PDF Summary:The Midnight Rider Rides Again, by Derek Johnson

In The Midnight Rider Rides Again, Derek Johnson examines federal continuity directives and emergency authorities that establish frameworks for maintaining government operations during crises. He discusses Federal Continuity Directives, Presidential Policy Directive on National Continuity Policy, and National Essential Functions that guide the Federal Government's duties before, during, and after emergencies.

Johnson outlines the legal foundations of emergency authority, including executive orders, the National Emergencies Act, and Presidential Emergency Action Documents. He also covers the 2019 revisions to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and discusses operational security concepts. The book includes Johnson's claims about alleged covert operations involving what he describes as opposing factions using various tactics—from compartmentalized information and military drills as operational covers to cryptic communications aimed at the public.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: In practice, executive orders and federal laws work together to create emergency powers in a few key ways. First, many federal laws contain “contingent” powers that only become active when the president declares a national emergency. For example, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the president to freeze assets and block financial transactions during a declared emergency. When the president issues an executive order declaring an emergency, it “switches on” these statutory powers. The executive order itself typically cites the specific laws being invoked. This creates a legal obligation for executive branch agencies to carry out the president’s directives. For instance, if the president issues an executive order under the IEEPA, the Treasury Department must implement the financial restrictions.)

Only the president, as both the nation's leader and the military's chief officer, can enact executive orders. These directives take effect when issued and continue to do so until they're withdrawn, overturned, ruled illegal, or naturally lapse. The president can rescind, alter, or create exceptions for any executive order at any point, regardless of whether it was issued by them or a predecessor. Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs) are draft secret orders, proclamations, and congressional communications designed for the U.S. President to use or enhance powers in preparation for a variety of hypothetical emergencies. They were first created under Eisenhower's administration, responding to anxieties about the Cold War and nuclear conflict, and they're considered part of Continuity of Government (COG) planning. PEADs haven't been declassified, but they're mentioned in FBI memos accessed through FOIA, as well as in manuals and legal documents.

Criticism of Executive Orders and PEADs

The Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, has criticized the use of executive orders and PEADs, arguing that they allow the president to bypass the usual checks and balances of the democratic process. The center contends that these mechanisms enable the president to make significant decisions without the transparency and accountability that are fundamental to a functioning democracy. The Brennan Center's concerns highlight a broader debate about the balance between national security and democratic principles. While executive orders and PEADs are designed to provide the president with the tools to respond swiftly to emergencies, critics argue that the lack of oversight and public scrutiny can lead to abuses of power. This tension between security and transparency is a recurring theme in discussions about executive authority, particularly in the context of national emergencies. The center's critique also raises questions about the role of the judiciary and Congress in overseeing executive actions. By allowing the president to issue directives without immediate oversight, these mechanisms can undermine the system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

Johnson explains emergency authorities and declarations. Then, he outlines legal instruments and updates to armed forces regulations.

Emergency Powers & Declarations

Johnson explains that the National Emergencies Act permits the President to proclaim a state of national emergency and access special powers. This U.S. law was created to terminate earlier national emergencies and officially recognize presidential emergency powers. While it allows the President to initiate extraordinary powers during a crisis, it also requires certain procedural steps to use those powers. The need for the law was thought to stem from the range and volume of legislation granting extraordinary authorities to the executive branch during national emergencies. Congress can end a declaration of national crisis by passing a joint resolution into law. The Act is defined in 50 U.S.C. Chapter 34 §§ 1601, 1621, and 1622.

(Shortform note: The National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976 in response to congressional investigations in the 1970s that revealed the U.S. had been under a state of emergency since the Great Depression and World War II. These investigations found that presidents had been using emergency powers for decades without proper oversight or clear limits. The Act was designed to end these ongoing emergencies and create a system where Congress could monitor and control the use of emergency powers.)

Johnson also discusses Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs), which are secret documents outlining extraordinary powers for the President during emergencies. These are draft directives, statements, and communications to Congress created ahead of potential emergencies. Most PEADs remain classified and undisclosed to Congress. They're sometimes called the President's "hidden authorities" and are said to include halting the Constitution, declaring martial law, and revoking habeas corpus.

PEADs Can't Suspend the Constitution

In Law in Times of Crisis, Oren Gross and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin examine how emergency powers are used in constitutional democracies. They argue that even in times of crisis, the executive branch remains bound by the existing constitutional and legal framework. This means that emergency planning tools like PEADs can't simply "turn off" the constitutional order. Instead, any use of emergency powers must be justified as necessary, proportionate, and limited in scope and duration. This challenges the idea that PEADs are a kind of magic switch that can shut down the Constitution.

