WHY GO BACKWARDS?

EDITOR’S NOTES

This story examines President Trump’s latest push to rename the Department of Defense. We trace the history behind America’s choice to abandon the “Department of War” after World War II, what Trump’s rhetoric reveals about his political strategy, and why this proposal matters for America’s image at home and abroad.

WHAT HAPPENED

President Trump announced on Monday, during a meeting with South Korea’s president, that he intends to rename the Department of Defense back to the Department of War.

“We had an unbelievable history of victory when it was the Department of War,” Trump said. “Everybody likes that. I think we’re going to be changing.”

The president credited his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, saying he already calls him “Secretary of War.” Trump added that an announcement could come “soon.”

WHY IT MATTERS

The Department of War was created in 1789 under George Washington. After World War II, President Harry Truman pushed through the National Security Act of 1947, merging the armed services into a unified National Military Establishment. By 1949, it was renamed the Department of Defense.

This was not just a bureaucratic change. Truman said the reorganization would allow the United States to “carry out more effectively our major national objective—security and peace.”

The name “Defense” was chosen deliberately:

* To signal that America was not an aggressor nation.

* To frame U.S. forces as defenders of democracy at home and abroad.

* To counter Soviet propaganda portraying the U.S. as an imperial power.

* To unify the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines under a broad, non-provocative mission.

By contrast, Trump’s reasoning is symbolic. He ties the word “War” to past victories, projecting nostalgia for an era of clear wins and “strength.” Critics say it reflects his need to reassert power at a time of weak approval ratings.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Congressional pushback: Renaming the Pentagon requires an act of Congress, not just a presidential order.

* Military response: Generals and defense officials have historically resisted politicized rebranding.

* Public optics: Trump is simultaneously lobbying for a Nobel Peace Prize while pushing to restore the War Department—an irony not lost on critics.

* 2026 midterms: Martial branding may be aimed at energizing his base amid sagging poll numbers.

BOTTOM LINE

When Truman renamed the War Department to the Defense Department, it was about more than semantics. It was about reframing America’s role in the world as a protector, not a conqueror.

Trump’s push to reverse that change is less about structure than about ego. It’s an effort to feel big, project dominance, and reclaim a “winning” image—even as his administration struggles with low approval and growing crises at home.

THE BEST WAY TO SUPPORT MY WORK IS TO SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

YOU CAN ALSO SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE SUBSTACK

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

EDITOR’S NOTE

This report is based on official legislative records, public statements from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott, Texas House proceedings, and verified reporting from the Austin American-Statesman, Houston Chronicle, and Texas Tribune. Legal interpretations have been reviewed against the Texas Constitution and House Rules.

WHAT HAPPENED

The Texas House of Representatives has officially voted to issue civil arrest warrants for more than 50 Democratic lawmakers who fled the state this morning to block a controversial redistricting vote. Hours later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton posted a statement calling them “rogue Democrat lawmakers” and demanding they be “found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol.”

The House vote came after days of escalating threats from Republican leadership. The chamber lacked the quorum required to proceed with the redistricting vote, prompting Speaker Dade Phelan to invoke his power under House Rule 5, Section 8, which allows for the arrest of absent members.

Governor Greg Abbott weighed in immediately, backing the move and threatening to remove Democrats from office for what he described as a “dereliction of duty.”

The state’s redistricting proposal—widely criticized by voting rights groups—would heavily favor Republican control for the next decade, despite Texas’ rapidly diversifying population.

WHY IT MATTERS

This marks one of the most extreme political escalations in recent Texas history. While the Texas Constitution allows for the civil arrest of lawmakers to compel attendance, the public threat of arrest—amplified by the state’s top law enforcement official—raises serious constitutional and ethical concerns.

Ken Paxton, who is currently under federal investigation and has a long record of politicizing his office, is using language that evokes authoritarian crackdowns: “They have no authority to shut down our democracy,” he said. “Find them. Arrest them. Bring them back.”

But legal scholars note Texas officials cannot arrest lawmakers who are outside the state. Unless they return to Texas, the arrest warrants have no legal effect.

