: The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could fundamentally reshape presidential power over federal agencies designed to operate independently from political pressure. The conservative supermajority signaled strong support for allowing President Trump—and future presidents—to fire leaders of agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Reserve, and Securities and Exchange Commission at will, without needing to prove misconduct. The case centers on Trump's attempt to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democrat, before her term expired. Currently, nearly 90-year-old precedent requires presidents to show "cause"—such as inefficiency or malfeasance—before dismissing leaders of these independent agencies.
Political Context: This case represents the latest front in the conservative legal movement's decades-long campaign to concentrate executive power in the presidency under the "unitary executive" theory. The Court's conservative justices have already chipped away at protections for officials at agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Chief Justice John Roberts made clear during arguments that he views removal restrictions as unconstitutional constraints on presidential authority. Trump's legal team argues he needs unfettered control to implement the agenda voters elected him to pursue, while defenders of the current system—including lawyers for Commissioner Slaughter—warn that eliminating these protections will transform expert regulators into political operatives subject to White House whims.
Why It Matters: The implications are staggering. A broad ruling could affect dozens of federal agencies overseeing everything from workplace safety and environmental protection to financial markets and communications policy. These agencies were deliberately structured as independent bodies with bipartisan membership and staggered terms precisely to insulate critical regulatory decisions from short-term political calculations. Allowing at-will removal would enable any president to rapidly purge commissioners who won't rubber-stamp their agenda, potentially destabilizing markets, undermining enforcement of consumer protections, and replacing technocratic expertise with partisan loyalty tests. While the ruling would theoretically apply to future Democratic presidents too, the immediate effect would supercharge Trump's ability to bend the regulatory state to his will during his current term.
What's Next: The Court is expected to issue its decision by June 2026. Progressive advocates should prepare for the worst: oral arguments suggest at least five conservative justices are ready to either overturn or severely limit the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent. The key question is whether the Court will issue a sweeping ruling that eliminates removal protections across the board, or a narrower decision that chips away at them incrementally. Either way, this case represents a critical inflection point in the right's project to dismantle the post-New Deal administrative state and concentrate unchecked power in the executive branch—with profound consequences for regulatory enforcement and democratic accountability for generations to come.
5. Trump refuses to rule out sending US troops to Venezuela
Trump Refuses to Rule Out Military Intervention in Venezuela
President Trump declined to rule out sending U.S. troops to Venezuela during a Tuesday interview with Politico, responding "I don't comment on that. I wouldn't say that one way or the other" when pressed on the possibility of American boots on the ground. The non-denial marks a significant escalation in rhetoric as tensions between Washington and the Maduro government intensify, raising the specter of U.S. military involvement in yet another Latin American conflict.
Trump's refusal to dismiss military action comes amid a broader pattern of hawkish posturing toward Venezuela from his administration and allied Republican lawmakers. While the U.S. has long opposed the Maduro regime through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, openly leaving the door open to troop deployment represents a dramatic shift that could destabilize the region. Venezuela has been grappling with economic collapse, mass migration, and political turmoil for years—conditions that military intervention would likely exacerbate rather than resolve.
The implications extend far beyond Venezuela's borders. A U.S. military incursion would almost certainly trigger a humanitarian catastrophe, fuel anti-American sentiment across Latin America, and potentially draw in other global powers with interests in the region. It would also set a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action based on ideological opposition to left-wing governments, regardless of international law or regional stability concerns. For progressives, this represents exactly the kind of interventionist foreign policy that has repeatedly failed and caused immense suffering.
Watch closely for any movement of U.S. military assets toward the region, statements from Pentagon officials, and responses from Latin American leaders and international bodies. Congressional Democrats must demand clarity on any military planning and assert their constitutional authority over declarations of war. This situation could escalate quickly, making immediate oversight and public pressure essential.
RollingBoil • Tracking right-wing actions and accountability
Stay informed. Stay vigilant.