Tag Archive for: Democracy

The Scenario Is the Warning

An abridged version of the author’s “Emergency Planning: The president is Preparing to Challenge 2026 Midterms. The Country Can Still Act to Protect Them,.” Published by The Washington Spectator

You don’t need certainty about how a crisis unfolds to know preparation is essential.

Most Americans have never heard of Presidential Emergency Action Documents.

Known as PEADs, they are secret directives prepared by presidents for catastrophic national emergencies: war, cyberattack, mass unrest, infrastructure collapse, or threats to continuity of government. Their contents remain classified. But declassified materials and historical records show that emergency planning has long contemplated extraordinary executive powers: detention outside ordinary criminal process, control of transportation and communications, seizure of facilities, deployment of federal personnel inside the United States, and temporary concentration of power in the executive branch during periods of declared crisis.

Under normal circumstances, these authorities are contingency planning.

Under abnormal political circumstances, they could become something else.

President Trump enters the 2026 midterms facing the real possibility of losing one or both houses of Congress. A Democratic victory would likely bring investigations, subpoenas, aggressive oversight, and perhaps impeachment proceedings. Trump’s conduct after losing in 2020—pressuring state officials, refusing to concede, seeking to block certification, and continuing to claim elections he loses are rigged—suggests he does not necessarily regard adverse electoral outcomes as politically final if other instruments of power remain available.

Now imagine a plausible post-election scenario.

Democrats appear to win the House, maybe the Senate too. Trump declares the results fraudulent in selected jurisdictions and refuses to recognize key outcomes while federal investigations proceed. Republican allies in Congress insist disputed seats cannot be recognized until allegations of fraud, foreign interference, cyber manipulation, or domestic disorder are fully reviewed.

Millions of Americans would understand what was happening. They would protest.

That is where emergency powers could become decisive.

If protests spread—and if some become violent, or were portrayed as violent—the White House would declare a national emergency. Federal agencies would move not simply against protesters, but against organizers, donors, lawyers, labor networks, nonprofits, digital platforms, and elected allies accused of supporting disorder, insurrection, or interference with constitutional order. Arrests would begin. Funding would be frozen. Communications would be disrupted. Leaders could be detained, potentially in the new ICE detention infrastructure, while courts struggle to react and facts are created on the ground.

The theory would be temporary emergency action. The effect could be permanent constitutional damage.

The opposition would be forcibly repressed. Congress would organize under conditions shaped not by the voters’ will alone, but by fear, detention, and coercion. A new Congress would formally exist, but not as an independent branch capable of checking presidential power.

The president would have overturned the election through refusing to seat a Congress he finds contrary to his preferences, and then engineering a sequence of events that transforms his adversaries into what he already refers to as “domestic enemies,” and preventing them from taking power, including, as needed, arresting and imprisoning those who resist.

Could events unfold exactly this way? Scenarios are just scenarios. We cannot know ahead of time exactly which ones will play out in practice, and how. Could some version of it happen? Yes.

Even outside the context of an election crisis, we have already seen the Trump Administration investigate and in some cases actually bring criminal cases against former national security and intelligence officials, former federal law enforcement officials, sitting senators and representatives, state attorneys general, federal financial regulators, military leadership, and at least one sitting judge. The threat of the Trump Administration further criminalizing the opposition in the context of adverse elections, aided by the extraordinary powers of the PEADs, is profound.

Which is why preparation cannot begin in November 2026. It must begin now.

Governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state, legislative leaders, university presidents, labor organizations, business leaders, philanthropies, media organizations, and civic institutions should already be preparing for what happens if emergency powers are invoked after a contested election. That means pre-positioning legal teams in multiple jurisdictions, building communications systems that cannot be easily disrupted, identifying emergency funding for legal defense and civic mobilization, coordinating across state lines, and making public commitments in advance to honor lawfully certified election results.

Emergency planning is not alarmism. It is how democracies make power grabs less likely to succeed.

Jonathan M. Winer is the former Special Envoy for Libya and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement and a Distinguished Diplomatic Fellow at MEI. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Trump Bawls for his Ballroom

The fixation on a ballroom over a breach is not just tone-deaf—it’s evidence of a governing culture hollowed out by loyalty tests and detached from its most basic responsibilities.

The annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, on April 25, 2026, at the Washington Hilton in Washington, DC, was interrupted when shots were fired near the main security screening area on the floor ABOVE the dining room, where Donald Trump, along with his wife and several senior members of his administration were dining. The suspected shooter, Cole Tomas Allen, a Californian, who was armed with several weapons, was apprehended by security officials near the screening area outside the ballroom, and except for a Secret Service agent who was shot, but only bruised because he was wearing an armored vest, there were no injuries. The president and other officials were safely evacuated.

This was Trump’s first appearance at the event as president, and the third ‘assassination’ attempt. In recent years, there has also been an increase in politically motivated violence in the United States, including the assassination of Minnesota House of Representatives Democratic member Melissa Hortman and her husband on June 14, 2005, and the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA in September 2025. One might think, therefore, that the reactions to this event would focus on the rise in violence, even if it was politically slanted. You would be mostly wrong.

