🌡️ RollingBoil Daily - November 12, 2025
Welcome to Wednesday, November 12th. While you were sleeping, the Trump administration continued its systematic assault on America's promise as a nation of immigrants—this time through a particularly cruel backdoor: health-based visa denials. Today's newsletter reveals how officials are moving to bar immigrants with conditions like obesity and diabetes, transforming public health into a weapon of exclusion. It's eugenics dressed up in policy language, and it's happening right now.
But here's where it gets even more cynical: even as Trump moves to slam the door on immigrants he deems "unhealthy," he's simultaneously claiming America doesn't have enough "talented people" to justify restricting H-1B visas for high-skilled workers. The contradiction isn't a bug—it's the feature. This is about control, not consistency. Meanwhile, newly surfaced emails are drawing fresh attention to Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, reminding us that accountability for the powerful remains maddeningly elusive while vulnerable immigrants face ever-higher barriers.
These stories aren't separate—they're part of the same authoritarian playbook. Stay informed, stay angry, and let's dig in.
⚡ Quick Hits
-
Most Women Can Still Get Abortion Pills. That May Soon Change.
This article addresses abortion pill access, a central policy priority for right-wing and Republican movements following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. The piece indicates potential regulatory changes that align with conservative efforts to restrict abortion access nationwide, representing a key battleground in the Republican agenda and broader conservative movement objectives. -
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, including former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted false claims about the 2020 election. This ongoing litigation represents a significant legal reckoning for key figures in the right-wing election denial movement and tracks the consequences of Trump-adjacent figures' post-election activities. -
President Trump threatens $1B suit over Jan. 6 BBC edit
Trump threatens a $1 billion lawsuit against the BBC over alleged misrepresentation of his January 6 speech through selective editing, claiming quotes were spliced together to falsely suggest he directly incited violence. The incident reflects ongoing right-wing criticism of mainstream media coverage of January 6 and Trump's legal strategy to challenge narratives surrounding the Capitol riot. BBC leadership acknowledged the editing error and apologized, resulting in resignations of top news executives. -
Trump asks Supreme Court to hear appeal of E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse, defamation verdict
Trump is appealing an E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse and defamation verdict to the Supreme Court, representing a significant legal battle with implications for his political future and potential 2024 candidacy. This case is central to right-wing political discourse regarding Trump's legal vulnerabilities and judicial strategy. The appeal reflects ongoing efforts by Trump's legal team to overturn civil judgments against him. -
If the Supreme Court orders Trump to repay tariffs, U.S. importers say it wouldn't be 'messy'
This article covers a significant Trump administration economic policy issue involving tariffs collected since 2025, with potential Supreme Court intervention regarding repayment obligations. The story is directly relevant to tracking Trump administration actions and Republican trade policy implementation, representing a major fiscal and legal challenge to executive tariff authority. -
President Trump proposes $2,000 tariff dividend for Americans
President Trump announced a $2,000 'tariff dividend' proposal funded by import tariff revenue, a signature Trump administration economic policy combining protectionism with direct citizen payments. Independent analysts dispute the fiscal feasibility, with nonpartisan budget experts estimating the plan would add $600 billion annually and $6 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, highlighting tensions between Trump's populist economic messaging and fiscal realities that require congressional approval. -
Then They Came for the Dreamers
Article documents ICE enforcement action against a DACA recipient (Dreamer), directly relevant to Trump administration immigration policies and Republican enforcement priorities. The incident exemplifies the contentious right-wing approach to immigration enforcement and DACA recipients, a key political flashpoint between conservative and progressive factions. -
DOJ opens probe after Berkeley Turning Point protests
The Trump administration's DOJ, under AG Pam Bondi, opened a federal investigation into protests at a Turning Point USA event at UC Berkeley, framing the incidents as 'violent riots' and linking them to broader antifa enforcement priorities. This reflects the administration's strategic focus on prosecuting left-wing protest activity and supporting conservative campus organizing through Turning Point USA, a prominent right-wing youth organization.
