Analysis of the Proclamation: “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”

President Trump’s proclamation issued on January 20, 2025, sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of federal and constitutional authority to address immigration and border security. It uses the “invasion” clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to justify a series of sweeping actions aimed at halting illegal entry into the United States, particularly across the southern border.


Key Points of the Proclamation

  1. Constitutional Authority Invoked:
    • Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
    • Article II: Presidential control over foreign affairs and the duty to enforce immigration laws.
  2. National Emergency Declaration:
    • The proclamation declares the situation at the southern border an “invasion.”
    • It argues that the federal government’s failure to secure the border violates its constitutional obligation to protect states.
  3. Executive Powers Cited:
    • Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
      • Authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if deemed detrimental to national interests.
    • Supreme Court precedent, particularly Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed the broad deference given to the President in matters of immigration and national security.
  4. Policy Actions Directed:
    • Suspension of the physical entry of aliens deemed to be part of the “invasion.”
    • Restrictions on aliens invoking asylum provisions of the INA.
    • Expanded authority for Homeland Security to repel and remove aliens without legal review.
    • Use of military and federal resources to enforce border security measures.
  5. Health and Security Justifications:
    • Cites risks of public health crises due to unscreened migrants.
    • Highlights the inability of federal agencies to vet migrants for criminal or national security threats effectively.
  6. Implementation and Coordination:
    • Directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General to take actions necessary to implement the proclamation.
    • Allows operational flexibility for repatriation and removal efforts.

Potential Implications

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The invocation of the “invasion” clause to justify sweeping actions could face immediate constitutional challenges.
    • The suspension of asylum rights and physical entry for aliens may conflict with established international and domestic legal obligations, including the Refugee Act of 1980.
  2. Federal-State Dynamics:
    • Sanctuary states and cities may interpret this proclamation as federal overreach, leading to resistance and litigation.
    • The invocation of Article IV against perceived “invasion” could provoke debates over federalism and the limits of executive authority.
  3. Precedent-Setting:
    • By broadening the definition of “invasion” to include illegal immigration, this proclamation could establish a precedent for future executive actions in domestic security or immigration.
  4. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Immediate impacts on migrants stranded at the border without access to legal processes, including asylum.
    • Potential international criticism from allies and organizations advocating for human rights.

Alignment with Predictions and Project 2025

This proclamation aligns closely with elements of Project 2025, which prioritizes border security and emphasizes executive authority to enforce immigration laws. It also reflects several key points from our previous scenario predictions, including:

  • Predicted: Use of a national emergency to address border security.
  • Predicted: Drastic measures to curb asylum rights.
  • Not Yet Realized: The proclamation’s impact on sanctuary states resisting federal enforcement remains to be seen.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  1. Monitor Legal Challenges:
    • Courts may quickly weigh in on the constitutional validity of the proclamation, particularly the use of Article IV.
  2. Track State Responses:
    • Observe how sanctuary states such as California, New York, and Illinois react to federal enforcement measures under this directive.
  3. International Reactions:
    • Analyze global responses to the proclamation, particularly from Mexico and international human rights organizations.
  4. Scenario Updates:
    • Incorporate the proclamation into our timeline and recalibrate probabilities for resistance, legal challenges, and federal-state conflicts.

The text as found on Whitehouse.gov 1/21/2025

GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION
January 20, 2025

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

An essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States has described this power as a “fundamental act of sovereignty,” which “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Supreme Court has recognized the inherent right and duty of the Executive Branch to defend our national sovereignty, stating that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” Id.

The Congress has, in establishing “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” created a complex and comprehensive Federal scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to control the entry and exit of people and goods across the borders of the United States. In routine circumstances, this complex and comprehensive scheme can protect the national sovereignty of the United States by facilitating the admission of individuals whose presence serves the national interest and preventing the admission of those who do not, such as those aliens who pose threats to public health, section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1); safety, section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); and national security, section 212(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)). Prospective immigrants who use the visa system are screened for such health, safety, and security concerns while outside of the United States, and are not permitted to enter the United States until they establish that they are eligible to be admitted as a matter of law and should be admitted as a matter of discretion.

But screening under those provisions of the INA can be wholly ineffective in the border environment, where access to necessary information is limited for aliens who have traveled from countries around the world to enter the United States illegally, or when the system is overwhelmed, leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.

Due to significant information gaps ,  particularly in the border environment ,  and processing times, Federal officials do not have the ability to verify with certainty the criminal record or national-security risks associated with the illegal entry of every alien at the southern border, as required by section 212(a)(2)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)-(3). Nor do aliens who illegally cross the southern border readily provide comprehensive background information from their home countries to Federal law enforcement officials.

The public safety and national security risks in such an environment are heightened by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations on the other side of the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. And the risks associated with these issues are greatly exacerbated when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border increases to levels that prevent actual operational control of the border.

The same is true for public health, where the Federal Government currently lacks an effective operational capability to screen all illegal aliens crossing the southern border for communicable diseases of public-health concern, as required by section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). Effectively no aliens who illegally enter the United States provide Federal officials at the southern border with their comprehensive health information, as a lawful immigrant would. As a result, innumerable aliens potentially carrying communicable diseases of public health significance illegally cross the southern border and enter communities across the United States.

Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States. The sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective, including those previously described that are intended to prevent aliens posing threats to public health, safety, and national security from entering the United States. As a result, millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.

This ongoing influx of illegal aliens across the southern border of the United States has placed significant costs and constraints upon the States, which have collectively spent billions of dollars in providing medical care and related human services, and have spent considerable amounts on increased law enforcement costs associated with the presence of these illegal aliens within their boundaries.

In joining the Union, the States agreed to surrender much of their sovereignty and join the Union in exchange for the Federal Government’s promise in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

The INA provides the President with certain emergency tools. For example, it states that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). This statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018). Further, the INA renders it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).

Historically, Presidents have used these statutory authorities to deny entry of designated classes and categories of aliens into the United States through ports of entry. But if the President has the power to deny entry of any alien into the United States, and to impose any restrictions as he may deem appropriate, this authority necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system, particularly when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border prevents the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.