The post-incident rhetoric, from Trump, his administration, and other Trump enablers has gone down a path that leaves any rational person wondering if we’ve all been transported to some alternate reality. In a video on nu-Twitter (now known as X), Trump is quoted as saying, “I think the NFL should sign him up. He was fast.” In that same post, Trump verbally attacks the interviewer for mentioning that the alleged shooter’s manifesto called him a pedophile, rapist, and traitor. Given Trump’s past performances, this is actually not all that surprising.

But, just when you think it’s about as surreal as it can get, he ups the ante. His focus, and that of his administration turned in a direction that no one could have expected: his white elephant of a ball room project. On April 26, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, posted on social media, “It’s time to build the ballroom.” That was followed immediately by Montana Republican representative Tim Sheehy tweeting that he would “introduce and see unanimous consent for legislation providing express approval for construction of a Presidential ballroom.” Then, Trump himself joined the fray, pushing hard for his ‘large, safe, and secure Ballroom…ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE.’

At this point, you’re probably scratching your head, and asking, how does what happens at an event not sponsored by the White House, or a government agency, for that matter, which the president has never attended before (as president) relate to a facility built on White House grounds? Is this suggesting that the president will only attend events in his own facility, or is it suggesting that the White House facility might be available for non-government entities to rent? What does the president mean when he says, “This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House.” Why has there been no discussion in MAGA world about how easy the alleged gunman smuggled weapons into a major DC hotel, during a period when it was hosting an event attended by so many potential assassination targets?

Is this more evidence of the rot that is eating away at the core of our democracy under this administration, or an indication of the serious deterioration of our president’s mental faculties? Or, even worse, are we seeing evidence of both?

I’m no psychiatrist, so I am in no position to give an authoritative assessment of Trump’s mental state, but as an observant layman, I’ve often felt that, as my grandmother used to say, “his bag’s missing a few marbles.” As regards moral erosion, the way Trump-supporting GOP legislators have rallied behind his call for moving on the ballroom project, even going so far as to suggest it be government funded (let’s not forget that Trump has sworn that this $400 million white elephant will be funded by private donations, itself a questionable situation) such decay would certainly seem to be the driver behind this campaign.

There is very little that we as individual citizens can do about our president’s mental decline. Of the two conditions, moral decay of government institutions is the most dangerous.

As we saw in the first Trump administration, cabinet officials, including the vice president, who honored their oath to support and defend the Constitution acted as guardrails against some of the more outlandish aims of an erratic president. Trump learned the lesson, though, and the current administration is staffed with people who put personal loyalty above all, and actions have been taken to sideline or eliminate any career government employees who refuse to ‘bend the knee.” Worse, the GOP-controlled Congress is either in sync with or so afraid of Trump and his MAGA mob, it no longer functions as an independent branch of government.

As a consequence, the only things that We the People can do, regardless of political party, is to participate in the midterms to hire a new crop of legislators who will put the welfare of their constituents and loyalty to the Constitution above fear or ideological loyalty. A lot of damage has already been done, and the ship of state has numerous leaks, but a Congress dedicated to performing its constitutionally-mandated duties can halt, or at least slow, the dry rot that’s eating away at our democratic institutions before they collapse, and begin the process of ‘building back better.’

No matter what party you belong to, you should make an effort to cast your vote. Select candidates who put the United States, its Constitution, and its People first. In the runup to the midterm elections and the next general election in 2028, make your voice heard, through letters to your local editors, op-eds, and correspondence to your members of Congress, letting them know that you wish to live in the democracy that our Founding Fathers envisioned, not a kakistocracy presided over by people whose only loyalty is to themselves.

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

ICYMI: “Let’s Kill All the Lawyers” – Mark Zaid on Whistleblowers, Clearance Wars, and the Rule of Law Under Fire

What happens when the executive branch starts stripping security clearances from private attorneys who represent whistleblowers? Mark Zaid knows firsthand, because Donald Trump put him on a list with Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney, and Joe Biden (among others). In this episode, two former intelligence officers sit down with one of Washington’s most fearless national security lawyers to talk about government secrecy, the difference between a whistleblower and a leaker, and why the judiciary is now the last line of defense.

In this edition of The Steady State Sentinel, co‑hosts Jim Lawler (former CIA officer) and Lauren Anderson (former FBI special agent) welcome Mark S. Zaid, a Washington, D.C. attorney who has spent three decades representing federal employees, intelligence officers, and whistleblowers in some of the country’s most sensitive national security cases.

Zaid founded the James Madison Project in 1998 to reduce government secrecy and promote the Freedom of Information Act. He co‑founded Whistleblower Aid in 2017 to give government employees a lawful path to report wrongdoing without leaking classified information. He was a member of the legal team for the whistleblower whose complaint triggered Donald Trump’s first impeachment. He sued Libya on behalf of Pan Am Flight 103 victims (winning a $2.7 billion settlement) and represented victims of anomalous health incidents, better known as Havana syndrome.

Here is what you need to know from a conversation about trust, retaliation, and the fragility of American democracy;

FOIA Then and Now: More Information, But Slower Than Ever

Zaid has been filing FOIA requests since before the internet. He says technology has been a double‑edged sword.

On one hand, emails and text messages can now be searched and preserved. On the other hand, the sheer volume of electronic records has overwhelmed agencies. Government officials using personal devices for work, whether Hillary Clinton’s email server or Trump aides using private phones, has created a nightmare for transparency.