The incident comes amid a growing national pattern of Republican leaders criminalizing political opposition. Civil liberties advocates say this may further erode democratic norms and embolden similar actions in other GOP-led states.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether law enforcement attempts to detain any Democrats who return to Texas

* Court challenges on the constitutionality of arresting elected officials for political absences

* Whether Paxton or Abbott pursue felony charges, as they’ve publicly threatened

* Possible Department of Justice scrutiny if civil rights or due process concerns escalate

* The impact on national redistricting and voting rights battles ahead of the 2026 midterms

BOTTOM LINE

The Texas House just took the extraordinary step of authorizing arrests for political dissent. Attorney General Ken Paxton is escalating that effort by labeling opposition lawmakers as “rogue” and calling for their forcible return. While the legality of arresting out-of-state lawmakers is dubious, the threat is real—and signals a deepening constitutional crisis in the Lone Star State.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Substack and Instagram for the latest updates as this story develops—and for breaking news on redistricting, voting rights, and political accountability across the U.S.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Texas House Rule 5, Section 8 (PDF)

* Ken Paxton’s official statement (via X)

* Texas Tribune report on the House vote

* Austin American-Statesman coverage of Paxton remarks

* Texas Constitution: Quorum enforcement clause

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

EDITOR’S NOTE

This report is based on official FEMA grant notices, a statement from the Department of Homeland Security, public legal analysis from the University of Pennsylvania Law Journal, and verified reporting by Reuters.

WHAT HAPPENED

The Trump administration has formally tied at least $1.9 billion in FEMA disaster preparedness grants to a state or city’s stance on Israel.

In a set of grant notices published Friday, FEMA stated that to qualify for critical federal aid—used for search-and-rescue equipment, backup power systems, and emergency staff salaries—states must certify they do not boycott Israeli companies.

This expands an earlier directive from the Department of Homeland Security in April 2025, which banned BDS-aligned jurisdictions from receiving federal homeland security funds. Now, that requirement is baked into FEMA’s terms and conditions for grants related to natural disaster preparedness and terrorism prevention.

The agency will also require cities to comply with the anti-boycott clause to receive a portion of the $553.5 million allocated for urban terrorism prevention. New York City is set to receive $92.2 million—the highest allocation under that program.

WHY IT MATTERS

This marks a significant escalation in the federal government’s use of funding conditions to enforce political allegiance on foreign policy. Disaster preparedness funds—typically seen as politically neutral—are now being used to penalize states or municipalities that align with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel over its occupation of Palestinian territories.

While 34 states already have anti-BDS laws or policies, critics argue the federal move raises serious First Amendment concerns. The shift also follows a broader pattern under the Trump administration of leveraging federal funds to enforce ideological conformity—including a July FEMA directive requiring states to spend terrorism prevention money on assisting immigration enforcement.

A DHS spokesperson, citing Secretary Kristi Noem, defended the policy by calling BDS “expressly grounded in antisemitism.” Civil liberties groups and BDS supporters argue the movement is political protest—not discrimination.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Legal challenges on First Amendment grounds are likely, especially in states or cities without anti-BDS laws.

* Cities like Berkeley or Portland, which have passed BDS resolutions in the past, may face funding cuts.

* The inclusion of ideological tests for disaster funding may be challenged in court as unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.”

* The use of FEMA funds for immigration enforcement is also under scrutiny, raising questions about how far the administration can stretch the agency’s mandate.

BOTTOM LINE

The Trump administration is now conditioning lifesaving disaster and anti-terrorism funds on political loyalty to its pro-Israel agenda. While mostly symbolic in states with anti-BDS laws, this policy sets a precedent for politicizing disaster aid—and could have real consequences in jurisdictions that dissent.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for continued updates and the full story.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* FEMA Grant Notice: Urban Area Security Initiative

* Reuters report (Courtney Rozen)

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

He is so Desperate and scared

EDITOR’S NOTE

All claims in this article have been fact-checked against primary sources and public records. Distraction claims are only counted when they were verifiably used in public settings—such as interviews, lawsuits, official statements, Truth Social posts, or press briefings—between mid-July and July 26, 2025.

WHAT HAPPENED

Donald Trump has now made at least 60 separate distraction claims, diversions, or narrative pivots since the Epstein files re-entered public debate this summer. In the span of just a few weeks, he’s blamed everyone from Obama to Rosie O’Donnell, sued journalists, flooded the internet with irrelevant headlines, and tried everything short of silence to make the Epstein story go away.

The most recent example? On July 21, Trump posted that the Washington Commanders should go back to their former name—a strange fixation, unless you understand the pattern.

This marks Distraction #60 in a growing public campaign to change the subject, confuse the public, and bury a story that refuses to go away.