The INA does not, however, occupy the Federal Government’s field of authority to protect the sovereignty of the United States, particularly in times of emergency when entire provisions of the INA are rendered ineffective by operational constraints, such as when there is an ongoing invasion into the States. The President’s inherent powers to control the borders of the United States, including those deriving from his authority to control the foreign affairs of the United States, necessarily include the ability to prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States, and to rapidly repatriate them to an alternative location. Only through such measures can the President guarantee the right of each State to be protected against invasion.

By the power vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I have determined that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I am issuing this Proclamation based on my express and inherent powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in faithful execution of the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and suspending the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States on or after the date of this order of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Restrictions on Entry for Aliens Invading the United States. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 3. Suspension of and Restriction on Entry for Aliens Posing Public Health, Safety, or National Security Risks. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States, on or after the date of this order, of any alien who fails, before entering the United States, to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information as to enable fulfillment of the requirements of sections 212(a)(1)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)-(3), is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended and restrict their access to provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry. Under the authorities provided to me under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, including my control over foreign affairs, and to effectuate the guarantee of protection against invasion required by Article IV, Section 4, I hereby suspend the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States, and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take appropriate actions as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of this proclamation, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 5. Operational Actions to Repel the Invasion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this order, whether as an exercise of the suspension power in section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), or as an exercise of my delegated authority under the Constitution of the United States, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth

 


Integration of Proclamation into Our Scenario

The proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” fundamentally shifts the landscape of our scenario. It establishes a direct use of executive authority to bypass traditional immigration processes, framing the southern border situation as a constitutional crisis of sovereignty. Here’s how this development influences our timeline and scenario outcomes:

Play-by-Play Update

Phase 1: Federal Escalation and Emergency Measures (Day 1-7)

  1. Federal Action:
    • The proclamation declares an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    • Entry of undocumented immigrants at the southern border is suspended indefinitely, with military resources deployed to enforce the directive.
  2. Immediate Impacts:
    • Border crossings drop sharply as federal agents enforce a “zero-entry” policy.
    • Migrant camps on the Mexican side swell with displaced individuals unable to enter the U.S., creating a humanitarian crisis.
  3. State-Level Reactions:
    • Border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida express support, citing reduced strain on state resources.
    • Sanctuary states (California, New York, Illinois) condemn the proclamation as unconstitutional, vowing legal challenges and limited cooperation.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Immediate border militarization: 100% (confirmed).
  • Legal challenges from sanctuary states: 85%.
  • Escalating protests from immigrant advocacy groups: 75%.

Phase 2: Legal and Humanitarian Challenges (Week 2-4)

  1. Judicial Response:
    • Lawsuits are filed in federal courts by sanctuary states and civil rights organizations, arguing the proclamation violates due process and international asylum laws.
    • A fast-tracked appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
  2. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Reports from border regions detail overcrowded migrant camps and deteriorating conditions.
    • Advocacy groups coordinate nationwide protests, calling for accountability and an end to the proclamation’s measures.
  3. Political Divisions:
    • Republicans rally behind the administration, framing the proclamation as a decisive step toward national security.
    • Democrats escalate rhetoric, accusing the administration of overreach and humanitarian neglect.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Supreme Court siding with federal government: 70%.
  • Mass protests in urban areas: 65%.

Phase 3: Potential State Resistance and Federal Retaliation (Month 2-3)

  1. Defiance by Sanctuary States:
    • California leads a coalition of states passing laws to shield undocumented residents from deportation.
    • Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
  2. Federal Countermeasures:
    • Federal funding to defiant states is threatened, with additional federal agents deployed to enforce immigration laws.
    • The administration hints at invoking the Insurrection Act if states obstruct federal operations.
  3. Public Unrest:
    • Protests escalate in sanctuary states, with clashes reported between demonstrators and federal agents.
    • Public opinion polarizes further along partisan lines.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Federal retaliation via funding cuts: 75%.
  • Invocation of the Insurrection Act: 55%.
  • Violent clashes during protests: 70%.

Potential Outcomes and Probabilities

  1. Outcome A: Legal Resolution (40%)
    • The Supreme Court upholds or invalidates the proclamation, determining its constitutionality.
    • Sanctuary states abide by the decision but push for legislative reforms to limit executive authority.
  2. Outcome B: Prolonged Standoff (50%)
    • Sanctuary states refuse to comply, effectively operating as semi-autonomous regions regarding immigration enforcement.
    • Federal and state authorities operate in parallel, creating legal and operational chaos.
  3. Outcome C: Federal Overreach and Martial Law (30%)
    • The administration escalates enforcement through the Insurrection Act, deploying troops to sanctuary states.
    • Widespread protests devolve into civil unrest, straining national cohesion.
  4. Outcome D: De-Escalation Through Political Compromise (20%)
    • Facing legal and public pressure, the administration agrees to narrow the scope of the proclamation, focusing on criminal elements rather than blanket immigration bans.

Impact Analysis

  1. Legal Implications:
    • The proclamation sets a precedent for defining “invasion” broadly, which could expand executive powers.
    • Courts will face challenges balancing federal authority with constitutional protections.
  2. Federal-State Relations:
    • Sanctuary states are likely to assert greater autonomy, intensifying federal-state tensions.
  3. Public Sentiment:
    • Polarization deepens as partisan narratives dominate media coverage.
    • Immigrant communities face heightened fear and uncertainty, fueling activism and advocacy.

Analysis of the Proclamation: “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”

President Trump’s proclamation issued on January 20, 2025, sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of federal and constitutional authority to address immigration and border security. It uses the “invasion” clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to justify a series of sweeping actions aimed at halting illegal entry into the United States, particularly across the southern border.