“The biggest problem is lack of resources,” Zaid says. “There’s not enough money put into an agency’s FOIA program to hire proper staff or purchase proper equipment. The time frame for accessing information has lengthened significantly. I used to tell people we’d resolve a FOIA lawsuit within a year. Now it could be years and years and years.”

Whistleblower vs. Leaker: The Line That Matters

Zaid draws a sharp distinction that the public often blurs.

A leaker, in Washington shorthand, is someone who discloses classified information , what the Espionage Act calls “national defense information.” A whistleblower follows lawful procedures to report wrongdoing to appropriate oversight authorities without breaking the law.

“Ed Snowden to many would be viewed as a whistleblower. But by revealing classified information, under law he’s not a whistleblower. He has no protection whatsoever.”

Zaid helped create Whistleblower Aid to prevent another Snowden. If a government employee comes to him with concerns, he navigates the system to bring those concerns to the right authorities, up to the line, but never across it.

“We don’t want a 29‑year‑old who has barely worked in the federal government to use his own ideological view to just decide, ‘This is what I’m going to do.’”

Snowden took millions of documents, far more than he could have read. He leaked lawful programs, including surveillance of Angela Merkel, which damaged national security and relationships with allies. That, Zaid says, is not whistleblowing.

“I Found Out from the New York Post That the President Was Revoking My Clearance”

In February 2025, Zaid learned from a newspaper that Donald Trump was revoking his security clearance. It took weeks for the government to figure out how to do it. He sued in May. A judge ruled in his favor in December 2025, and he got his clearance back in January 2026. The government has appealed; oral arguments are scheduled for May.

For nine months, Zaid could not represent clients on any classified matter, including two to three dozen victims of Havana syndrome, most of whom are CIA personnel.

“I was being punished like everyone else.” But the public knows who Kamala Harris is, who Joe Biden is, who Liz Cheney is. They get to my name and say, ‘Who the hell is Zaid?’”

The administration’s executive order had stripped clearances from the 51 signatories of the Hunter Biden letter – many of whom had already retired and didn’t even have clearances anymore. Zaid was added weeks later. Why? He was the lawyer for the first impeachment whistleblower.

“Shakespeare wrote ‘let’s kill all the lawyers’, that’s actually a compliment. The lawyers needed to die because they stood in the way of the opponent who wanted to overthrow the king. They need to get rid of us because we uphold the rule of law.”

The Erosion of Norms – and the Fragility of Trust

Zaid distinguishes the second Trump administration from the first. In the first, career professionals like James Mattis would “put the kibosh” on extreme measures. In the second, those guardrails are gone.

“We have really seen how fragile our democracy is. The glue that holds the rule of law together is a water‑erasable marker. It is easy to erase.”

Congress has largely disappeared as a check. The executive branch has made retaliation personal. But the judiciary, including Trump‑appointed judges, has consistently ruled against the administration on due process issues.

That is where Zaid places his hope.

Is It Dangerous to Represent Clients Who Challenge the Executive Branch?

During the first Trump impeachment, Zaid received death threats. The FBI, which he sues all the time, investigated and prosecuted a man who threatened his life. Rush Limbaugh mentioning his name would spike the threats.

In the second administration, the volume of threats has dropped. Zaid thinks it’s because the administration feels it has won and doesn’t need to rally the base against him anymore.

But he is more concerned about his clients.

“I’ve had cases where we kept my involvement hidden because we were worried the client would be retaliated against just because I was the lawyer. I’ve actually told prospective clients: maybe you don’t want to hire me.”

He represents FBI agents who have been fired, and also current employees still working inside the government, watching and documenting, waiting for their line to be crossed.

What He Tells His Students

Zaid teaches at Johns Hopkins University. His students are entering a profession where political retaliation is now a real risk.

“This is a great time to be in law school, to watch how the Constitution actually works or doesn’t work. You can strengthen the system later.”

He advises government employees to decide where their line is – the legal line and the ethical line. Some choose to stay inside to be a voice of reason. Others are documenting everything, waiting for a Democratic Congress in 2027 that might have the power to act.

“I have quite a number of whistleblower clients inside the administration that no one knows about. They haven’t gotten to their line yet.”

What Gives Him Hope

Lauren Anderson asks the episode question: what gives you hope?

Zaid’s answer is immediate and clear.

“The judiciary. The Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law, especially on due process issues. To see judges appointed by President Trump rule against him, that gives me hope. The rule of law still holds.”

Without that, he says, he would be powerless.

“What else am I going to do if I couldn’t count on that? When I see the executive branch do things wrong, illegal, or unethical, I can go to the courts. That is really hopeful.”

Listen and Watch the full Podcast Here:

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

FREDONIA PROJECT SITREP 25: U.S. POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 28 Feb – 29 Apr 2026

DATE-TIME GROUP: 0416000ZAPRIL26

FROM: EMBASSY OF FREDONIA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

TO: MFA NAGADOCHES

CLASSIFICATION: CONEOFSILENCE // FREDONIAN EYES ONLY

SUBJECT: Iran War, Ceasefire Fragility, and Regional Escalation

SUMMARY: IN ACCORDANCE WITH MFA DIRECTIVE 1826-APRIL-1, THIS EMBASSY HAS INITIATED A REGULAR SERIES OF ANALYTICAL DISPATCHES REGARDING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IRAN WAR AND ITS BROADER REGIONAL IMPACTS. THE SERIES, DESIGNATED “THE FREDONIA PROJECT,” WILL BE CIRCULATED UNDER STANDARD SITREP PROTOCOL. UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED VIA A THIRD-PARTY ENTITY KNOWN AS “THE STEADY STATE.” PRESUMED LEAK. NO ACTION REQUIRED.

