A researcher has spent the past week releasing four packages of recordings, transcripts, and planning documents. She says the material came from internal calls and working groups run by people who once managed democracy programs overseas. The four drops lay out a sequence that begins with street pressure and ends with a redesign of the American government. The material is raw. The people on the tapes are speaking in their own words about what they intend to do if certain lines are crossed.
What the Four Packages Actually Contain
The first package describes how large protest networks operate without most participants knowing the larger objective. Street activists believe they are responding to events as they happen. Legal help, bail funds, and messaging are already arranged. Governors are not asked to sign any formal pact. They only need to refuse federal troops if the Insurrection Act is used. That refusal, the speakers say, is enough to create the opening.
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 1: THE PLAN 🚨
I am working on gathering all the documents.
Now, here’s something to understand about the “democracy” and protest ecosystem: almost nobody knows the ‘grand plan’ so to speak. They simply agree to play a role.
For example, 99% of people breaking stuff on the streets believe they’re doing it out of an organic uprising. They don’t see that the police have been ordered to stand down. They don’t see that legal services have already been arranged for them. They don’t see that foundations are paying for their bonds.
Similarly here, governors aren’t participating in a pact to destroy the Constitution. Governors simply have agreed to push back on the Insurrection Act. The effect is the same: the governors end up playing a role in a grander plan.
I call this “shared epistemology” in my book Unelected. Motivations differ, people rarely agree to the big evil supervillain framing, but incentives all converge in the same end goal.
No Kings might not agree to explicitly tear down the Constitution, but they nonetheless work with DSA and will turn out millions of people if the right phone call is put in.
Here is one articulation of the plan – and crucially, since then, they have put many NGOs in their places to execute their proper role at all levels when the time is right.
Many more coming.
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 19, 2026
The second package focuses on the criteria for declaring the federal government illegitimate. The listed triggers include invoking the Insurrection Act against what the planners call peaceful protesters, along with several other steps that amount to any sustained pushback against the networks. Once a trigger is hit, the plan calls for states to withhold resources and for governors to convene what the documents label a Third Continental Congress. A retired admiral who once commanded a large group of former military, intelligence, and diplomatic officers is shown coordinating tabletop exercises for that moment. The same group is credited with organizing the broader blocking effort.
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 2: WHEN AND HOW TO DECLARE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ILLEGITIMATE 🚨
Some questioned whether a group of 200 ex-USAID officials could actually pull off their ambitions to rewrite the Constitution.
Here, they describe exactly how it works. They aren’t working alone.
The videos all come from Renew to Thrive (R2T) group and associates. Danielle Reiff and Paul Zeitz play key roles within R2T.
R2T sits inside a much, much larger umbrella called United Democracy Alliance (UDA), which is an extremely hush-hush control plane of leaders from major “blocking” NGOs such as 50501 and Indivisible fulfilling various functions. UDA decides when protests get deployed, timelines, how to respond, all that.
R2T’s role within UDA is concerned with “the day after tomorrow” – in other words, their function is to conceive what a rewritten American government will look like after the rest of UDA fulfills its purpose. As will be shown, Erica Chenoworth is credited with conceiving UDA in the first place under the Horizons “Big Tent” initiative.
Note here that National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) is credited for operationalizing UDA. NSL4A is a group of 1,600 ex-military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials. They are led by Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith (Ret). NSL4A also played a key role in the “illegal orders” messaging which targeted Pete Hegseth. Zeitz is also a member of NSL4A.
It must be emphasized that the choice of a military-oriented organization to coordinate NGOs across domestic protests is an interesting one all in itself – especially in an umbrella conceived by a regime change expert like Chenoworth.
You will have a hard time finding any mentions of UDA in the public. They are extremely hush-hush and selective who they talk to.
Mike Smith himself makes a personal appearance in other calls, coordinating Insurrection Act exercises and roleplaying with R2G as one of the participants.
As the audio transcript shows, they have outlined a sequence of “redlines” in which case the federal government should be declared illegitimate. Invoking the Insurrection Act against “peaceful” protesters is one of the most discussed redlines. I will post the illegitimate criteria below, but basically, almost any effective pushback against NGOs is a measure of illegitimacy according to them.
Important to understand:
The audio shows they shopped this idea around governors, but the reality is that governors do not have to explicitly sign on to the pact to play their role in the coup. All they have to do is refuse troops in their state and let UDA / R2G do the work of dissolving the federal government.— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 20, 2026
The third package records a July 2026 session in which foreign participants who had worked on transitions in other countries were invited to advise American counterparts. The recommendations that followed match steps already visible in the current midterm cycle: expanded poll watchers, pre-positioned legal teams, tabletop exercises for contested results, and public messaging that treats ordinary election administration as a potential crisis. The hosts describe these tools as standard practice in countries they once assisted.
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 3: AMERICA GETS THE FOREIGN-INTERVENTION TREATMENT 🚨
At what point does this become foreign interference of our elections?
To back up: the main group that Danielle Reiff and the other ex-USAID workers belongs to, Renew To Thrive (R2T) / Renew American Democracy (RAD) have an explicit strategy document. That strategy outlines “preparing for the worst” which includes the Insurrection Act or “election meltdown,” and their goal is to get “structural reform” in place by that – a polite way of saying our Constitutional Republic has to be overhauled.
In July 2026, R2T/RAD invited foreign state actors to share experience with the American community, for the express purpose of operationalizing their expertise right here in the United States. All actors had experience in international community assisted transitions (I’ll let you figure out what that is a code word for).
The disturbing part, though, is that all of the foreign actors’ recommendations were implemented right here in America.
You may have seen news headlines like:
– Restore trust in processes
– Increased election security, increased legal presence at polls
– Democratic officials hold tabletop exercises
– Judges prepare for post-election challengesTo be clear, this video doesn’t prove that this meeting specifically caused this cascade of escalations. But what it shows is that the democracy-promotion playbook the U.S. spent decades exporting, with situation rooms, observers at every polling place, prebunking and litigation paired with street mobilization, is now being run on America’s own election. The same people are running it, and they’re taking advice from the foreign actors the U.S. once backed.
Now when you look at officials talking about independent watchdogs or tabletop exercises… know that it’s because they are now treating the United States midterms exactly the same as they’d treat elections in a third world country.
And I think more than a small part of them are hoping that it does become a self-fulfilling prophecy as it has in so many of those countries. (For context, my book Unelected documents that so-called “election meltdowns” are precursors to transitions of power via color revolution.)
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 21, 2026
The fourth package comes from a January 2026 planning exercise. Participants included representatives from multiple activist networks, federal employee groups, and dialogue organizations. One working group was assigned the task of designing “national deliberations” that would follow a crisis. The session treated structural reform of American government as the intended outcome of the emergency scenarios they were rehearsing. Speakers noted that the same people who once installed new governments abroad would define what the new arrangement looks like here.
🚨 THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 4: YES, MANY ARE AWARE OF THE GOALS 🚨
This one is a thread because there are multiple materials.
On January 15, 2026, Renew American Democracy (RAD), the strategy built around the Democracy Renewal Group’s (DRG) ex-USAID democracy officers, held planning exercises for “emergency scenarios” and how it’d affect their “strategic objectives.”
RAD’s explicit goal is in catalyzing those so-called “emergency scenarios” to manifest “structural reform” – the rewriting of American governance which the previous drops have covered.
RAD/DRG hold the unique role within the wider blocking / protest alliance of defining what the new government looks like, presumably because they are made of ex-USAID officers who have specialized in installing new governments. As @MikeBenzCyber last night said on his stream, these DRG members come from the CIA coup parts of USAID.
It’s been suggested that DRG is just a fringe group within the much larger blocking/protest ecosystem. This morning’s interim video mentioning Mike Smith disproved that. And PART 4 disproves that further – the wider network is well aware of DRG and that its goal is to secure a new government.
They will dress it in the language that it’s Trump who will provoke it, and they’re only preventing a true Constitutional crisis. In reality, there’s a million ways to interpret what a “red line” is, and many ways to get Trump to cross it. Already, articles everywhere are telegraphing that Trump *will* cross it in the form of the Insurrection Act or martial law, softening us up for the coup ahead.
The materials I’m showing you are from a RAD/DRG-ran planning exercise in January 2026. Groups represented by participants include:
· National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A)
· Freedom Trainers / Beautiful Trouble
· Team Democracy
· Federal Workers Alliance for Democracy
· Civil Service Strong
· Project 2029
· Braver Angels
· Indivisible
· Better Together America
· Center for Collaborative Democracy
· Democracy Accelerator
· Paths to Understanding
· Co-Intelligence Institute
· Cohesion Strategy
· Community-Vision SolutionsOne of the working groups concerned “National Deliberations” – which lays the groundwork for structural reforms post-crisis. So every single participant in this forum was well aware the end point is rewriting our governance.
Even more interesting, Tanya Alfredson of @BraverAngels participated in this particular working group – which should give pause to anyone who believes Braver Angels simply wants better dialogue.
As you watch the videos, watch out for the code language they use to hint towards the ultimate end goal.
As always, patience as I pull together the thread. 👇
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 21, 2026
What the Sequence Means
The four packages describe a single pipeline. Pressure is applied through protests, lawsuits, and non-cooperation until the administration takes a visible step such as deploying troops under the Insurrection Act. That step is pre-labeled a red line. Crossing it allows state officials to withhold cooperation and allows the networks to declare the existing government illegitimate. The declared crisis then becomes the justification for replacing constitutional arrangements with new structures developed in private working groups. The people who spent decades deciding when foreign governments had lost legitimacy wrote the test for this one. They also wrote the plan for what comes after.
Most of the street participants and even many of the mid-level organizers are not shown discussing the end state. They are given narrower roles. The end state is discussed in smaller circles that include the former foreign-aid officers and the retired officers coordinating the response. The documents treat an election meltdown or a sustained clash as the necessary precondition, not an accident to be avoided. Articles and statements already circulating in the press treat the Insurrection Act as a near-certainty. That language matches the conditioning the planners describe.
The Practical Stakes
If the sequence holds, the midterms and the months that follow become a contest over whether ordinary enforcement of existing law can be turned into evidence of illegitimacy. Governors who simply decline to assist federal officers would be performing the role assigned to them. Courts and election administrators who adopt the monitoring and litigation posture recommended by the foreign advisers would be performing theirs. The result the planners describe is not a conventional change of policy. It is a claim that the existing constitutional order has failed and must be replaced by arrangements developed outside the normal amendment process.
The recordings and documents are public because one set of calls was left accessible. The people speaking do not appear to have expected an audience. What they say is that a crisis can be used to force a refounding. The four packages show how they intend to arrange the conditions for that claim and who they expect to make it.