Legal Instruments & Modernization of Military Law

Johnson notes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) underwent a major revision in 2019, with new laws added—the first instance since 1950. That same day, an updated manual for courts-martial was issued, spanning 772 pages. The changes updated how many offenses are defined, modified maximum penalties, standardized court-martial groups, and established new laws about computer crimes. They were created to balance defendants' legal rights with the necessity for commanders to preserve structure and discipline. They were based on recommendations from the Military Justice Review Group, which included experts in both military and criminal justice. The amendments were incorporated into the 2016 Military Justice Act, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, and Executive Order 13825.

(Shortform note: The 2019 UCMJ overhaul was the result of years of congressional hearings and public criticism over the military’s handling of sexual-assault cases and other misconduct. Lawmakers pushed for a more transparent system with greater professional scrutiny. The changes were designed to address concerns about fairness and accountability while maintaining military discipline. The reforms were shaped by input from legal experts, military leaders, and advocacy groups. They reflect a broader trend toward modernizing military justice to align more closely with civilian legal standards while preserving the unique needs of military discipline and readiness.)

Johnson explains that adultery was replaced with the charge of "extra-marital sexual conduct," which expanded the meaning of sex to encompass same-sex affairs. The changes also allowed legal separation to be used as a defense. Additionally, the maximum prison term for people in power who engage in forbidden sexual acts with lower-ranking soldiers rose from two to five years.

(Shortform note: According to online encyclopedia editors, the term "extra-marital sexual conduct" is a legal term that refers to sexual activity outside of marriage. The term is used in the UCMJ to describe a criminal offense that can be prosecuted under military law. However, the term is not used to describe the act of infidelity itself, but rather the circumstances surrounding the act. In order to be prosecuted for extra-marital sexual conduct, the prosecution must prove that the act had a negative impact on the military's reputation or discipline.)

Johnson states that the 2016 Military Justice Act aimed to enhance the system of military justice. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote it in 2016, but it only became law through the 2017 NDAA. The Act was designed to boost efficiency and effectiveness while maintaining order and discipline.

(Shortform note: The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t write the 2016 Military Justice Act. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret laws, not to write them. The 2016 Military Justice Act was part of a Senate bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.)

Operational Concepts & Strategic Considerations

Johnson emphasizes that operations security (OPSEC) is crucial for protecting sensitive information. Operational security is the ability to identify and manage vital data, along with signs of allied force activities connected to combat operations. It incorporates measures to decrease the chance that an opponent will take advantage of weak points. OPSEC is relevant to any actions involved in getting forces ready, supporting them, or using them.

(Shortform note: You can apply operations security in your daily life by identifying and protecting your vital data and signs of your activities. For example, you might realize that your social media posts reveal your location and routines, which could be exploited by someone with bad intentions. By quietly adjusting your privacy settings and being more mindful of what you share, you reduce the chances of someone exploiting your vulnerabilities. This approach helps protect not just yourself, but also the people you support and care about.)

Johnson also discusses the gravity center, a key concept in military strategy. This is where authority originates, supplying mental or bodily might, freedom of movement, or motivation to take action. Analyzing the enemy's core strength determines what should be undermined or eliminated to achieve victory over them. Conversely, evaluating the friendly strategic focal point reveals what must be fortified or safeguarded to guarantee a win.

(Shortform note: The concept of a military “gravity center” has its roots in the 19th-century Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz’s metaphor of the “center of gravity.” Clausewitz used this term to describe the source of an enemy’s strength, which, if targeted and neutralized, could lead to their defeat. Modern military theorists like Antulio Echevarria have expanded on this idea, emphasizing the importance of identifying and protecting one’s own strategic focal points while simultaneously seeking to undermine those of the adversary.)

Application of Authorities & Alleged Operations

Johnson outlines alleged operational performance and narrative interpretation, including alleged performance details and mechanical aspects.

Alleged Operational Execution & Narrative Interpretation

Alleged Execution Details & Operational Mechanics

Johnson claims that the group used manipulation and violence to control people. They also engaged in trafficking people and making and selling adrenochrome as a source of income.

(Shortform note: In The Storm Is Upon Us, Mike Rothschild explains that adrenochrome is a real but obscure compound produced when adrenaline oxidizes.)

In contrast, the White Hats used secretive activities to counter their adversaries' efforts. They employed strategies such as compartmentalization of information, using military drills as fronts for international activities, performing false flag missions, and spreading misleading details. Additionally, they spread rumors that dependable White Hats disagreed and fostered expectations that failed to materialize. Johnson adds that the White Hats used cryptic communications to give the people hope, though these messages were so opaque they appeared to be a hoax.

Should White Hats Use These Tactics?

Many ethicists and strategists argue that White Hats shouldn’t use these tactics. For example, just war theorists argue that false flag missions and misleading details treat citizens as mere tools rather than as autonomous decision-makers. For example, Michael Walzer argues that when a government uses false flag missions and misleading details, it treats its citizens as mere tools to achieve its goals rather than as autonomous decision-makers. This undermines the very principles of democracy and respect for individual rights that the White Hats claim to uphold.