On 28 February 2026, with no Congressional concurrence, no warning or briefing of the US public, Donald Trump, in collusion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched a military invasion of Iran and Lebanon. This war, which is spectacularly unpopular with the US public, has lasted with one ceasefire, which was extended for several weeks. At this writing, the war has not been approved by Congress or explained to the citizens of the US or any other country. (Ambassador Comment: Per Heather Cox Richardson, President Trump has refused to get Congressional approval for his invasion of Iran under the 1973 War Powers Act, which gives a President authority to take military action by claiming that the US is under an imminent threat. , claiming that Iran posed an imminent threat to the US. Also, Per Ms. Richardson: “…the War Powers Act says the president must notify Congress of any such action within 48 hours of its start. Then, by 60 days after that notification, the president has to stop using the military for that action unless the Congress either declares war or authorizes the use of the military for that specific action.” The 60 day mark referred to in the previous sentence will fall on this coming Friday, 1 May.)

The US/Israel war against Iran, through the current ceasefire, has followed a familiar escalation pattern. Although the initial attacks were presented as limited and “in response to an imminent threat to the United States”, the conflict quickly widened. Iran responded immediately, launching missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases in the region, as well as attacks on neighboring Arab countries. On April 8, the US began a blockade of Iranian ports, which resulted in a broad regional crisis in which military exchange, maritime risk, and diplomatic maneuvering have all advanced at once.

The ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, between Iran and the US was extended, and as of 26 April, GMT 1710, BBC reports that attacks throughout the region are continuing. This iteration of the ceasefire seems to mean that the United States will continue military operations against Iran, while, per the BBC, Iran responded that the Strait was closed. On 7 April 2026, US President Trump announced a ceasefire, which collapsed after the first US-Iran peace talks ended on April 13. Almost immediately after the end of peace talks, on 13/14 April, the US forces began a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

It is, as of 29 April, unclear where or whether the peace talks between the US and Iran stand. It appears that the United States’ negotiating team is on stand down, while some sort of back-channel by phone talks might be continuing. (Ambassador comment: The original ceasefire was cleared a short time before Trump’s deadline, and again, Trump “promised” massive retaliation. Trump’s ongoing threats of US attacks on civilian infrastructure, if acted upon, may still be considered war crimes under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocols. If Trump understands that international law applies in time of war, unlikely at best, he seems unbothered by the thought of committing war crimes; an unsurprising but disturbing addition to the long list of things Trump does or says that are unacceptable.) The US blockade of the Strait, as well as the extended ceasefire, are still in effect as of 28 April GMT 1745.

At the same time, the scope of any US-Israeli Iran deal remains contested. Israeli leaders have said the ceasefire does not include Lebanon, while Iranian officials and some regional players have argued that the understanding was meant to cover Israeli strikes in Lebanon. Continued Israeli operations in Lebanon risk collapsing the already fragile “pause” in the US-Iran conflict and causing the conflict to widen an already multi-front regional war.

Inside Iran, the war is being used to tighten political control and frame the conflict as a test of regime endurance. State media has emphasized resilience, martyrdom, and national unity, while the security apparatus has moved to suppress dissent, detain suspected collaborators, and warn against panic or public criticism. (Ambassador comment: so much for Trumpian declarations of a failed regime.) That internal tightening is important in that it gives Tehran a domestic narrative of resistance even as it absorbs military pressure abroad.

The conflict is placing a new strain on Iran’s military and economic system. Repeated strikes, air defense losses, and the need to protect critical infrastructure complicated command and control, at the same time that heightened risk around oil exports, shipping, and regional proxy networks threatens revenue and leverage. In practical terms, Iran is trying to fight, deter, and stabilize at once, a difficult balance that makes the current pause highly unstable and increases the possibility of renewed escalation if any side decides the ceasefire is no longer serving its interests.

(Ambassador comments: This war is complicated by Donald Trump’s lack of understanding of so many things, which is further complicated by his staff of wholly unserious and untrained “negotiators” and “officials.” At best, these people can negotiate a real estate-like deal with benefits for themselves (see Kushner 2021 $2billion gift from the Saudis). At worst, they can negotiate nothing in a situation in which they are unfamiliar, untrained, and aggressively confident. It seems probable that experienced, longtime, professional Iranian negotiators will hand these guys a deal that is not great for the US, and neither these guys nor their boss will have any idea of what they have given away.

As for the rest of us, we will have to deal with whatever the end of this conflict includes, and we will not know how we got here since Donald Trump rarely says anything that is straightforward, accurate, or remotely true. We won’t really know why we jumped into this fray, we won’t know what we hoped to gain from this war, and we certainly won’t know when we’ve arrived at the turning point or end of this war. The comments of most leaders at most times include some vague words that would explain the actions taken and the settlement signed. Not so much with Donald Trump. He is back and forth, up and down, and side to side all at once. It could be considered an asset in conducting strategic analysis or actions, if such confusion were not accompanied by macho nonsense and cosplaying at all times.)