Key Points of the Proclamation

  1. Constitutional Authority Invoked:
    • Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
    • Article II: Presidential control over foreign affairs and the duty to enforce immigration laws.
  2. National Emergency Declaration:
    • The proclamation declares the situation at the southern border an “invasion.”
    • It argues that the federal government’s failure to secure the border violates its constitutional obligation to protect states.
  3. Executive Powers Cited:
    • Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
      • Authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if deemed detrimental to national interests.
    • Supreme Court precedent, particularly Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed the broad deference given to the President in matters of immigration and national security.
  4. Policy Actions Directed:
    • Suspension of the physical entry of aliens deemed to be part of the “invasion.”
    • Restrictions on aliens invoking asylum provisions of the INA.
    • Expanded authority for Homeland Security to repel and remove aliens without legal review.
    • Use of military and federal resources to enforce border security measures.
  5. Health and Security Justifications:
    • Cites risks of public health crises due to unscreened migrants.
    • Highlights the inability of federal agencies to vet migrants for criminal or national security threats effectively.
  6. Implementation and Coordination:
    • Directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General to take actions necessary to implement the proclamation.
    • Allows operational flexibility for repatriation and removal efforts.

Potential Implications

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The invocation of the “invasion” clause to justify sweeping actions could face immediate constitutional challenges.
    • The suspension of asylum rights and physical entry for aliens may conflict with established international and domestic legal obligations, including the Refugee Act of 1980.
  2. Federal-State Dynamics:
    • Sanctuary states and cities may interpret this proclamation as federal overreach, leading to resistance and litigation.
    • The invocation of Article IV against perceived “invasion” could provoke debates over federalism and the limits of executive authority.
  3. Precedent-Setting:
    • By broadening the definition of “invasion” to include illegal immigration, this proclamation could establish a precedent for future executive actions in domestic security or immigration.
  4. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Immediate impacts on migrants stranded at the border without access to legal processes, including asylum.
    • Potential international criticism from allies and organizations advocating for human rights.

Alignment with Predictions and Project 2025

This proclamation aligns closely with elements of Project 2025, which prioritizes border security and emphasizes executive authority to enforce immigration laws. It also reflects several key points from our previous scenario predictions, including:

  • Predicted: Use of a national emergency to address border security.
  • Predicted: Drastic measures to curb asylum rights.
  • Not Yet Realized: The proclamation’s impact on sanctuary states resisting federal enforcement remains to be seen.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  1. Monitor Legal Challenges:
    • Courts may quickly weigh in on the constitutional validity of the proclamation, particularly the use of Article IV.
  2. Track State Responses:
    • Observe how sanctuary states such as California, New York, and Illinois react to federal enforcement measures under this directive.
  3. International Reactions:
    • Analyze global responses to the proclamation, particularly from Mexico and international human rights organizations.
  4. Scenario Updates:
    • Incorporate the proclamation into our timeline and recalibrate probabilities for resistance, legal challenges, and federal-state conflicts.

The text as found on Whitehouse.gov 1/21/2025

GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION
January 20, 2025

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

An essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States has described this power as a “fundamental act of sovereignty,” which “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Supreme Court has recognized the inherent right and duty of the Executive Branch to defend our national sovereignty, stating that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” Id.

The Congress has, in establishing “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” created a complex and comprehensive Federal scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to control the entry and exit of people and goods across the borders of the United States. In routine circumstances, this complex and comprehensive scheme can protect the national sovereignty of the United States by facilitating the admission of individuals whose presence serves the national interest and preventing the admission of those who do not, such as those aliens who pose threats to public health, section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1); safety, section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); and national security, section 212(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)). Prospective immigrants who use the visa system are screened for such health, safety, and security concerns while outside of the United States, and are not permitted to enter the United States until they establish that they are eligible to be admitted as a matter of law and should be admitted as a matter of discretion.

But screening under those provisions of the INA can be wholly ineffective in the border environment, where access to necessary information is limited for aliens who have traveled from countries around the world to enter the United States illegally, or when the system is overwhelmed, leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.

Due to significant information gaps ,  particularly in the border environment ,  and processing times, Federal officials do not have the ability to verify with certainty the criminal record or national-security risks associated with the illegal entry of every alien at the southern border, as required by section 212(a)(2)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)-(3). Nor do aliens who illegally cross the southern border readily provide comprehensive background information from their home countries to Federal law enforcement officials.

The public safety and national security risks in such an environment are heightened by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations on the other side of the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. And the risks associated with these issues are greatly exacerbated when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border increases to levels that prevent actual operational control of the border.

The same is true for public health, where the Federal Government currently lacks an effective operational capability to screen all illegal aliens crossing the southern border for communicable diseases of public-health concern, as required by section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). Effectively no aliens who illegally enter the United States provide Federal officials at the southern border with their comprehensive health information, as a lawful immigrant would. As a result, innumerable aliens potentially carrying communicable diseases of public health significance illegally cross the southern border and enter communities across the United States.

Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States. The sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective, including those previously described that are intended to prevent aliens posing threats to public health, safety, and national security from entering the United States. As a result, millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.

This ongoing influx of illegal aliens across the southern border of the United States has placed significant costs and constraints upon the States, which have collectively spent billions of dollars in providing medical care and related human services, and have spent considerable amounts on increased law enforcement costs associated with the presence of these illegal aliens within their boundaries.

In joining the Union, the States agreed to surrender much of their sovereignty and join the Union in exchange for the Federal Government’s promise in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

The INA provides the President with certain emergency tools. For example, it states that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). This statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018). Further, the INA renders it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).

Historically, Presidents have used these statutory authorities to deny entry of designated classes and categories of aliens into the United States through ports of entry. But if the President has the power to deny entry of any alien into the United States, and to impose any restrictions as he may deem appropriate, this authority necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system, particularly when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border prevents the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.

The INA does not, however, occupy the Federal Government’s field of authority to protect the sovereignty of the United States, particularly in times of emergency when entire provisions of the INA are rendered ineffective by operational constraints, such as when there is an ongoing invasion into the States. The President’s inherent powers to control the borders of the United States, including those deriving from his authority to control the foreign affairs of the United States, necessarily include the ability to prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States, and to rapidly repatriate them to an alternative location. Only through such measures can the President guarantee the right of each State to be protected against invasion.