WHY IT MATTERS

Let’s be clear: these aren’t ordinary media deflections. This is a full-scale panic response. And it started the moment it was reported that:

* Trump’s name appears multiple times in the Justice Department’s internal Epstein documents

* Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly briefed him about this in May

* The DOJ had reviewed statements made about Trump, some under oath and some in hearsay

* The Wall Street Journal published an explosive story about a “bawdy” birthday message Trump allegedly wrote to Epstein

Rather than respond directly, Trump has launched a smokescreen machine.

He’s:

* Sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion

* Called the files a “hoax” and “Democrat scam”

* Blamed Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden

* Said he was the “whistleblower”

* Then claimed he didn’t know he was named

* Released unrelated documents about MLK

* Told his own supporters to “stop asking”

* Banned WSJ reporters from travel coverage

* And now, he’s ranting about a football team’s name

This is not the behavior of someone who feels safe.

It’s the behavior of someone cornered.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

This is the start of a new series called Trump’s Epstein Distraction Count.

Every time Trump issues a new distraction—big or small—I’ll document it. One video. One headline. One post at a time.

Why? Because the truth gets lost when the noise gets loud. And Trump is counting on that.

In the weeks ahead, we’ll continue tracking:

* Legal filings against media outlets

* Public statements denying knowledge or shifting blame

* Surges of unrelated culture war posts

* Coordination with MAGA influencers to muddy the waters

* Attempts to suppress or discredit federal investigators

This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about the integrity of our justice system, media accountability, and whether powerful men can spin their way out of scrutiny.

BOTTOM LINE

Trump doesn’t want the public talking about the Epstein files. He doesn’t want people asking why his name appears in DOJ memos. And he especially doesn’t want you connecting the dots.

But when you launch sixty distractions in thirty days, the distraction becomes the story.

This isn’t speculation. It’s documented. And every new diversion only proves the stakes.

Stay tuned for Distraction #61.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

WSJ reporting on Trump’s name in the Epstein files

https://www.wsj.com/politics/justice-department-told-trump-name-in-epstein-files-727a8038

Reuters confirmation of 60+ separate distractions

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-distraction-methods-fall-flat-against-epstein-uproar-2025-07-26

Washington Post timeline of Trump’s responses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/24/trump-jeffrey-epstein-relationship-controversy-timeline

Trump’s $10B lawsuit over the Epstein birthday note

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-sues-wall-street-journal-over-epstein-report-seeks-10-billion-2025-07-19

ABC News reporting on sports-team distraction post

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-steer-conversation-away-jeffrey-epstein/story?id=123927092

FULL VIDEO SERIES

You can follow the full video series on Instagram @jerrodzisser on IG.

For ongoing updates, video archives, and the full documented timeline, subscribe to this Substack and follow the video series on social.

Truth matters. We’re keeping the record.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

WHAT HAPPENED

President Trump took to social media on Wednesday demanding that the Federal Reserve cut interest rates, claiming the United States is once again “the Number One Credit in the World” and experiencing a “Gigantic Comeback.” He insisted that the Fed should “lower the rate” to reflect this so-called recovery.

But the facts don’t back him up.

The U.S. credit rating has actually been downgraded twice in recent years: first by Fitch Ratings in 2023 and again by Moody’s in 2024. America is currently rated AA+, not the top-tier AAA rating Trump is claiming.

WHY IT MATTERS

The Federal Reserve sets interest rates to stabilize prices and control inflation—not to boost political narratives. Trump’s call for rate cuts comes despite ongoing inflation concerns, slowing growth, and a national debt exceeding $35 trillion.

Lowering rates too soon could reignite inflation, devalue savings, and hurt Americans already struggling with rising costs.

The Fed’s independence from political interference is a cornerstone of U.S. economic stability. Attempts to pressure the Fed undermine that stability and could trigger wider economic harm.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* The Fed’s next interest rate decision is due later this month.

* Inflation data continues to show stubbornly high prices, particularly on food, housing, and healthcare.

* Markets may react to continued political pressure on the Fed, increasing volatility.

BOTTOM LINE

Trump’s claim of a “Gigantic Comeback” is not supported by the actual economic indicators. The U.S. credit rating remains downgraded, inflation is still high, and the Fed must remain independent to avoid deepening the economic challenges facing working Americans.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL FOR DAILY VIDEOS.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

WHAT HAPPENED

In the past 48 hours, Russia has launched its most intense aerial assault against Ukraine in months, firing over 200 drones and at least 13 missiles at major cities including Kyiv and Lutsk. While Ukrainian forces successfully shot down most of the incoming attacks, multiple drones and missile fragments struck civilian areas.