đź“Š By The Numbers
- $1B - Trump threatens BBC lawsuit over edited Jan. 6 speech
- $2,000 - Proposed tariff dividend payment per American from Trump administration
- $200B - Tariffs collected by U.S. Customs since beginning of 2025
đź“° Today's Big Stories
1. Immigrants with obesity, diabetes and other health problems may be denied visas
Trump Administration Targets Immigrants with Common Health Conditions
The Trump administration has issued new guidance directing visa officers to consider common health conditions—including obesity and diabetes—as potential grounds for denying entry to would-be immigrants. This policy shift dramatically expands the criteria used to exclude people seeking to come to the United States, transforming widespread health conditions affecting millions of Americans into immigration disqualifiers.
This move represents a significant escalation in the administration's restrictionist immigration agenda, weaponizing public health concerns to further limit legal immigration pathways. By targeting conditions like obesity—which affects over 40% of American adults—and diabetes, the policy creates a sweeping new barrier that could affect applicants from across the globe. The guidance gives individual visa officers broad discretion to determine who is "inadmissible" based on health status, raising concerns about arbitrary enforcement and discrimination. This builds on previous Trump-era efforts to restrict immigration through administrative changes that bypass congressional approval.
The implications extend far beyond immigration policy. This guidance effectively creates a health-based class system for entry into the United States, disproportionately impacting immigrants from lower-income countries where chronic conditions may be less managed due to healthcare access issues. Families could be separated, skilled workers denied opportunities, and refugees fleeing persecution turned away—not due to security concerns, but because of manageable medical conditions. The policy also sets a troubling precedent for how health data could be used to exclude vulnerable populations, with potential ripple effects on asylum seekers and other protection-based immigration categories.
What to watch: Monitor how consular offices implement this guidance and whether denial rates spike in the coming months. Expect legal challenges from immigration advocacy groups arguing the policy violates existing immigration law and constitutional protections. Also track whether this emboldens further health-based restrictions, particularly as the administration continues seeking ways to reduce legal immigration without legislative action.
2. Immigrants with obesity, diabetes and other health problems may be denied visas
Trump Administration Targets Immigrants with Common Health Conditions
The Trump administration has issued new guidance directing visa officers to consider common health conditions—including obesity and diabetes—as potential grounds for denying entry to would-be immigrants. This policy shift dramatically expands the criteria used to exclude people seeking to come to the United States, turning routine health issues affecting millions of Americans into disqualifying factors for those born elsewhere.
This move represents a significant escalation in the administration's efforts to restrict legal immigration through administrative action. By weaponizing health conditions that disproportionately affect lower-income populations and people of color, the policy creates a new barrier that could exclude countless qualified immigrants—from family members seeking reunification to skilled workers and refugees. The guidance gives individual visa officers broad discretion to make subjective determinations about applicants' health status, raising concerns about inconsistent application and discrimination.
The implications extend beyond immigration policy into questions of basic human dignity and public health ethics. Obesity affects more than 40% of American adults, while over 37 million Americans have diabetes—yet the administration is now using these conditions to label foreign nationals as undesirable. Critics argue this approach echoes eugenic policies of the past and could discourage immigrants from seeking necessary medical care. The policy may also face legal challenges on discrimination grounds, particularly given its disparate impact on communities from developing nations where healthcare access is limited.
What to watch: Legal challenges are likely forthcoming from immigrant rights organizations. Monitor how consular offices implement this guidance and whether denial rates spike in specific countries or regions. Also track whether this administrative change presages broader efforts to restrict immigration based on healthcare costs or perceived "public charge" concerns.
3. Epstein: Trump Knew
Epstein Emails Reveal Trump's Troubling Silence
House Democrats released a cache of emails Wednesday that shed disturbing new light on the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. In the messages, the convicted sex offender described Trump as "the dog that hasn't barked," suggesting the former president maintained a strategic silence about their association. Most alarmingly, Epstein claimed in a 2011 email that Trump had spent "hours at my house" with a sex trafficking victim, boasting that "[Trump] has never once been mentioned" in connection to his crimes. Additional emails from 2019 further document their relationship.
These revelations come as Trump campaigns for a return to the White House in 2024, raising urgent questions about what he knew, when he knew it, and why he remained silent about Epstein's criminal enterprise. The emails suggest a potential quid pro quo of silence—Epstein noting with apparent satisfaction that Trump avoided public discussion of their interactions even as the sex trafficking scandal consumed media attention. This contradicts Trump's previous claims of distance from Epstein, adding to a pattern of the former president's documented associations with the financier during the 1990s and 2000s.