By the power vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I have determined that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I am issuing this Proclamation based on my express and inherent powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in faithful execution of the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and suspending the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States on or after the date of this order of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Restrictions on Entry for Aliens Invading the United States. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 3. Suspension of and Restriction on Entry for Aliens Posing Public Health, Safety, or National Security Risks. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States, on or after the date of this order, of any alien who fails, before entering the United States, to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information as to enable fulfillment of the requirements of sections 212(a)(1)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)-(3), is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended and restrict their access to provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry. Under the authorities provided to me under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, including my control over foreign affairs, and to effectuate the guarantee of protection against invasion required by Article IV, Section 4, I hereby suspend the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States, and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take appropriate actions as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of this proclamation, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 5. Operational Actions to Repel the Invasion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this order, whether as an exercise of the suspension power in section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), or as an exercise of my delegated authority under the Constitution of the United States, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth

 


Integration of Proclamation into Our Scenario

The proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” fundamentally shifts the landscape of our scenario. It establishes a direct use of executive authority to bypass traditional immigration processes, framing the southern border situation as a constitutional crisis of sovereignty. Here’s how this development influences our timeline and scenario outcomes:

Play-by-Play Update

Phase 1: Federal Escalation and Emergency Measures (Day 1-7)

  1. Federal Action:
    • The proclamation declares an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    • Entry of undocumented immigrants at the southern border is suspended indefinitely, with military resources deployed to enforce the directive.
  2. Immediate Impacts:
    • Border crossings drop sharply as federal agents enforce a “zero-entry” policy.
    • Migrant camps on the Mexican side swell with displaced individuals unable to enter the U.S., creating a humanitarian crisis.
  3. State-Level Reactions:
    • Border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida express support, citing reduced strain on state resources.
    • Sanctuary states (California, New York, Illinois) condemn the proclamation as unconstitutional, vowing legal challenges and limited cooperation.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Immediate border militarization: 100% (confirmed).
  • Legal challenges from sanctuary states: 85%.
  • Escalating protests from immigrant advocacy groups: 75%.

Phase 2: Legal and Humanitarian Challenges (Week 2-4)

  1. Judicial Response:
    • Lawsuits are filed in federal courts by sanctuary states and civil rights organizations, arguing the proclamation violates due process and international asylum laws.
    • A fast-tracked appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
  2. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Reports from border regions detail overcrowded migrant camps and deteriorating conditions.
    • Advocacy groups coordinate nationwide protests, calling for accountability and an end to the proclamation’s measures.
  3. Political Divisions:
    • Republicans rally behind the administration, framing the proclamation as a decisive step toward national security.
    • Democrats escalate rhetoric, accusing the administration of overreach and humanitarian neglect.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Supreme Court siding with federal government: 70%.
  • Mass protests in urban areas: 65%.

Phase 3: Potential State Resistance and Federal Retaliation (Month 2-3)

  1. Defiance by Sanctuary States:
    • California leads a coalition of states passing laws to shield undocumented residents from deportation.
    • Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
  2. Federal Countermeasures:
    • Federal funding to defiant states is threatened, with additional federal agents deployed to enforce immigration laws.
    • The administration hints at invoking the Insurrection Act if states obstruct federal operations.
  3. Public Unrest:
    • Protests escalate in sanctuary states, with clashes reported between demonstrators and federal agents.
    • Public opinion polarizes further along partisan lines.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Federal retaliation via funding cuts: 75%.
  • Invocation of the Insurrection Act: 55%.
  • Violent clashes during protests: 70%.

Potential Outcomes and Probabilities

  1. Outcome A: Legal Resolution (40%)
    • The Supreme Court upholds or invalidates the proclamation, determining its constitutionality.
    • Sanctuary states abide by the decision but push for legislative reforms to limit executive authority.
  2. Outcome B: Prolonged Standoff (50%)
    • Sanctuary states refuse to comply, effectively operating as semi-autonomous regions regarding immigration enforcement.
    • Federal and state authorities operate in parallel, creating legal and operational chaos.
  3. Outcome C: Federal Overreach and Martial Law (30%)
    • The administration escalates enforcement through the Insurrection Act, deploying troops to sanctuary states.
    • Widespread protests devolve into civil unrest, straining national cohesion.
  4. Outcome D: De-Escalation Through Political Compromise (20%)
    • Facing legal and public pressure, the administration agrees to narrow the scope of the proclamation, focusing on criminal elements rather than blanket immigration bans.

Impact Analysis

  1. Legal Implications:
    • The proclamation sets a precedent for defining “invasion” broadly, which could expand executive powers.
    • Courts will face challenges balancing federal authority with constitutional protections.
  2. Federal-State Relations:
    • Sanctuary states are likely to assert greater autonomy, intensifying federal-state tensions.
  3. Public Sentiment:
    • Polarization deepens as partisan narratives dominate media coverage.
    • Immigrant communities face heightened fear and uncertainty, fueling activism and advocacy.

48.4 F
Portland

The Bloodless Victory: Inside the Russian Strategy to Collapse the U.S. Through Trump? What If the Conspiracy Theorists Are Right?

Published:

The Russian-Orchestrated Economic Collapse of America Is No Longer Just Theory ,  It’s Taking Form

The United States is standing on the edge of a devastating economic cliff ,  and most Americans have no idea how far we’ve already leaned over. On April 2, 2025, Donald Trump’s White House announced a sweeping new wave of reciprocal, global, compounding tariffs. This move, combined with aggressive GOP-led efforts in the House and Senate to slash safety nets like SNAP and Medicaid, and the judiciary’s ongoing failure to challenge Trump’s use of emergency powers to restructure the economy, suggests something far more dangerous than ideology alone. If the darkest warnings from intelligence veterans, political analysts ,  and yes, even so-called conspiracy theorists ,  are correct, then this isn’t just policy. It’s intentional. What if this is all going exactly according to plan ,  a plan not written in Washington, but in Moscow?

Since the Cold War, Russia has worked methodically to undermine American power, first through ideological warfare and proxy conflicts, and later through cyberattacks, disinformation, and financial subversion. From fueling global unrest to exploiting energy markets and stealing economic secrets, the Kremlin’s goal has remained consistent: destabilize the U.S. from within and erode its influence abroad. In the modern era, these tactics have taken root in social media manipulation, infrastructure attacks, and assaults on public trust, all designed to fracture the American-led world order without firing a shot.

From targeting elections to undermining faith in democracy, Russia’s fingerprints are all over the growing divide in American society. And now, as U.S. policy choices increasingly echo Russian strategic interests, from weakening alliances to sowing domestic chaos, it’s time to ask the question too dangerous to ignore: What if Trump is playing directly into Putin’s hands?

The warning signs are all flashing red. Trump’s latest executive order imposing a universal 10% tariff on all imports, paired with even higher and compounding tariffs for key trade partners like China, Japan, and the EU, has sent shockwaves through the global economy. These aren’t just new tariffs; they’re being stacked on top of existing ones, escalating tensions and triggering alarm in major markets. In response, trading blocs are preparing retaliatory measures, or worse, making strategic moves to withdraw from the U.S.-led trade and financial system altogether. If that happens, America won’t just be diplomatically isolated; it will be economically cut off, stripped of the dollar’s reserve currency status, and left to navigate a global supply chain it no longer controls.

China is already in direct talks with the EU for independent trade deals, while Canada is working with Mexico and Southeast Asian nations to build new economic partnerships. The U.S. is quickly becoming a pariah, not just difficult to work with, but actively avoided. After the fiasco in the Oval Office with Ukrainian President Zelensky, even diplomatic communication is deteriorating. The world is moving on, and it’s time to ask the question too dangerous to ignore: What if Trump is playing directly into Putin’s hands?

At the same time, the administration’s budget proposals promise massive cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other vital entitlements ,  programs that not only support tens of millions of Americans, but that also underpin entire segments of the economy. Walmart and Target, two of the largest employers in the country, rely on SNAP spending as both direct revenue and a silent wage subsidy for their underpaid workforces. Farmers rely on government-purchased surplus to stay afloat. Hospitals in rural and underserved communities are propped up by Medicaid reimbursements. Cut those programs, and you don’t just hurt the poor ,  you destabilize employment, agriculture, healthcare, and the consumer economy all at once.

The American economy is already under strain. Interest rates remain high, housing prices have soared to record levels, inflation refuses to budge, and consumer credit debt is at an all-time high. Now imagine compounding that pressure by slashing assistance to families already hanging on by a thread. Tariffs drive up the cost of everyday goods. Food prices ,  already elevated ,  spike again. Medicaid support vanishes, and medical bills pile up. As wages stagnate and jobs disappear amid trade wars and policy whiplash, Americans turn to credit cards just to eat. But they can’t pay it back. Delinquencies rise. Lending freezes. Repossessions and foreclosures mount.

The system begins to buckle. With reduced access to healthcare ,  thanks to cuts to Medicaid, rising premiums under the ACA, and the loss of both private and government insurance coverage ,  desperation grows. Violence and suicide rates climb. Supply chains and just-in-time delivery systems collapse under the weight of mass layoffs, eroded retirement savings, and financial chaos. Not to mention other delicate webs of capitalism and a global supply chain where many of our everyday goods are manufactured all over the world ,  from our food, to our medications, to our cars. Where will the breaking point be?

In a reality few of us could have imagined just six months ago, it would seem this is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. And it’s happening in a context of intentional economic withdrawal ,  both self-imposed through reckless policy and reciprocated by an increasingly alienated global community. The dollar, long upheld by its role as the backbone of global trade (especially in oil), is already under threat. This system, known as the petrodollar, was cemented in the 1970s when the U.S. struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to price oil exclusively in dollars ,  securing global demand for the currency and enabling decades of cheap borrowing. BRICS nations are actively developing alternatives. China and Russia are signing energy deals in their own currencies. And if OPEC+ follows through on Russia and China’s years-long push to shift oil pricing away from the U.S. dollar ,  a strategy that’s already underway in bilateral energy deals ,  the fallout would be catastrophic. America’s ability to borrow cheaply would vanish. The national debt would become unmanageable. Inflation would spiral out of control. The entire financial system could collapse under its own weight.

And that’s exactly what Russia wants. To remove the U.S. as the dominant force in global finance. To break the petrodollar. To force NATO allies to look elsewhere for leadership. To create a multipolar world ,  one where Russia and China, not America, sit at the center of power. Whether Trump is doing this consciously at the direction of the Kremlin, or simply through some backchannel deal designed to collapse the nation while securing him immense personal financial gain, the alignment of his policies with Russian strategic objectives is uncanny. Intentional or not, the result is the same: America isolated, weakened, and destabilized ,  exactly as Putin envisioned.

So what happens if the world decides to give the U.S. what Trump says it wants ,  economic self-sufficiency and disengagement? The truth is, we are not ready. Our supply chains are global. Our corporations rely on international labor, parts, and markets. Our workers depend on social supports to survive in an economy already tilted against them. The U.S. no longer has the infrastructure, the industrial base, or the cohesive leadership to go it alone ,  not in any meaningful sense. Even our defense systems are vulnerable: many of our weapons depend on components sourced from abroad, and after years of massive military aid to Ukraine and Israel ,  not to mention other global commitments ,  our own reserves are thinning.

The push to isolate America could collapse our economy faster than we can comprehend, leaving nothing in its place but chaos, authoritarianism, and irreversible decline. It would open a gaping hole in global power ,  one that China or Russia is fully prepared to fill. And not just with influence. With control. Of the markets. Of the alliances. And, potentially, of the fate of our nation itself.

In the following sections, we will dissect this scenario piece by piece. We will show how the cuts to social safety nets ripple out through the food economy, the healthcare system, and the labor market. We’ll analyze how reciprocal tariffs ,  presented as tough-on-trade ,  are economic suicide in disguise. And we’ll chart how these forces converge to create a perfect storm of depression, isolation, and collapse ,  one that would make 2008 look like a warm-up act. This is not alarmism. This is a warning. If the world turns its back on the United States ,  and we keep turning our back on ourselves ,  the collapse won’t be theoretical. It will be historical.

 

Policy Content & Intent, what is, this order doing?

Trump’s Economic Measures Are Systematically Disabling the American Safety Net, Consumer Base, and Trade Infrastructure

While the rhetoric surrounding Trump’s recent economic actions centers on “strengthening American sovereignty” and “correcting unfair trade practices,” a clear-eyed examination of the actual policies reveals something more troubling: a coordinated dismantling of the structural pillars that sustain the U.S. economy. These aren’t just budget cuts or trade adjustments. They are foundational shifts ,  the kind that do not reverse easily, and which can trigger cascading failures across systems.

