Liz Wheeler exposes the color revolution playbook targeting Trump — and why Pete Hegseth is public enemy No. 1



According to BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been quietly fighting a “legitimate color revolution effort by the deep state.”

The institutional left, she argues, has been attempting to “control the president's every thought, every action, every decision, every policy in order to impose on you wokeism and destructive [left-wing policies],” and it’s Pete Hegseth who’s standing in its way.

This isn’t just her hunch either. On this episode of “The Liz Wheeler Show,” Liz dives into a recent @DataRepublican thread that blew the lid off the shocking truth behind the nonstop attacks on Pete Hegseth.

Liz begins by reading through the X thread posted by @DataRepublican on Monday:

The thread argues that Hegseth is being relentlessly attacked not because of any personal scandals (drinking, women, etc.), but because he's a loyal secretary of war who would prevent the military/security forces from defecting.

According to the thread, this loyalty is what’s stopping a would-be soft coup attempt against Trump. Citing academic studies, training videos, and planning docs from left-leaning groups that emphasize getting security forces to disobey or stand down, the post posits that you can't execute a successful color revolution without flipping or neutralizing the military — and Hegseth, being outside its influence networks and loyal to Trump, makes that impossible.

Two people @DataRepublican highlights in the thread are Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan — “the two most cited scholars in the color revolution field.” According to their research into 323 different regime change campaigns, security force defections make those campaigns “46 times more likely to succeed.”

“Once you meet these women, you will not only understand who is behind much of the civil unrest in our country, but how they do it,” says Liz.

Stephan, she argues, “is the epitome of a blob creature,” citing her careers at the State Department, the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, and in academia. Liz notes that she also founded and directed the “program on nonviolent action at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP).”

Chenoweth, who “serves in many different capacities at Harvard University,” is famous in the color revolution world, Liz says, for coining the “3.5% rule,” which argues that it takes only 3.5% of the population’s participation, combined with a military willing to defect, for a color revolution to be successful.

Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, Liz contends, are connected to the founders of the No Kings movement, Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg, who “get their funding ... almost directly from George Soros.”

“Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg are on video talking about how their protests, the No Kings protests, are essentially a color revolution,” says Liz, playing a clip from their joint podcast where they interviewed none other than Chenoweth.

“Maria Stephan is also involved in the No Kings protest through her organization New Horizons Project. She actually trained No Kings protesters,” she continues, playing more videos from @DataRepublican capturing Stephan training protesters on how successful campaigns depend on “defections and loyalty shifts within key institutional pillars,” specifically business, labor, faith, education, civil service, and military/police, which must be “[cracked]” so that “the entire edifice can crumble.”

Liz says Stephan’s framework is “almost exactly the same thing” as Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and the "war of position,” which argues that revolutionaries must first capture the institutions of culture, education, media, ideas, and other key pillars of society in order to eventually seize power.

In the same thread, @DataRepublican also highlighted Gene Sharp, the father of modern "color revolution" tactics, and Hardy Merriman (Sharp’s former assistant), for co-writing the main training manual used for regime changes in over 50 countries.

Merriman then created a U.S. version that tells government and military people: You don’t owe loyalty to the president — only to the Constitution — and teaches them how to quietly defect (slow down, leak, ignore orders, etc.) so the regime can be brought down.

All of this explains the “character assassination” attempts on Pete Hegseth, says Liz.

“Seventy-two hours after President Trump named Pete Hegseth as his nominee for secretary of war ... Democracy Playbook 2025 specifically named Pete Hegseth as a threat because he cannot be convinced or compromised to the point of defection,” she says, noting that this playbook was edited by “Democrat super lawyer” Norman Eisen, who Liz exposed last year for being one of the central architects and coordinators of a "resistance" network seeking to topple the Trump administration.

But that’s just the beginning of the intricate network Liz uncovers in this episode.

She continues unpacking the rest of @DataRepublican’s thread to reveal how these color revolution tactics are allegedly being deployed against Trump right now and why unco-optable Pete Hegseth is literally the one man preventing a successful soft coup.

If you want the full picture — and to see exactly how deep this goes — watch the entire eye-opening episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

After His Murder, New York Times Assassinates Charlie Kirk’s Character

After Charlie Kirk was murdered, allegedly by a shooter who accused him of 'spreading hate,' the NYT falsely accused Kirk of making antisemitic statements.

CNN’s Reckless Smear Tactics Could Cost Them Big After Latest Court Ruling

Judge Henry found that CNN had "no evidence that Young did anything criminal or illegal" and yet went ahead with the "black market" accusation anyway.

Democrats' Nazi strategy isn't working, Harris super PAC points out



Kamala Harris suggested at her embarrassing CNN town hall last week that President Donald Trump is a fascist — her rhetorical capstone to a years-long campaign to characterize the Republican as both a threat to democracy and a suitable target for lawfare or worse. Her running mate soon joined liberal media propagandists likening Trump and his supporters, including a Holocaust survivor, to the Nazis of yesteryear. The Democratic National Committee lent a helping hand, projecting Nazi accusations outside Trump's Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden.

