An Examination of Potential Strategies for Inciting Domestic Unrest and Invoking Martial Law in a 2025 Trump Administration

by Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

I. Executive Summary

This report analyzes evidence concerning a hypothesis that a potential 2025 Trump administration might endeavor to incite domestic conflict—such as protests, rioting, or demonstrations—to establish a pretext for invoking martial law, with the ultimate ambition of subverting democratic processes and retaining power indefinitely. The analysis indicates that Project 2025, a comprehensive plan developed by conservative groups, outlines a significant restructuring of the federal government aimed at consolidating executive power, politicizing the civil service, and bringing independent agencies under direct presidential control. Such changes could facilitate the implementation of controversial policies designed to provoke public unrest.

Key figures associated with a potential Trump administration have employed rhetoric that demonizes political opponents, the media, and immigrant communities, potentially cultivating a climate conducive to crisis and justifying extreme measures. Furthermore, plans exist for the broad application of legal instruments like the Insurrection Act, the Alien Enemies Act, and the suspension of habeas corpus, often based on expansive interpretations of terms such as "invasion" or "emergency." These legal maneuvers, combined with strategies that could be perceived as manufacturing pretext by targeting specific communities with divisive policies and aggressively responding to dissent, align with components of the hypothesis. Historical precedents, including actions and considerations during the 2020 post-election period and the January 6th Capitol attack, suggest a willingness to challenge democratic norms and leverage unrest. The cumulative effect of these plans, rhetorical strategies, and proposed legal actions points towards a potential pathway for an administration to create or exploit a crisis to invoke extraordinary powers, suppress opposition, and challenge constitutional term limits, thereby aiming for an extension of power beyond democratically mandated terms.

II. Introduction: Examining a Strategy for Indefinite Power

This report investigates evidence supporting the hypothesis that a potential 2025 Trump administration may actively seek to incite domestic conflict (protests, riots, demonstrations) to create a pretext for invoking martial law, with the ultimate goal of subverting democratic processes and remaining in power indefinitely. The gravity of such a hypothesis, if substantiated by evidence, points to a severe threat to constitutional governance and democratic norms in the United States. The analysis presented herein draws upon publicly available plans, statements by key figures, and legal interpretations relevant to a hypothetical 2025 scenario, all derived from the provided research materials.

The objective of this report is to meticulously analyze these materials ¹ to identify and evaluate evidence supporting each component of this hypothesis. This includes a thorough examination of policy proposals, with a particular focus on Project 2025, the rhetoric employed by former President Donald Trump and his prominent allies, and the potential application and interpretation of legal instruments such as the Insurrection Act, the concept of martial law, and other emergency powers. The scope is confined to the provided information, aiming to construct a coherent understanding of how these various elements might interrelate to support the posited strategy.

III. The Ideological and Structural Blueprint: Project 2025 and Executive Aggrandizement

A central element in understanding the potential mechanisms for a 2025 Trump administration to pursue the hypothesized strategy is Project 2025. Spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, this initiative aims to fundamentally reshape the federal government, primarily by consolidating executive power under a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory.³ This theory posits that the President has complete control over the executive branch. Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an "authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan that would steer the U.S. toward autocracy" ³ and a "roadmap for how to replace the rule of law with ring-wing ideals".⁵Conversely, its proponents argue it would dismantle what they perceive as an "unaccountable and liberal-biased government bureaucracy".³ The project's cornerstone is a 900-page "Mandate for Leadership," which provides a detailed, agency-by-agency guide for reorganizing the government and implementing wide-ranging policy changes.⁵

Several key proposals within Project 2025 appear to facilitate the conditions described in the hypothesis:

Consolidation of Presidential Power:

A primary objective of Project 2025 is the significant expansion of presidential authority. This includes placing the entire executive branch, encompassing traditionally independent agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), under direct and unmediated presidential control.3 The DOJ, in particular, is slated to be brought under "close White House oversight".3 This structural overhaul aligns with analyses from organizations like the Center for American Progress, which contend that Project 2025 is designed to establish an "imperial presidency." Such an objective would be advanced by, among other actions, weaponizing the DOJ for political ends and terminating the operational independence of various federal agencies.6 Democracy Forward similarly assesses this centralization of power not as an end in itself, but as a mechanism to "weaponize government against their political opponents".7 This concentration of power in the executive, particularly over law enforcement and regulatory bodies, is a critical step. If the DOJ and FBI answer directly to the White House, their capacity to act as impartial enforcers of the law or as checks on executive overreach is severely compromised. This creates an environment where politically motivated investigations or selective enforcement could be used to target opponents or create narratives of widespread criminality or subversion, potentially fueling unrest or justifying crackdowns.