Let’s begin with the executive order on reciprocal tariffs, signed on April 2, 2025. This order:

  • Declares a national economic emergency,

  • Implements a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, and

  • Imposes targeted tariffs up to 34% on countries with large U.S. trade deficits, such as China, Japan, and the European Union.

These tariffs are not surgical, nor are they targeted at specific unfair practices. They are blanket measures that invite universal retaliation or abandonment. If global trade powers respond by simply refusing to engage, or worse, by cutting the dollar out of their supply chains, the U.S. will face price shocks, capital flight, and supply chain breakdowns ,  all of which were predictable consequences.

Simultaneously, Trump’s proposed 2025–2026 budget calls for deep, structural cuts to:

  • Medicaid (hundreds of billions over 10 years),

  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),

  • Section 8 housing vouchers, and

  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

These programs do not just support individuals. They fuel the economy at multiple levels:

  • Medicaid reimbursements keep rural hospitals open.

  • SNAP generates over $1.50 of economic activity per $1 spent, supporting farmers, truckers, grocers, food processors, and retailers like Walmart and Dollar General.

  • Section 8 subsidies help stabilize housing markets in urban and low-wage regions, preventing homelessness and real estate collapse.

By cutting these programs ,  in the middle of a historic inflation and credit crisis ,  Trump is yanking the bottom out from under the very workers and consumers that keep demand flowing. Worse still, many of the largest employers in America depend on these entitlements to function. Walmart pays its workforce so little that many employees rely on SNAP and Medicaid to survive.
By slashing those supports, Trump isn’t punishing “lazy takers” ,  he’s gutting the hidden economic subsidies that corporations quietly rely on to sustain low wages and high profits.

Meanwhile, the tariff hikes drive import prices higher across the board ,  hitting food, clothing, , cars, car parts, medicine, electronics, energy, and more. Low-income Americans, already squeezed by rising rents and groceries, will face a tidal wave of price increases, just as their benefits vanish. With wages stagnating, families will turn to credit cards ,  but consumer credit is already at a historic high, and default rates are rising fast.

This is how the system begins to buckle:

  • Safety nets are shredded.

  • Prices surge due to tariffs.

  • Household debt spikes.

  • Demand crashes.

  • Businesses lay off workers.

  • Tax revenues plummet. ,  Sales taxes dry up as consumer spending collapses, income taxes disappear with widespread layoffs, gas taxes vanish as transportation grinds to a halt, and property taxes erode as homes are foreclosed and abandoned. Cities and states face cascading budget crises with no lifeline in sight. Public workers are laid off. Emergency services are gutted. Transit systems fail. The social contract breaks down, not from a lack of will, but from the deliberate unraveling of the very systems that keep a nation functioning. And with every vanished dollar, the collapse accelerates.

  • States beg for federal relief ,  but there’s none left. And what remains is held hostage, tied to compliance with executive orders that defy the will of their residents and violate the values of the majority. Funding is no longer a tool for support, but a weapon of coercion ,  forcing states to choose between collapse and capitulation. Infrastructure crumbles, healthcare systems fail, schools shutter, and essential services vanish ,  not because states are incapable, but because the federal government is deliberately withholding aid unless they fall in line. It’s not governance. It’s extortion.

And if Trump continues to invoke “national emergency” authorities to bypass Congressional checks and expand executive control over trade, welfare, and monetary systems ,  as he has already begun to do ,  the next steps are clear: centralized economic command, state defiance, and potentially, currency collapse.

This is not about restoring balance. This is about breaking the existing structure and replacing it with a new order ,  one that concentrates power at the top, isolates the nation from the world, and leaves tens of millions of Americans exposed, hungry, and desperate. It is the modern “let them eat cake” method of governance: performative, indifferent, and4 rooted in cruelty disguised as policy. When examined collectively, these decisions aren’t just harmful ,  they are systemically destabilizing. And if they’re being deployed with intent, they don’t merely reflect incompetence or neglect ,  they represent economic sabotage from within.

History Repeats ,  And America Is Following the Path of Collapsed Empires

History does not just “rhyme” ,  it repeats, especially when it comes to empires that ignore the warning signs of internal decay, economic overreach, and authoritarian overcorrection. The economic moves now being made under Donald Trump’s leadership ,  mass tariffs, entitlement destruction, executive power grabs ,  are not new. They are the well-trodden steps of once-great empires and nations who, through a mix of arrogance, austerity, and isolationism, walked themselves into collapse.

The United States today is following this same historical script ,  with eyes wide open, and no brakes applied.

Take the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, passed under another wave of nationalist fervor. In an attempt to protect American farmers and manufacturers during an economic downturn, the U.S. slapped high tariffs on thousands of imported goods. Predictably, other countries retaliated. Global trade contracted by 66%. U.S. exports were cut in half within two years. The ripple effect helped turn a recession into the Great Depression, sending tens of millions into poverty and creating the conditions for fascist movements to flourish worldwide. Trump’s tariffs are broader, more sweeping, and come at a time when the global economy is even more interlinked ,  meaning the impact this time could be faster and more destructive.

Now look at Greece during the 2010s, where externally imposed austerity ,  massive cuts to healthcare, pensions, public jobs, and social safety nets ,  caused a full-scale depression. Unemployment surged to 27%, suicide rates soared, youth migration exploded, and trust in government vanished. That same logic is now coming from inside the American political establishment, not forced from the outside. Trump’s proposed budget cuts ,  to Medicaid, food stamps, housing, disability aid, and more ,  echo these policies almost exactly. But the U.S. doesn’t have a European Union to bail it out. If this collapse happens, there’s no external safety net.

Or consider Weimar Germany, where inflation, war debt, and government austerity created a desperate, destabilized middle class. The result wasn’t recovery ,  it was radicalization. A once-vibrant democracy collapsed into dictatorship within a few years. The warning signs then were clear: cuts to social programs, rising poverty, militarized policing, and executive decrees bypassing legislative processes. We see all of this again ,  right now ,  in Project 2025’s plans to empower the president with near-total control over the civil service, surveillance powers, and crisis management.

This is how empires fall. Not in a single day, but in a series of decisions that sever the social contract and fracture global trust.

Even Russia followed this path. In the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, “shock therapy” privatization ,  paired with Western-led austerity ,  collapsed the ruble, destroyed state institutions, and threw tens of millions into poverty. This led directly to the rise of Vladimir Putin, who offered order amid chaos, nationalism amid decay. Today, he stands as the chief global beneficiary if the U.S. follows the same trajectory. And Trump’s current policies are helping that happen ,  step by step, failure by failure.

From Pinochet’s Chile to Argentina’s collapse in 2001, we’ve seen again and again what happens when nations deregulate, deconstruct welfare states, and surrender their economies to authoritarian management in the name of efficiency or sovereignty. What follows is always the same: skyrocketing prices, civil unrest, capital flight, and violent consolidation of power.

The collapse of an empire doesn’t look like a single catastrophic moment ,  it looks like a steady normalization of hardship, a quiet withdrawal from global systems, a shrugging acceptance of domestic suffering, and a celebration of authoritarian control disguised as strength.

And that is exactly what we are seeing now.

If we continue down this path ,  economically isolating ourselves, gutting support systems, and concentrating power in the executive ,  we will not simply be repeating history. We will be completing it. The fall of the American empire won’t come with a bang. It will come with executive orders, food price spikes, hospital closures, and credit defaults ,  and by the time we realize what we’ve become, it will already be too late to turn back.

The Policy Landscape

This Isn’t Incompetence ,  It’s Project 2025 in Action

To understand what’s happening to the U.S. economy, we must stop viewing these actions ,  the tariffs, the entitlement cuts, the mass layoffs, the chaos ,  as isolated events. They are not policy mistakes. They are deliberate mechanisms, pulled from a detailed playbook. That playbook is the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, the central document of the Project 2025 initiative, organized by The Heritage Foundation and over 70 hard-right policy groups. And in that playbook, the endgame is not recovery ,  it is transformation.

Project 2025 envisions a radical reordering of American society: a dismantling of the administrative state, the destruction of federal safety nets, and the concentration of power in a single, highly politicized executive branch. Economic collapse, in this context, is not a crisis to avoid ,  it is a tool. It creates the chaos and desperation necessary to push through authoritarian changes under the guise of “emergency” stabilization.

he Strategic Priorities document released by The Heritage Foundation in support of Project 2025 makes its intentions explicit. In their own words, they plan to:

  • “Eliminate regulation, inflation, and spending” ,  code for cutting welfare, gutting public health infrastructure, and defunding climate resilience.
    (Heritage Foundation, Mandate for Leadership: Strategic Priorities, p. 7)

  • “Root out the deep state” ,  their phrase for purging career civil servants and replacing them with ideologues loyal to the president.
    (Heritage Foundation, Strategic Priorities, p. 6)

  • “Unleash American energy” ,  by dismantling environmental regulations and returning to oil dominance, no matter the ecological or economic cost.
    (Heritage Foundation, Strategic Priorities, p. 10)

  • “End the border and immigration chaos” ,  by militarizing immigration policy and undermining due process.
    (Heritage Foundation, Strategic Priorities, p. 8)

But most crucially, they seek to remove the federal government as a provider of public goods ,  whether food assistance, medical care, or housing ,  and hand those functions either to the private market or religious institutions. This is not just policy. It is neoliberal theocracy, built on deregulation, Christian nationalism, and corporate supremacy.

In this context, tariffs serve a dual purpose. First, they project the illusion of economic strength and patriotic self-reliance ,  a smokescreen. Second, they trigger retaliatory trade contractions and price spikes that weaken the existing consumer economy ,  an economy that depends on global supply chains and government spending to survive. By imposing tariffs, and then slashing safety nets that offset the costs of those tariffs, the government ensures that low-income and working-class Americans suffer disproportionately, creating both dependency and rage ,  two conditions that are politically exploitable.

Consider again what Project 2025 calls for in education and social policy:

“THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE REMOVED FROM EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, AND WELFARE. LOCAL CONTROL, PRIVATE MARKETS, AND PARENTAL SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED.”
(Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership, Education Chapter, p. 475; Health and Welfare Chapter, p. 565)

By dismantling SNAP and Medicaid, and allowing tariffs to drive up the cost of food, medicine, and clothing, the administration is effectively privatizing survival. The people most impacted will not turn to government ,  because it will no longer be there. They will turn to corporations, churches, and militia-style governance, all of which are being cultivated in parallel under this plan.

This is also why the budget slashes funds to regulatory agencies ,  the EPA, the USDA, the Department of Labor. These bodies enforce the rules that prevent corporate abuse and environmental collapse. Project 2025 sees them as obstacles. In their place, we are promised a new “Constitutional Executive” ,  one who can act swiftly, unilaterally, and “without interference from unelected bureaucrats.”
(Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership, Introduction & Executive Office Chapters, pp. 13–15)
This is not a presidency. It is a throne.

All of this is happening in the open. Project 2025 is not a fringe document. It has been endorsed by Donald Trump, distributed to every federal agency, and is now being actively implemented through executive orders and proposed budgets.

If we do not connect the dots between economic collapse and authoritarian design, we risk normalizing the destruction of democracy as a budgetary decision, and accepting economic suffering as the price of nationalist pride.

What’s unfolding is not a series of missteps. It’s a method. And it leads in one direction: away from democracy, away from stability, and into a system that looks much more like Putin’s Russia than the country we thought we lived in.

 

Predicted Outcomes & Probability Estimates

If This Isn’t Stopped, These Are the Next Steps ,  And the Likelihoods Are Alarming

Wildly, the scenario we’ve outlined so far is not speculative fiction. It’s the logical endpoint of policies already underway: mass tariffs, budgetary austerity targeting the most vulnerable, and structural withdrawal from international economic systems. The collapse isn’t some distant, dystopian possibility ,  it’s a chain reaction already in motion. The only uncertainty now is how quickly the consequences arrive, and how widespread the damage will be.

We are not at the edge of a fork in the road. We’ve already taken a turn ,  drifted into a direction we never expected to. A universe, a multiverse, where the rules have shifted, the safeguards are failing, and the center no longer holds. And the deeper we go, the harder it becomes to find our way back.

Using data from the 2008 financial crisis, the 1930s Depression, global austerity experiments, and the current macroeconomic indicators (consumer credit levels, inflation rates, debt servicing costs, etc.), we can assess ,  with grim clarity ,  what’s most likely to happen next.


GTNM Probability Forecast Table

Outcome Probability Explanation
Consumer Price Shock (Food, Goods, Energy) 95% Tariffs raise costs directly, and SNAP/Medicaid cuts remove buffers. Inflation is pushed upward again.
Sharp GDP Contraction (Q3–Q4 2025) 85% Lower consumer spending, reduced global investment, and trade pullbacks converge.
Surge in Consumer Credit Defaults 80% Families turn to credit to survive but cannot pay as prices climb and assistance vanishes.
Rural Hospital & Clinic Closures (Medicaid Collapse) 75% Medicaid cuts gut reimbursement to safety-net hospitals. Closures in rural and poor urban areas are likely.
Retaliatory Tariffs or Economic Disengagement by Allies 70% The EU, Japan, and China signal readiness to abandon U.S. trade and reduce dollar holdings.
Loss of Dollar Confidence in Energy Markets 60% Petrodollar reliance weakens; OPEC+ could accelerate de-dollarization under pressure from BRICS.
Stock Market Crash (>30% loss) 55% Corporate earnings collapse amid trade chaos and reduced consumer activity. Markets react violently.
Sustained Depression-Level Unemployment (>15%) 50% Retail, healthcare, logistics, and manufacturing sectors suffer mass layoffs under compounded shocks.
Authoritarian Executive Power Consolidation 85% National emergency frameworks already invoked; Project 2025 mandates central control of the bureaucracy.
Civil Unrest, Mass Protests, and State-Level Resistance 80% Food insecurity, housing loss, and healthcare collapse produce massive unrest and potential state defiance.
Global Realignment Without the U.S. at the Core 70% Trade blocs may proceed without the U.S., cementing multipolar trade and weakening dollar dominance permanently.
Full Economic Depression (3+ years, >10% GDP loss) 45% A deep, multi-year downturn becomes possible if all major systems (trade, credit, health, food) collapse together.

Methodology Notes

  • Forecasts are based on triangulated indicators:

    • Recent real-world market responses to Trump’s April 2025 tariff announcements.

    • Economic modeling from past trade wars (1930s, 2018–2019), austerity cases (Greece, Argentina), and entitlement cut impacts (USDA/Medicaid studies).

    • Published analysis from institutions like Brookings, IMF, CBO, and real-time data from Reuters, Bloomberg, and AP.

  • Weight given to existing policy alignment with Project 2025, which makes economic reversal unlikely without massive political upheaval.


We Are Not Looking at a Recession ,  We’re Looking at a Planned Economic Reordering

The most likely near-term outcome is a stagflationary shock, where inflation resurges just as growth halts and public benefits vanish. But that’s only the beginning. As supply chains falter and social support collapses, the economic downturn will feed into political instability ,  and Trump, or those behind him, are preparing to use that instability to justify more consolidation of power.

If the U.S. dollar loses its global centrality, or if states begin defecting from federal mandates to preserve local welfare programs, we could enter a genuine economic and constitutional crisis.

This isn’t just an economic forecast. It’s a trajectory ,  and we are already on it.

The Bloodless War Is Almost Over ,  And America Is Losing

This is not just another policy disagreement ,  not about left or right, tariffs versus trade, budgets versus deficits. This is about the intentional dismantling of the United States ,  not by a foreign invader, but from within, by those who see economic collapse as a political opportunity, a personal gold mine, and authoritarianism as the endgame.

We are not watching a failing system. We are watching a system being pushed to fail ,  on purpose, in public, and with the backing of billionaires, ideologues, and an increasingly militarized executive branch. They are tearing apart our supply chains, our safety nets, our institutions, and the very idea of a shared American future. And they are doing it while calling it “freedom.”

And this collapse was never sudden. It has been centuries in the making ,  from the first blood-soaked moments of colonization, to the slaughter of the buffalo, to the erasure of Indigenous nations. The greed of capitalism ,  man eating man, power hoarding power ,  was never a flaw in the system. It was the system.
That same extractive logic ,  strip what you can, discard the rest, deny the consequences ,  now lives on in policy form: cutting Medicaid, gutting food assistance, and abandoning the people deemed least profitable.
This isn’t the beginning of the end. It’s the end of the American experiment.

The most telling words may have already been spoken ,  not by a critic, but by one of the chief architects of Project 2025:

“Bloodless, if the left allows it to be.”
Kevin Roberts, President of The Heritage Foundation

That isn’t analysis. That is a threat. A roadmap. A promise. A clear signal that the executive orders, the mass layoffs, the disappearing entitlements, the collapsing dollar ,  are only the beginning. And the next phase will remain bloodless only if no one resists.

This is what economic warfare looks like in a post-truth America. There are no missiles. There are no armies. There is only policy as a weapon, wielded by showmen and cronies who obey the script of their masters ,  a disgraced reality TV host, a convicted felon, a cult leader whose followers have abandoned truth for identity and vengeance.

They are not governing. They are starving, dividing, and controlling ,  and if the world turns its back, if the dollar dies, if unrest consumes our streets and the safety net unravels, they will not call it a failure.

They will call it a victory.

A victory for Trump.
A victory for Project 2025.
A victory for Russia ,  one they have chased for decades.
And they will have won it without firing a single shot.

They told us their whole plan. They laid it out.
Donald Trump told you who he was when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still be president.

You didn’t believe him then.
Will you believe them now?

Unless we stop them.
Unless we name it.
Unless we act.

Because if we don’t, the collapse won’t be theoretical.
It won’t be historical.

It will be total.
And the bloodless war will be over ,  with America as the casualty.

“A republic, if you can keep it.”
Benjamin Franklin

We are losing it.

 

Citations and Relevant Links


Discover more from Grounded Truth & News Movement

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Leave a Reply

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Related articles

Recent articles

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x