Saturday Morning Covfefe: Five Things I’m Watching

Context over chaos.

Before We Begin…

On Christmas Eve, while families gathered, Donald Trump threatened TV networks that didn’t praise him.

Nothing says leadership or Christian values like attacking the free press on Christmas. It was a useful reminder of why I stay committed to independent media that isn’t driven by rage or clickbait, and why this space matters.

On that note: I’m offering a year-end discount on paid subscriptions through Dec. 31: Click Here. As an added bonus, paid subscribers will be invited to a new Ask Me Anything soon after the new year (details coming), giving you direct access to submit your questions.

Thank you for being here, and for the notes you sent after my live Christmas Eve post.

Now, the headlines.

1. I’m a U.S. Citizen. ICE Detained Me. And the Law Says I Can’t Sue.

George Retes is a U.S. citizen and Iraq War veteran. That didn’t stop federal agents from detaining him for days without charges, then quietly telling him he had no legal path to accountability.

His case exposes a dangerous gap in U.S. civil rights law. Section 1983 allows Americans to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations, but not federal officers. If a local cop had done this, Retes could go to court. Because it was ICE, the door was closed.

That’s not a technicality. It’s a structural failure, one that shields federal power precisely as enforcement authority expands.

After DHS publicly denied wrongdoing and claimed U.S. citizens aren’t being detained, Retes testified before a shadow hearing led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, pushing for a fix that would hold all government officials accountable.

This isn’t anti-law enforcement. It’s about whether constitutional rights depend on which badge violates them.

If it can happen to a U.S. citizen and combat veteran, it can happen to anyone.

So when Kristi Noem says U.S. citizens aren’t being detained, and your MAGA friend repeats it, this is the real-world example to push back with facts.

🛑 Wrongfully Detained by ICE, And Shut Out of Justice: Houston Chronicle

2. Trump Keeps Losing His War on Lawyers

President Donald Trump keeps trying to punish the lawyers who stand up to him. And this week, once again, a federal judge said no.

A judge in Washington temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to strip the security clearance of national security attorney Mark Zaid, who, for transparency, is also my attorney. (Gee…I wonder why he has consistently been targeted.) Zaid also represented the whistleblower whose complaint led to Trump’s first impeachment. Trump has publicly attacked him for years. This was retaliation, not national security.

The judge didn’t mince words. He found that Zaid is likely to succeed on claims that the clearance revocation violated his free speech and due process rights, a basic reminder that representing whistleblowers is not a crime, and loyalty tests are not the law.

This isn’t an isolated loss. Courts have repeatedly blocked Trump’s attempts to yank security clearances from lawyers and major law firms he doesn’t like, finding the moves retaliatory and unconstitutional. One judge put it plainly: this is about chilling legal representation and insulating the executive branch from judicial oversight.

Translation: when presidents start targeting lawyers, it’s not about security. It’s about power. Trump may keep trying. The courts keep reminding him that the rule of law still exists. And if these cases reach the Supreme Court, the stakes won’t be partisan; they’ll be constitutional.

This fight isn’t about one lawyer. It’s about whether presidents can punish attorneys for doing their jobs.

That answer, so far, has been a clear no.

⚖️ Trump Loses Bid to Punish Lawyers: WaPo

3. The Conservative Brain Drain: Heritage Is Fracturing

If you’ve followed my work, you know I’ve been tracking The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 closely. This is a significant update.

More than a dozen senior staffers are leaving Heritage to join Advancing American Freedom, the policy nonprofit founded by my former boss, Vice President Mike Pence.

This isn’t routine turnover. It’s a signal.

Heritage, the intellectual engine behind Project 2025, has been losing experienced legal, economic, and data talent amid leadership turmoil, antisemitism controversies, and repeated flirtations with extremist figures. Entire teams are relocating, including the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law.

So who’s staying?