For voters and accountability advocates, these emails represent more than historical footnotes—they're evidence of potential complicity through silence by someone seeking the nation's highest office. The timing matters: as Trump faces multiple legal challenges and campaigns on a law-and-order platform, his apparent protection of a sex trafficker's secrets demands scrutiny. The documents also raise questions about what else Trump may have witnessed or known about Epstein's abuse of vulnerable women and girls.
Watch for: Whether major media outlets press Trump for detailed responses about these specific allegations, how Republican primary opponents address this new evidence, and whether House Democrats pursue additional investigative steps. Also monitor if prosecutors revisit any potential witness testimony Trump could have provided during Epstein investigations.
4. Live updates: Emails allege new ties between Trump, Epstein; House sets shutdown vote
Bombshell Emails Tie Trump to Epstein's Abuse as Government Shutdown Looms
House Democrats dropped a political bombshell Wednesday, releasing previously undisclosed emails from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that directly implicate Donald Trump in knowledge of Epstein's abuse of underage girls. The emails, made public by the House Oversight Committee, show Epstein writing that Trump "of course" knew about his relationships with minors, claiming the then-businessman "spent hours at my house" and explicitly "knew about the girls." The revelations come as Trump navigates both his current presidency and ongoing scrutiny of his past associations with the disgraced financier who died in 2019.
The timing is particularly significant as House Democrats leverage their investigative powers while they still hold them, with the emails surfacing amid a chaotic legislative day that includes a looming government shutdown vote. The Oversight Committee's release appears designed to create a permanent record of Trump's alleged knowledge before the political landscape potentially shifts. These allegations add disturbing new dimensions to the long-documented social relationship between Trump and Epstein, moving beyond photographs at parties to claims of direct awareness of criminal sexual abuse.
For accountability advocates, these emails represent potential evidence that could have legal implications beyond the political sphere, depending on what Trump knew and when. The allegations strike at fundamental questions about who holds power in America and whether the powerful face consequences for enabling or ignoring abuse. If Epstein's written claims are accurate, they suggest Trump had knowledge of federal crimes against minors—a revelation that demands thorough investigation regardless of political affiliation.
What's next: Watch for the White House response to these allegations and whether House Republicans will allow any investigation to proceed. The emails' authenticity and full context will likely face scrutiny, while victims' advocates will push for deeper investigation into everyone in Epstein's orbit. Meanwhile, the shutdown drama may overshadow this story in mainstream coverage—which is exactly why tracking it matters.
5. Trump on H-1B visas: US lacks enough 'talented people'
Trump Defends Foreign Worker Visas, Exposing Deep MAGA Rift
President Trump has waded into a bitter intra-conservative battle over immigration, telling Fox News host Laura Ingraham that America lacks sufficient "talented people" to fill certain jobs—a striking defense of H-1B visa programs that directly contradicts his own campaign rhetoric about putting "America First." The comments came as Ingraham, representing the immigration hardliner wing of the movement, challenged Trump on why his administration would support bringing in foreign workers on temporary visas.
The dispute reveals a fundamental fracture within the MAGA coalition between tech billionaire donors like Elon Musk—who rely heavily on H-1B visas for their companies—and the populist, anti-immigration base that propelled Trump to power. Trump's defense of these visa programs marks a notable departure from his 2016 campaign promises to restrict all forms of immigration and prioritize American workers. It also signals which faction currently holds more sway: the wealthy tech executives who've become key advisors and donors, or the working-class supporters who believed Trump would protect their jobs from foreign competition.
For progressive readers, this matters beyond schadenfreude over right-wing infighting. The H-1B program has legitimate critics across the political spectrum who point to corporate abuse, wage suppression, and displacement of qualified American workers—including many in the tech sector. Trump's pivot threatens to normalize expanded guest worker programs without the labor protections and reforms that could actually benefit workers. Meanwhile, his administration continues harsh enforcement against undocumented immigrants while defending visa programs that primarily benefit corporations and high-skilled workers.
Watch for: How immigration hardliners like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon respond, whether this rift affects Trump's policy agenda in his first 100 days, and if Democrats can capitalize on this division to push for comprehensive immigration reform that includes worker protections rather than simply corporate-friendly visa expansion.
RollingBoil • Tracking right-wing actions and accountability
Stay informed. Stay vigilant.