Politicization of the Civil Service (Schedule F):

Project 2025 proposes the reclassification of tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil service workers into a new category, "Schedule F" (or "Schedule Policy/Career"), which would make them political appointees.3 This change is intended to allow for their replacement with individuals deemed loyal to the President and his agenda. The explicit goal, as articulated by Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, is that "People will lose their jobs".3 This measure is aimed at removing institutional checks to the president's authority within the executive branch.7 Critics warn that such a purge of experienced, non-partisan civil servants would result in a government staffed by individuals willing to "bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals".3 The replacement of a professional, merit-based civil service with one based on political loyalty would dismantle a key safeguard against the abuse of power. Career civil servants often possess deep institutional knowledge and a commitment to legal and procedural propriety. Their removal and replacement with loyalists would ensure that executive directives, even those of questionable legality or designed to provoke, are implemented with minimal internal friction or whistleblowing. This creates an administrative state more conducive to carrying out an agenda that might include inciting conflict or unlawfully invoking emergency powers.

Domestic Deployment of Military and Use of Insurrection Act:

Project 2025 explicitly outlines plans for the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 for the domestic deployment of the U.S. military.3 Stephen Miller, a key figure associated with the former Trump administration and Project 2025, has proposed the immediate mobilization of the military at the start of a new term for domestic law enforcement and immigration control.3 Jeffrey Clark, another contributor to Project 2025, has reportedly investigated using the Insurrection Act to suppress protests.3 These plans extend to deputizing local police and leveraging agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for mass arrests of undocumented immigrants, who would then be detained in internment camps situated near the border.3 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) highlights that Project 2025 includes provisions for "Unleashing Undue Force on Protestors." This involves violating First Amendment rights to target journalists and protesters, alongside dismantling existing guardrails designed to prevent the president from abusing executive power in such contexts.5 The overt planning for domestic military deployment, particularly against protesters, is a significant indicator. By embedding these plans within a broader policy framework like Project 2025, an attempt is made to normalize and legitimize actions that have historically been rare and highly controversial. This preparation for the use of military force is a critical component if the strategy involves responding to, or capitalizing on, incited civil unrest.

The proposals within Project 2025 suggest a foundational restructuring of the U.S. government. The combination of the unitary executive theory, the politicization of the civil service through Schedule F, and the subjugation of independent agencies like the DOJ and FBI to direct White House control aims to dismantle internal checks and balances. This creates a governmental apparatus primarily responsive to the President's will, a necessary precursor for any agenda that might involve the deliberate incitement of conflict and the subsequent invocation of extraordinary powers. Such a restructured government would be far less likely to resist or question directives, even those pushing legal and constitutional boundaries.

Furthermore, the proposed changes to the DOJ and the civil service appear designed to preemptively neutralize the primary institutions capable of offering legal or administrative resistance to attempts to incite conflict or unlawfully invoke emergency powers. A politicized DOJ, as envisioned by Project 2025 ³, would be less inclined to challenge the legality of provocative administration actions or the invocation of the Insurrection Act or martial law. Similarly, a civil service staffed by loyalists ³ would be more likely to implement controversial directives without internal opposition or recourse to whistleblowing mechanisms. The Center for American Progress identifies the termination of DOJ independence and the replacement of career civil servants with political loyalists as key strategies for establishing an "imperial presidency".⁶ This suggests a deliberate effort to remove potential obstacles to the execution of a strategy that might include the manipulation of civil unrest.

The explicit inclusion within Project 2025 of plans to utilize the Insurrection Act for domestic law enforcement, including against protesters and for immigration control, signals an intent to normalize what has historically been an exceptional and contentious application of military power within U.S. borders. The association of key figures like Stephen Miller and Jeffrey Clark with these plans ³, and the ACLU's highlighting of "Unleashing Undue Force on Protestors" as a specific Project 2025 objective ⁵, underscore this intent. By integrating these plans into a broader policy agenda, an attempt is made to legitimize and prepare for the domestic use of military force, a critical component for any strategy that involves responding to, or leveraging, incited unrest to consolidate power.

Table 1: Project 2025 Proposals Supporting the Hypothesis

IV. Rhetoric and Narrative Control: Cultivating a Climate for Crisis

The creation of an environment conducive to the invocation of emergency powers often relies heavily on shaping public perception through sustained and targeted rhetoric. An examination of statements from former President Trump and key allies, alongside proposed actions concerning media and information flow, reveals patterns consistent with cultivating a climate of crisis and division.

Trump's Rhetoric of "Enemies" and Incitement:

Former President Donald Trump has a well-documented history of employing aggressive and often inflammatory rhetoric against various groups and institutions. The media, in particular, has been a frequent target, labeled as "fake news," "the enemy of the people," "dishonest," "corrupt," and even "human scum".14 In March 2025, during a hypothetical second term, reports indicate he suggested that media outlets CNN and MSNBC were engaged in illegal activities.14 This sustained attack on the press serves to undermine a critical institution for democratic accountability and can be seen as an attempt to discredit sources of information that might challenge the administration's narratives.

Crucially, Trump's rhetoric has been directly linked to real-world consequences, most notably in the context of the January 6th Capitol attack, where his statements were considered to have played a role in inciting the events of that day.¹⁴ Philosophical analyses of Trump's communication style suggest a strategic focus on identifying "enemies" for his followers to scapegoat and loathe. This approach fosters an ethos of raw emotion and anti-reason, encouraging simplistic answers to complex societal problems by blaming accessible targets such as immigrants and refugees.¹⁵ Such manipulation, as described, aims to organize a base of support while simultaneously stifling dissent, often under the pretext of "preserving law and order".¹⁵ This creation of an "us versus them" narrative is fundamental if an administration intends to portray certain groups or protests as inherently dangerous or illegitimate, thereby justifying a forceful response.

Allied Media and Social Media:

The impact of Trump's rhetoric is amplified through his use of rallies and social media platforms.14 The derogatory term "enemy of the people," for instance, was reportedly promoted by far-right media organizations like Breitbart News, which has historical ties to significant financial backers of Trump.14 Beyond rhetoric, a hypothetical 2025 Trump administration is depicted as taking retaliatory actions against media outlets perceived as critical. These actions include denying press credentials, and investigations initiated by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr into public broadcasters NPR and PBS, with Carr even threatening CBS's broadcast license.10 Conversely, media outlets that provide favorable coverage, such as Fox News, appear to be treated preferentially.14 This pattern of rewarding supportive media while punishing critical voices is a hallmark of efforts to control the public narrative. Such control is essential for framing any ensuing unrest as the fault of designated "enemies" and for validating any subsequent "strong" governmental response.

Statements from Key Figures Suggesting Conflict/Crisis:

Statements from individuals closely associated with Project 2025 and a potential second Trump administration further contribute to a narrative of impending conflict or crisis:

• Kevin Roberts, President of The Heritage Foundation and a key figure in Project 2025, stated that the U.S. is "in the process of a second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be".¹⁶ This language frames any potential conflict as being initiated or necessitated by the actions of "the left," thereby preemptively assigning blame for future unrest.

• J.D. Vance, identified as Trump's running mate in some materials, authored a foreword to Roberts' book in which he quoted Roberts saying, "You’ve got to circle the wagons and load the muskets." Vance then added, "We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon".¹⁷ This militaristic and defensive rhetoric evokes a siege mentality, suggesting a preparation for, and expectation of, significant conflict.

• Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor, characterized judicial resistance to the administration's deportation policies as a "judicial insurrection." When discussing the necessity of due process for immigrants, he reportedly stated, "It's not necessary. It's time of war, and they're going to leave".¹⁸ Equating immigration challenges with a "time of war" serves to justify the suspension of normal legal processes and the application of extreme measures.

• Russell Vought, a primary architect of Project 2025 and nominated OMB Director, is described as characterizing the aggressive use of executive power as an "existential need" that requires a "boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will".¹⁹ Representative Gerry Connolly accused Vought of referring to a "post-constitutional era" and of bragging about "wanting to traumatize our dedicated public servants".²⁰ Such statements indicate a readiness to operate outside established constitutional and bureaucratic norms, potentially to address or create a crisis.

The consistent pattern of rhetoric demonizing political opponents, the media, the judiciary, and immigrant communities appears to be a deliberate effort to cultivate an "us vs. them" environment. This strategy is not merely about expressing disagreement but about delegitimizing any opposition. If significant segments of the population are conditioned to view certain groups as existential threats to their way of life or the nation itself, they become more amenable to accepting or even demanding drastic governmental actions against these designated "enemies." The sustained rhetorical attacks aim to erode trust in dissenting voices and institutions, creating a psychological preparedness among supporters for aggressive, and potentially extra-constitutional, actions. This environment is critical if protests, potentially sparked by the administration's own policies, are to be framed as dangerous insurrections requiring an overwhelming show of force.

Furthermore, by labeling judicial opposition as a "judicial insurrection" ¹⁸ or peaceful protesters as "radical left lunatics" requiring military intervention ²², there is a clear attempt to reframe legitimate democratic activities as unlawful or inherently dangerous. The Insurrection Act, for example, can be invoked in cases of "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion".²² If all forms of opposition are preemptively defined as insurrectionary or threatening to public order, then any protest or act of dissent, regardless of its actual nature, can be more easily cited as the necessary justification for invoking emergency powers. Project 2025's stated aim to "Unleash Undue Force on Protestors" ⁵ fits squarely within this linguistic strategy, preparing the ground for a forceful response to dissent that is already characterized as illegitimate.

Table 2: Rhetoric and Statements by Key Figures

V. Legal Instruments of Control: The Insurrection Act, Martial Law, and Emergency Powers

The hypothesis under examination posits that an administration might use the invocation of martial law, or similar emergency powers, as a response to incited unrest. Understanding the legal framework surrounding these instruments, and how they might be interpreted or utilized, is crucial.

Continue reading here (due to post length constraints): https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/this-report-analyzes-evidence-concerning