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Juggling Toward Collapse

Graphic: https://stablediffusionweb.com

As autocrats dismantle institutional constraints, they inherit the impossible task of managing everything themselves—creating an opening for resistance that compounds pressure across multiple fronts.

The question is always asked: What do we do about a rising authoritarian?

Those of us at The Steady State have spent decades studying this problem abroad, often in places where the answer came too late. The instinct is to look for a single decisive response, a silver bullet that stops the slide. But that is not how these systems work, and not how they are stopped.

Instead, experience suggests a slightly comic, but instructive metaphor: The Juggler.

In a functioning democracy, leaders operate within a stable framework. Laws, institutions, norms, and expectations constrain them. Those constraints are not merely limits; they are also supports. A president, prime minister, or monarch governs by leaning on institutions that have legitimacy, continuity, and independent force. They do not need to hold everything together themselves, because the system holds.

A rising autocrat faces a different problem. His project requires tearing down that framework and replacing it with one that is unitary and personal. The institutions that once constrained power must be weakened or repurposed. The rules that once structured debate must be bent or ignored. The system must be converted from one that distributes authority into one that concentrates it. That is the ambition.

But there is a period, often overlooked, when that transformation is incomplete. The old system is damaged but not gone. The new system is not yet built. And in that space, the would-be autocrat is uniquely vulnerable. We are now in another period in America.

He is, in effect, a juggler.

He has discarded the scaffolding that once supported governance, but has not yet replaced it. Everything must now be managed directly, personally, simultaneously. Multiple crises, institutions, and constituencies must be kept in motion, all at once, without the benefit of stable structures to absorb shock or share load. Autocrats don’t inherit stability. They have to juggle it.

This is the moment of maximum exposure.

Between systems is where autocrats are weakest.

The juggler has many balls in the air and nothing to lean on.

What does that mean for those who oppose authoritarianism? Two things, both clear from experience.

First, lean on what remains of the democratic framework. Even if damaged, institutions retain residual strength. Courts, legislatures, civil society, the press, professional norms, even bureaucratic expertise and inertia (the real “Steady State”), are not irrelevant. They are the remnants of a system designed to resist concentration of power. They can still be used. They can still be repaired. Use the framework that remains.

Even damaged guardrails still guide.

Second, and equally important: add to the number and weight of the balls the juggler must keep in the air. This is not just metaphorical advice. It is a practical strategy. Autocrats depend on control of tempo and focus. They seek to simplify the environment, to reduce competing pressures, to channel attention toward their preferred narrative. Disruption of that control is destabilizing.

Add balls. Make them heavy. Don’t let the juggler settle.

Every independent investigation, every lawsuit, every institutional pushback, every political fracture, every essay, every social media post, every external crisis adds another ball. Each one demands attention. Each one consumes bandwidth. Each increases the risk of failure.

This is not chaos for its own sake. It is about strategic overload. Authoritarianism thrives on control. It falters under pressure.”

In the present moment, the number of balls already in the air is substantial. Complex pressures are already competing for attention: issues within and without the Department of Homeland Security; issues across the economy; issues in foreign policy; tensions in internal political coalitions and across multiple legal fronts are some of the “balls” that President Trump is currently juggling. These are not peripheral concerns. They are structural burdens on any effort to centralize power. And they represent points of leverage.

Every unresolved pressure is a ball the autocrat cannot drop.

The lessons from abroad are consistent. Authoritarian systems often appear strongest precisely when they are most exposed, when they are attempting to transition from a distributed system of governance to a personal one. That transition requires simultaneous control over many domains, without the institutional support that previously made governance sustainable. That is not a position of strength. It is a position of strain.

The juggler looks impressive—right up until the moment the balls start to fall.

The task, then, is not to wait for collapse, nor to assume inevitability. It is to act in ways that increase the difficulty of the juggling act, while reinforcing the structures that still exist. Lean on the framework. Add weight to the system. Keep the pressure on.

That is how rising authoritarianism is resisted, not with a single decisive act, but by making it harder, every day, for the juggler to keep everything in the air.

Steven A. Cash served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office before joining the CIA in 1994 as Assistant General Counsel and subsequently serving as an intelligence officer in the Directorate of Operations. In 2001, he joined the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as Counsel and designee-staffer to Senator Diane Feinstein. He later served as a senior staffer in the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy. In the private sector, he has advised on national security, counterintelligence, and technology policy and served on the Biological Sciences Experts Group under the Director of National Intelligence. Mr. Cash is currently the Executive Director of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

🎧 The Fragile Glue: Mark Zaid on Whistleblowers, Retaliation, and the Rule of Law

Former CIA officer Jim Lawler and former FBI senior executive Lauren C. Anderson host Mark Zaid, a renowned national security attorney who has represented whistleblowers, been personally targeted by a presidential clearance revocation, and fought for government transparency for nearly three decades.

They discuss the real difference between a whistleblower and a leaker (using Edward Snowden as a cautionary example), the erosion of democratic norms under the second Trump administration, and why the rule of law has become “water soluble.”