Heritage isn’t recalibrating, it’s hardening. As institutional credibility walks out, leadership is restocking with ideological loyalists. Under Kevin Roberts, this isn’t a think tank anymore; it’s a Project 2025 personnel pipeline.

I’ve been saying this for years: the best thing Pence can do for the country is lead a true conservative faction, one that gives others permission to push back against the far-right MAGA movement that has overtaken the Republican Party.

And for Republicans wondering if the old Heritage is gone, let’s just say it: This isn’t Heritage anymore.

If they’re honest, they should rebrand—perhaps call themselves The Heritage Enforcement Project.

Because institutions that trade ideas for loyalty don’t guide movements, they weaponize them.

🧠 Heritage Loses Top Staff as Pence Builds Alternative: Politico

4. Trump vs. Europe: Visa Bans and “Free Speech”

On Christmas Eve (because of course), the Trump administration quietly imposed visa bans on Europeans working to counter online hate and disinformation, accusing them of “censorship.”

Europe didn’t take it quietly.

The EU warned it could respond “swiftly and decisively.” Germany said Europe’s digital rules aren’t decided in Washington. And French President Emmanuel Macron called the move “intimidation and coercion” aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty.

At the center is Thierry Breton, an architect of the EU’s Digital Services Act, legislation forcing tech platforms to address illegal content. The Trump administration calls that censorship. Europe calls it democracy.

This isn’t really about visas. It’s about leverage.

By reframing regulation as a free-speech violation, Washington is turning First Amendment language into a foreign-policy weapon, pressuring allies to back off rules that constrain U.S. tech giants. Europe is signaling it won’t bend.

Heading into 2026, this really matters. What used to be a values alliance is now a power struggle over sovereignty, speech, and who sets the rules of the digital world.

🌍 Europe Slams U.S. Visa Bans: Reuters

5. One Big Question for 2026: If the Supreme Court Said No to the Guard, Does Trump Reach for the Insurrection Act?

Just before Christmas, the Supreme Court blocked Trump from deploying the National Guard into U.S. cities. That’s the headline. The subtext is more troubling.

In a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh flagged the obvious next question: if the Guard is off the table, does the president turn to the Insurrection Act instead?

Trump has openly floated invoking the 19th-century law before, particularly to protect ICE operations in Democratic-run cities. The Court didn’t rule on that authority. And that’s the point. Experts warn the Insurrection Act is far more sweeping, and far more dangerous, than using the Guard. It replaces citizen-soldiers with active-duty troops trained for war, not crowd control.

This isn’t about whether Trump invokes it tomorrow. It’s about trajectory. As legal options narrow, pressure builds toward more extreme tools. I was there in Trump 1.0, when he was eager to invoke the Insurrection Act, and that’s why this is something I’m watching closely.

Heading into 2026, the real question isn’t whether he would. It’s what stops him if he tries?

🪖 If Not the Guard, Then What?: CNN

And on that heavy thought…

🧶 One Thing for Your Soul: Weapons of Mass Construction

In a season full of noise, threats, and performative toughness, this piece stopped me cold, in the best way.

Fiber artists across the country are knitting, crocheting, and stitching their way into protest and community, from quiet “knit-ins” outside ICE facilities to fundraising hats, quilts, and embroidery that turn anger into care. They call it craftivism. I call it a reminder that resistance doesn’t always shout. It sometimes shows up with lawn chairs and yarn.

What I loved most about this story is that it isn’t about going viral or winning the algorithm. It’s about people building community, choosing joy, and refusing to let fear or rage be the only fuel. In a time when politics feels relentlessly dehumanizing, this is a small but powerful act of reclaiming humanity.

Creating something, especially together, isn’t escapism. It’s sustenance!

If you need a reminder that solidarity can be gentle, creative, and still deeply political, this one’s for you.

🪡 Resistance, One Stitch at a Time: The Guardian

And with that, we’re heading into the home stretch of 2025!

More soon,

-Olivia