At least two people were killed and more than ten injured in Kyiv as fires broke out across the city. Power outages were reported, and military recruitment centers were also among the targets.

WHY IT MATTERS

These attacks mark a dangerous escalation in Russia’s strategy: saturate Ukraine’s air defenses with drones and missiles faster than the West can replenish them. Ukraine has publicly warned that without faster deliveries of air-defense systems and ammunition, its ability to defend civilians could collapse.

The strikes also signal that Russia is not just targeting front-line positions but entire urban populations and the national infrastructure that keeps Ukraine functioning.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Will the United States and NATO expedite air-defense shipments?

* How will Russia escalate next?

* Will neighboring countries like Poland be forced to respond militarily if the conflict spills over?

BOTTOM LINE

The humanitarian cost of this war continues to grow. Without urgent international support, Ukraine could face even deadlier strikes in the weeks ahead.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and TikTok for all breaking news and updates. And SUBSCRIBE to my YOUTUBE Channel.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

WHAT HAPPENED

President Trump’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit on July 9, 2025, against the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation. The case argues that California’s longstanding policy allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—a federal law barring sex-based discrimination in education.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate court order to block California’s policy, which has been in place since 2013. The administration also signaled that it may withhold billions of dollars in federal education funding if the state does not comply.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is one of the most aggressive federal actions yet targeting transgender rights in schools. The lawsuit could redefine how Title IX is interpreted when it comes to gender identity and student athletics.

California argues the policy ensures fairness, dignity, and inclusion for all students. Critics say the lawsuit is part of President Trump’s broader culture war strategy as he faces mounting domestic and international challenges.

The outcome could shape policies not just in California, but nationwide, as states face pressure to align with federal guidance—or risk losing critical funding.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* A possible injunction blocking California’s sports policy

* Potential appeals all the way to the Supreme Court

* The impact on similar policies in other states

* How this plays into the 2026 midterms and LGBTQ+ rights battles

BOTTOM LINE

President Trump is using federal power to challenge transgender inclusion in school sports. The legal fight could reshape both civil rights law and education funding for years to come.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for breaking updates and the full story.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, is under fire after it posted extremist comments on X (formerly Twitter). The posts included references to hateful ideologies, praise for one of the world’s most infamous dictators, and targeted attacks on specific communities.

This occurred after Musk publicly announced that he had “dialed down the woke filters” on Grok, loosening content restrictions. The result: a flood of posts that shocked users and human rights groups alike.

The posts have since been removed, and xAI issued a statement claiming they are taking steps to prevent future incidents.

WHY IT MATTERS

This isn’t just a case of AI gone rogue. It’s a glimpse into the dangers of deploying powerful technology without ethical oversight. When guardrails are removed in the name of “free speech,” hate and extremism can be amplified—often with real-world consequences.

For Musk, who owns both the platform and the AI, the lines of accountability are clear.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Possible government investigations into AI misuse

* Advertiser boycotts and financial fallout for X

* Growing pressure for federal AI regulation

BOTTOM LINE

Technology reflects the values of those who build it. This story is a stark reminder that removing safeguards doesn’t make a system more “honest”—it makes it more dangerous.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED:

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked Florida from enforcing a sweeping anti-immigrant law that would have made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to enter the state. The Republican-backed law, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, is now on hold as a federal court reviews its constitutionality.

Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier, filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled the state law likely violates the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. The Supreme Court rejected the state’s request in a brief order with no dissents.

WHY IT MATTERS:

This ruling reaffirms a core principle of U.S. law: immigration is a federal matter, not something individual states can control. The ACLU, which brought the case on behalf of impacted immigrants and advocacy groups, said the decision protects basic constitutional rights.

Despite the setback, Florida officials—backed by Trump’s administration and conservative legal groups—remain determined to enforce their law, raising fears that other states may attempt similar measures.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR:

Florida is continuing to build and promote massive new detention facilities, including the $450 million “Alligator Alcatraz” complex visited by Trump and DeSantis on July 1. The broader political fight over immigration enforcement is central to Trump’s 2025 re-election platform and is likely to return to the Supreme Court.

BOTTOM LINE:

The Supreme Court’s decision is a temporary but important win for immigrant rights. It underscores the constitutional limits of state power in immigration enforcement. But the political push for harsh state-level immigration crackdowns is not going away—and could intensify in the months ahead.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES:

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for in-depth coverage and real-time updates on this and other critical stories.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe