There’s a strange phenomenon in American politics right now: the people who warn early are treated like conspiracy theorists, while the people who warn late are treated like prophets.
We saw it with trump’s fixation on boats and his sudden invocation of “narco terrorism.” The moment he started targeting them, some of us said immediately, “This isn’t about drugs. This is about pretext.” We were told to calm down. To stop being dramatic. To stop seeing shadows where there were none.
Then the language escalated. The targets expanded. The justifications hardened. And suddenly the thing we were assured was nothing became something everyone pretended was obvious all along.
Being early in America has become indistinguishable from being wrong.
Five years ago today, on January 6, our elected officials did not anticipate the President of the United States doing anything as brazenly desperate as riling up an angry crowd and pointing them at the Capitol, despite his ominous invitation promising it “will be wild.” The unimaginable happened anyway, in plain sight, because too few people were willing to imagine it.
But personally, me? I don’t care if I’m seen as wrong, or even labeled a conspiracy theorist. I’m just a normal citizen who occasionally sits down and asks himself a simple question: if I were a truly bad person, with genuinely bad intentions, what would I do in this situation?
So far, we have been lucky that the worst actors in the world cannot peer directly into my fear-factory of a mind. But at an increasingly alarming rate, trump and the people around him are matching my worst thoughts, step for step.
Many of us read Project 2025 and thought, “That would be awful if they ever enacted this agenda. How dreadful.” And then, little by little, it started unfolding.
Power consolidated. Loyalists installed. Guardrails weakened.
He is surrounding himself with spineless toadies who will never temper his most extreme impulses, and he has effectively neutered the Republican half of Congress as he marches toward fulfilling his agenda.
One of the most persistent failures of our institutions is the assumption that trump behaves like a normal political actor. He does not. He never has. He does not stumble into abuses of power, and he does not accidentally overreach.
He manufactures justification.
Fraud, crime, disorder, terrorism, invasion… these are not discoveries for trump. They are tools. He invokes them when he wants permission to break rules, shatter norms, or seize authority with minimal resistance.
Fraud is his skeleton key; it opens every locked door.
He used it to attack elections.
He used it to undermine aid programs.
He used it to demonize immigrants.
And now he is using it to prepare the public for force.
This is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition.
The pieces move before the public notices the board.
The moment that should have jolted every serious person awake came when trump casually acknowledged during an Air Force One interview after the Venezuela invasion, that he was pulling the National Guard out of several cities, while explicitly reserving the right to bring them back “when the time is right,” because, as he put it, “the crimes will start again.”
Read that again.
Crimes will start again.
Not if. Not maybe. When.
That is not a warning. It is narrative conditioning.
You do not deploy force because crime exists. You talk about crime until people accept force. You withdraw authority so instability can be cited later. You normalize emergency language before the emergency is declared.
Then you return as the only solution.
When trump reminds the public that he can invoke the Insurrection Act, and when he invokes George H.W. Bush as precedent, he is not providing historical context. He is building legal cover in advance. He is training people to hear those words without alarm.
This is not restraint. It is staging.
Normalization starts with language, not deployments.
You do not need to predict trump’s exact next move to understand the threat. You only need to understand how he operates.
If you wanted to interfere with elections without openly canceling them, you would claim fraud.
If you wanted to suppress protest, you would claim crime.
If you wanted to deploy federal force domestically, you would claim disorder.
If you wanted to justify extraordinary authority, you would claim necessity.
Every step requires a pretext. trump always supplies one.
That is why early warnings are dismissed. By the time the action happens, the justification has already been normalized. The debate shifts from “should this be allowed?” to “isn’t it unfortunate that it’s necessary?”
That is how democracies erode. Slowly. Legally. With applause from people who were told it was unavoidable.
If you want to see what this logic looks like when it graduates into raw force, look at Venezuela.
According to reporting by Reuters and the BBC, Nicolás Maduro was captured in a U.S. operation and transferred to the United States, where he is now in federal custody. trump then spoke openly about the United States running Venezuela temporarily, about “getting the oil flowing,” and about not being afraid to put “boots on the ground.”
That is not ambiguity. That is regime change language, spoken plainly.
And the most important detail is not just what was done, but how casually it was described. trump did not frame this as a reluctant last resort. He spoke about it like a transaction. A takeover. A business opportunity.
Now, it would be unfair to claim Congress has already “moved on.” These events unfolded over the weekend. But the deeper failure is already visible.
Republicans in Congress have spent years acting as a rubber stamp for trump’s worst impulses, training him to believe there will be no meaningful consequences. Democrats, meanwhile, too often respond to each escalation as if it were an isolated scandal rather than part of a single accelerating pattern.
What is missing is imagination.
These are not disconnected events. They are iterations. Pretext followed by escalation, followed by normalization, followed by the next, larger pretext.
Venezuela is not an outlier. It is proof of concept.
The pretext goes global fast.
Once a leader learns that audacity is rewarded and restraint is optional, escalation becomes inevitable.
Why not rip down part of the White House and build a grotesque ballroom?
Why not slap your name on the Kennedy Center?
Why not talk about taking Greenland?
Why not confiscate ballot boxes in cities you do not control and call it “election security?”
He has already tried to overturn birthright citizenship. That fight is not over. And if he is willing to reach for that, what exactly do we think is off limits?
People say, “That would never happen here.”
That is not realism. It is a failure of imagination.
I can imagine entire cities flooded with federal ICE agents and National Guard troops, no crime emergency required. When trump says crime is happening, millions simply accept it.
I can imagine AI-generated videos depicting boats exploding in the middle of the ocean, convincing enough to fool experts. Why fake a drug operation at sea? Because it creates a pretext. And pretexts are how invasions are sold.
And why invade? I can imagine a man who has been mocked his entire adult life by “real” billionaires for being crude, tacky, and fraudulent, desperately seeking obscene wealth and validation.
Like Putin, rumored to possess tens or even hundreds of billions, trump does not care how or where wealth is acquired. Through a shady crypto coin bearing his name, or by plundering a sovereign nation’s oil and mineral resources, the method is irrelevant. Only the accumulation matters.
I can even imagine him inventing a pretext to remain in office, declaring himself a “wartime president,” and announcing some fabricated rule that a president cannot be removed during a national emergency.
Ridiculous? Maybe.
Unimaginable? Not anymore.
Once audacity is rewarded, it becomes policy.
What is most alarming is not that trump thinks this way. It is that our leaders do not.
They prepare for good faith disagreement.
He prepares for bad faith domination.
They wait for proof of harm.
He operates on proof of intent.
They cling to the rulebook.
He studies how to tear it up and justify the mess afterward.
They keep assuming there will be a clear red line before action is required. But trump does not cross lines. He erases them, then claims the crossing was necessary.
By the time institutions respond, the chessboard is already set.
Five years ago, January 6 taught us that the unimaginable is not impossible. A sitting president incited an insurrection against his own government, and we were caught flat-footed because too many people believed it could never happen here.
Now we know better.
Now that we have a firm grasp on the kinds of depravity trump is capable of, whether it is a January 6 insurrection or a January 2 or 3 invasion of Venezuela, if he catches us off guard again, it will not be because the signs were unclear.
It will be because of a failure of audacity and imagination.
The question is not whether he would abuse power. He already has.
The question is whether anyone is willing to imagine the worst in time to stop it.
Because once permission is granted, the rest is just paperwork.
Pretext is the permission structure.
I make pieces like this free because early warnings only matter if they spread. But the follow-ups, the legal breakdowns, and the next-step analysis are for subscribers. If you want to stay ahead of where this is going, not react after the damage is done, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
What, in your opinion, is the most outlandish possibility for the next three years that our elected leaders are not considering seriously enough?
What should be done now to prevent it?
Comments are open to paid subscribers. I’ll be reading and engaging.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.