Zaid predicts that the loss of seasoned diplomats, intelligence officers, and FBI agents will take a generation to rebuild, and explains why, despite everything, the judiciary remains his beacon of hope. The conversation also covers FOIA in the digital age, his representation of clients across the political spectrum, and practical advice for law students entering national security law.

Mark S. Zaid is a nationally recognized Washington, D.C. attorney specializing in national security, First Amendment, government accountability, and whistleblower representation. He founded the James Madison Project in 1998 and co‑founded Whistleblower Aid in 2017. He represented the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the first impeachment of President Trump, sued Libya on behalf of Pan Am 103 victims, and taught security clearance law as an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University. You can follow his work through the James Madison Project (www.jamesmadisonproject.org) and on X (formerly Twitter) at @MarkSZaidEsq.

View the episode transcript and watch the episode below:

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Transcript Episode 23: The Fragile Glue: Mark Zaid on Whistleblowers, Retaliation, and the Rule of Law

Government Transparency, Security Clearance Battles, and the Future of American Democracy

Former CIA officer Jim Lawler and former FBI senior executive Lauren C. Anderson host Mark Zaid, a renowned national security attorney who has represented whistleblowers, been personally targeted by a presidential clearance revocation, and fought for government transparency for nearly three decades. They discuss the real difference between a whistleblower and a leaker (using Edward Snowden as a cautionary example), the erosion of democratic norms under the second Trump administration, and why the rule of law has become “water soluble.” Zaid predicts that the loss of seasoned diplomats, intelligence officers, and FBI agents will take a generation to rebuild, and explains why, despite everything, the judiciary remains his beacon of hope. The conversation also covers FOIA in the digital age, his representation of clients across the political spectrum, and practical advice for law students entering national security law.

Watch the episode.

Key Insights

  • Government Transparency: Technology has increased the volume of accessible data, but the “digital age” has overwhelmed agency resources, significantly lengthening FOIA litigation timelines.

  • Whistleblowers vs. Leakers: Whistleblowers follow lawful internal processes to report wrongdoing, whereas leakers disclose classified “national defense information” illegally, often harming security interests (e.g., Edward Snowden).

  • Systemic Retaliation: Zaid details his personal experience with having his security clearance revoked by the administration, an act he views as part of a broader “weaponization” of clearances against political adversaries and their legal representatives.

  • Institutional Erosion: The loss of career expertise in diplomacy, intelligence, and law enforcement (FBI) due to partisan purges is described as a “generational loss” that degrades core national capabilities.

  • Hope in the Judiciary: Despite the erosion of guardrails, Zaid highlights the judiciary as the “shining light” still upholding the rule of law and due process.

Edited Transcript: Allies, Intelligence, and a Fraying Center

Hosts: Jim Lawler (Former CIA) & Lauren Anderson (Former FBI)

Guest: Mark Zaid (National Security Attorney)

1. Government Transparency in the Digital Age

Jim Lawler: You founded the James Madison Project nearly 30 years ago. Has government secrecy improved or deteriorated, and how has the digital age changed FOIA litigation?

Mark Zaid: In some ways, things are better; computers allow for faster searching and AI processing of documents is in its infancy. However, the sheer volume of emails and text messages is overwhelming. Additionally, the use of personal devices for work communications creates major obstacles to transparency. The biggest problem today is a lack of resources—Congress hasn’t funded FOIA programs to hire enough staff to manage this volume. A lawsuit that once took one year to resolve now takes several.

2. Whistleblowers vs. Leakers

Jim Lawler: How do you distinguish between a whistleblower and a leaker?

Mark Zaid: In D.C., “leaker” usually implies someone disclosing classified information illegally to the press. A whistleblower, by legal definition, reveals wrongdoing (waste, fraud, or abuse) through established U.S. government procedures and policies.

  • The Snowden Case: While some see Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, under the law, he is not. By disclosing classified “national defense information,” he violated the Espionage Act and lost all protection.

  • Motivation: My organization, Whistleblower Aid, helps people report wrongdoing safely without leaking. Snowden’s disclosures about lawful programs harmed relationships with allies like Angela Merkel and damaged national security.

3. The Weaponization of Security Clearances

Lauren Anderson: Was the president’s decision to remove your clearance last year an attempt to impact your ability to represent clients?

Mark Zaid: Yes. In February 2025, I discovered via the New York Post that the president was revoking my clearance. For several months, I could not represent clients in classified cases, including those involving anomalous health incidents (Havana Syndrome). My clearance was only reinstated in January 2026 after a judge ruled in my favor. This was clearly political retribution. I was on a list with names like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Liz Cheney—perceived political adversaries whose clearances were stripped despite many being out of government.

4. The Erosion of Institutional Trust

Lauren Anderson: What does this moment say about trust within our institutions?

Mark Zaid: Norms have been eroded. We are seeing how fragile our democracy is when the “glue” of the rule of law is treated as a “water-soluble marker” that can be easily erased. Congress has largely disappeared regarding oversight.

  • Generational Loss: We are losing decades of expertise. Experienced diplomats and FBI agents with 20 years of service are being fired for simply doing their jobs on assignments the administration finds personally offensive. This level of expertise cannot be learned from a book; it will take a generation or more to rebuild.

5. Advice to Students and Future Lawyers

Jim Lawler: What do you tell students who want to practice national security law but fear retaliation?

Mark Zaid: It is a fascinating time to watch the Constitution work—or fail. I tell them they must decide where their line is: the legal line and the ethical line. There is immense value in staying inside the system to be a “voice of reason” or a guardrail, but there is undeniable risk. I have clients currently inside the administration who are simply watching, learning, and documenting.

6. A Note of Hope

Lauren Anderson: What gives you hope?

Mark Zaid: The judiciary. Even judges appointed by President Trump have ruled against him to uphold the rule of law. If we didn’t have a court system that prioritized due process over political will, I would be powerless as a lawyer. The fact that the rule of law still holds in our courts is truly hopeful.

The Steady State Sentinel is produced by The Steady State, a community of former national security professionals who spent their careers safeguarding the United States at home and abroad. Today, we continue that mission by staying true to our oaths to defend the Constitution, uphold democracy, and protect national security. Each episode features expert hosts in conversation with accomplished guests whose experience sheds light on the crises and challenges facing the nation.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

/by

All Aboard the Retribution Train

Graphic Generated by AI

President Trump is escalating his efforts to use the DOJ as an instrument of vengeance, using loyal appointees and dubious legal maneuvers to tilt the system—undermining the courts and the rule of law.

The recent announcement that octogenarian Joe diGenova has been called out of obscurity to lead the South Florida-based legal jihad against former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other enemies of President Trump shows that the firing of Pam Bondi has done nothing to derail the Department of Justice Retribution Train, which continues to rumble on. DiGenova replaces a veteran prosecutor who was removed from the team, reportedly because she was having trouble identifying a crime in the sprawling Grand Conspiracy Investigation. In what appears to be an ongoing application to be nominated as Attorney General, Todd Blanche continues the criminal pursuit of a broad array of enemies identified by the President, regardless of any evidence of wrongdoing.

DiGenova, an election denier and conspiracy theorist with ties to Rudy Giuliani and a gaggle of corrupt pro-Russian Ukrainians, is a perfect Counselor to the (acting) Attorney General to represent the Grand Conspiracy Investigation being led by Jason Quinones and his handpicked team before federal district court judge Aileen Cannon. Cannon, of course, gained notoriety for her consistently overturned rulings in favor of defendant Donald Trump in the classified documents case. She continues to protect Trump by permanently blocking the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report detailing his investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents. As the only federal judge for Fort Pierce, Florida, she is now in a position to oversee a criminal investigation into those who had the very difficult task of addressing Russia’s extensive and well-documented efforts to influence the 2016 election. It is not clear what crimes will be presented to the Fort Pierce grand jury being supervised by Judge Cannon; on the other hand, it is hard to imagine what Fort Pierce has to do with a criminal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election other than the Department of Justice’s ability to select a judge who consistently has shown her pro-Trump bona fides to hear a case that the President has demanded as part of his retribution campaign.

Unlike the district court judges in Virginia who oversaw the failed efforts to indict James Comey and Leticia James, Judge Cannon is unlikely to let the law get in the way of allowing an indictment against President Trump’s perceived enemies. Given US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s lack of success in indicting Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four House members for publicly stating the law (i.e. that military members must not follow illegal orders) and her difficulty in indicting Jerome Powell for the crime of not lowering interests rates as demanded by the President, it might make sense for Ms. Pirro to seek a transfer to Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction.

In addition to Joe diGenova’s return to public life, DNI Tulsi Gabbard also came out of obscurity long enough to announce that she had made a criminal referral related to the infamous “perfect phone call” that led to the first Trump impeachment. The targets, incredibly but not surprisingly, are the Ukraine impeachment whistleblower and the former Inspector General who dealt with the complaint in a professional manner. This level of criminal justice weaponization is simply unprecedented.

This is the second time that Gabbard has released documents that she claims show criminal behavior, when in fact they do not live up to the hype. Readers may recall that last summer, Gabbard also released a series of documents with a breathless press release claiming a “treasonous conspiracy” by President Obama and his intelligence team to sabotage Donald Trump. Sadly for conspiracy theorists (and also likely for the Grand Conspiracy Investigation gang), a reading of the documents indicates no such thing. If anything, these documents underscore the extraordinary care that was taken by the interagency working group that dealt with Russia’s 2016 election interference, and the professionalism of the Intelligence Community Assessment.

There are several explanations for Gabbard’s actions. First and foremost, she is reportedly on thin ice with the White House (particularly after the resignation of her hand-picked head of the National Counterterrorism Center over his opposition to the Iran war), and needs to demonstrate fealty.

Of greater importance, she is sending a message that is intended to intimidate current Intelligence Community officers throughout the IC: provide honest intelligence assessments that contradict what the White House wants to hear, and you will be fired. Dare to report wrongdoing or illegal actions, no matter how egregious, and you will be referred to Todd Blanche’s Department of Justice and may well be criminally investigated. In other words, follow the law and do the right thing, and the Retribution Train just might be making a stop at your doorstep.

James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career,at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

The Weekly: The Erosion Is the Event

This week the Steady State zeroes in the misperception that what looks like political turbulence is in fact a structural drift; the repeated normalization of institutional overreach, manipulation of truth, and declining restraint across government and civic life is gradually hollowing out the guardrails of American democracy.

Read more…

THE ESSENTIALS

TRENDING

If paying an informant inside a group means you “funded” that group, then the FBI has been funding every criminal network it has ever infiltrated. Obviously that is absurd.

Follow us on LinkedIn and your favorite platforms.

#HOLDFAST

Leave a comment

Listen to the Sentinel podcast

Share The Steady State

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

The Death of Restraint

Civility is the discipline that keeps conflict from becoming chaos; without it, polarization deepens, institutions erode, and leadership drifts toward instability.

A quiet erosion is underway in American public life. It does not appear in GDP reports or polling averages, but it is unmistakable in tone, in trust, and in the fraying fabric of civic interaction. It begins at the top, in the language and posture of national leadership, and cascades downward into Congress, institutions, and ultimately into the way citizens speak to one another.

Civility is often dismissed as mere politeness. That is a mistake. Civility is discipline. It is the ability to engage in serious disagreement without stripping others of dignity. It is the guardrail that allows a diverse republic to argue fiercely without coming apart. And now that guardrail is failing.

As Mary Geddry argues in her essay, “Lost the Plot, Holding the Matches,” what we are witnessing is not just a coarsening of tone, but a shift from governance to performance. The language of leadership has become louder, sharper, more theatrical—and less tethered to responsibility. Provocation replaces persuasion. Spectacle displaces substance.

Why is this happening?

First, we are operating in an attention economy that rewards outrage over reason. Political power now flows through visibility, and visibility is driven by conflict. The sharpest insult travels farther than the most careful argument. Leaders who might once have chosen restraint are pulled toward escalation because escalation is what gets seen—and increasingly, what gets rewarded.

Second, polarization has hardened into identity. Political disagreement is no longer confined to policy; it has become personal, cultural, even existential. Opponents are not merely wrong; they are framed as illegitimate or dangerous. In that environment, civility is recast as weakness, and hostility becomes a form of loyalty. We see it in the normalization, even celebration, of destruction abroad, treated not with gravity but with applause.

Third, and most consequential, there has been a collapse of norms at the highest levels of leadership. Tone is not incidental; it is set. When presidents, cabinet officials, and members of Congress model contempt, sarcasm, and impulsiveness, they legitimize it. What was once disqualifying becomes routine. What was once unthinkable becomes standard operating procedure.. This dynamic is not new. It has been observed in regimes around the world, I saw it under Manuel Noriega in Panama, where authority was maintained not through institutional trust, but through the continual projection of force and unpredictability. In such systems, restraint is seen as weakness, and civility as a liability. The result is a cycle in which authoritarian leaders feel compelled to keep raising the stakes, because standing still risks appearing diminished.

Geddry’s analysis makes clear that this erosion does not stop at our borders. It is mirrored in how the United States now projects power abroad. When foreign policy is conducted through threats, contradictions, and public displays of dominance, it ceases to be strategy and becomes performance. Diplomacy depends on credibility, consistency, and restraint—qualities that cannot survive in an environment of erratic signaling.

In Iran, demands for immediate compliance are paired with sweeping threats, as if complex nuclear negotiations could be forced into submission through volume and repetition. This is not strength. It is volatility. Civility in this context is not about courtesy; it is about control. Without it, words become destabilizing signals, and the margin for miscalculation narrows dangerously.

In Gaza, the same indiscipline manifests in another form. Humanitarian catastrophe is at risk of being reframed as logistical opportunity, reconstruction discussed in terms of systems, platforms, and managed outcomes while the human cost and aspirations? remains unresolved. When suffering is abstracted into a planning exercise, something essential has been lost. Civility demands recognition of human dignity. Without it, policy becomes transactional, and moral authority erodes.

Even among allies, the consequences are visible. Reports of opaque U.S. security involvement in Mexico—operations conducted without clear acknowledgment or coordination, underscore how quickly trust can fray when transparency and respect for sovereignty and one’s trusted interlocutors are ignored? . These are not isolated missteps; they are symptoms of a broader shift in how power is exercised.

At home, the effects are cumulative and corrosive. When incivility is modeled at the top, it spreads. Public discourse hardens. Institutions are treated with contempt. The space for good-faith disagreement shrinks. Citizens begin to mirror the tone of their leaders. The result is a political culture defined less by debate than by division.

Perhaps most damaging is the exhaustion this environment creates. A constant stream of provocation, contradiction, and escalation overwhelms the public’s capacity to process events clearly. When everything is urgent, nothing is. When outrage is constant, judgment dulls. This is not accidental; it is the byproduct of a system that thrives on overload and confusion.

Civility is not a luxury. It is not nostalgia for a gentler era. It is a prerequisite for effective leadership. It is what allows power to be exercised with legitimacy, conflict to be managed without escalation, and disagreement to occur without dehumanization.

When leadership abandons civility, the nation does not merely lose its manners.

It loses its balance.

Martha Duncan is a retired U.S. Department of Defense senior executive with 37 years of service, including 23 years as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserves, where she also had three operational deployments to Panama, Bosnia and Afghanistan. At the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), she worked as a Latin American analyst for 11 years. A specialist in human intelligence (HUMINT), she is recognized for her leadership in intelligence operations, coalition-building, and enterprise-level policy development across DIA, the U.S. Army, and the broader Intelligence Community.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by