Democrats and their allies in the media have long employed Nazi and fascist analogies to defame, discredit, and isolate political opponents such as Barry Goldwater, President Ronald Reagan, President George W. Bush, and former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. These historically illiterate smears have not only served to spike rigorous debate, increase political polarization, and minimize the evils perpetrated by Adolf Hitler and his forces but have also proven largely ineffective.

A super PAC supporting Harris recently acknowledged as much.

Future Forward USA Action, touted earlier this month by the New York Times as "an ad-making laboratory" with a $700 million war chest, suggested in an email to Democrats regarding effective campaign messaging that playing up the Trump-as-fascist fiction in the final stretch before Election Day is a strategic blunder.

The New York Times indicated that the email noted in bold type, "Attacking Trump's Fascism Is Not That Persuasive."

Another line said, "'Trump Is Exhausted' Isn't Working."

'No wonder they're in hysterics.'

"Purely negative attacks on Trump's character are less effective than contrast messages that include positive details about Kamala Harris's plans to address the needs of everyday Americans," said the email.

According to Future Forward, Harris' suggestion that Trump is a fascist at her CNN town hall was only in "the 40th percentile on average for moving vote choice." She apparently would have been better off discussing Medicare expansion to include in-home care for geriatrics as she did previously on Howard Stern's show, which tested in the 95th percentile.

The trouble for Harris — besides the late notice about the inefficacy of her go-to smear — is that attacking Trump is easier than defending her record or her vision for America.

Even in those instances in which she has a policy to promote that she did not copy and paste from the defunct Biden campaign, such as the taxation policy she instead copied and pasted from the Trump campaign, Harris trips over her own tongue and into what Democratic strategist David Axelrod recently called "word salad city."

Facing such difficulties, ad hominem attacks might be the easier alternative, even if ineffective.

While the core sales pitch — Trump is bad — has remained the same throughout, the Times noted that Harris' team has tried some variations since the Democratic National Convention:

Ms. Harris's team had made it clear immediately after the Democratic National Convention that they planned to switch from the message that President Biden had used most, that Mr. Trump is a unique threat to the country. They argued that making Mr. Trump smaller in the minds of voters was crucial. In her convention speech, she called him an "unserious man" but warned that restoring him to power would have "extremely serious" consequences.

Judging from recent polls, the "unserious man" line of attack didn't work. This might account for why Harris went back to smearing Trump as "unhinged, unstable," and ultimately a fascist, blowing $10 million on a recent ad claiming the Republican is "too big a risk for America" — an ad that Future Forward indicated fared poorly.

Future Forward's email warned, "Focusing on Trump’s disturbing, ludicrous and outlandish behavior can be an effective lead-in to talking about substantive policy, but is not effective at moving vote choice on its own."

The weakness of Democrats' Nazi strategy is not exactly a well-kept secret.

In 2018, privacy lawyer and journalist Allan Richarz penned an op-ed for The Hill, stressing that "overwrought comparisons to the Nazis are both historically illiterate and an extreme strategic misstep."

Richarz warned that by branding Trump a Nazi, Democrats had committed to continuous escalation and a weakening of language.

"Now that Trump is 'actually Hitler,' any compromise by Democrats will be viewed as kowtowing to fascism. Conversely, sticking with the Nazism line of attack cheapens its effect and, frankly, makes its proponents come off as a little more than unhinged, something perhaps already at play given that a Gallup poll has put Trump at his highest approval rating to date," wrote Richarz.

Jay Cost, a Gerald R. Ford nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted, "Always a sign of struggle when the Super PAC has to yell at the campaign, but can only do it legally via the media."

David Reaboi, fellow at the Claremont Institute, responded to the Times report, tweeting, "This is insanity. Kamala spent over $10M on ads focused on 'Trump is Hitler/Fascist,' and her largest Super PAC said they barely moved the needle, if at all. No wonder they're in hysterics."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How ‘Terrorists Of The Mind’ Weaponize Section 230 and ‘Islamophobia’ For Character Assassination

Muslim radicals wage a war to discredit Muslim reformers and the right as ‘Islamophobes,’ using Section 230 as a shield for their propaganda.

Virginia Proves Democrats Can’t Always Win Elections Just By Crying ‘Racist!’

It's as if Democrats have forgotten how to campaign without accusing their opponents of racism. They cannot get through a single election cycle without it.

How To Stop People From Falsely Accusing You Of Racism

How could professional athletes be 'bullied' into publicly disrespecting their own country and its flag if they don't want to? These people are adults, right?

Levin: Democrats deploy Alinsky tactics against DeSantis because socialism cannot win

Wednesday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin called out the attacks against Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis for what they are: Alinsky tactics.

Levin discussed DeSantis' Democratic opponent, a Bernie Sanders-endorsed socialist named Andrew Gillum who Democrats know "cannot win."

"That is, he cannot win if he comes fully out of the closet and exposes his socialism, his radicalism," Levin said.

Levin explained that instead of debating Gillum's radicalism, the media is focusing on the lie that Ron DeSantis said something racist in an interview on Fox News Wednesday.

Listen:

"I want you all to be aware of this because this is the game plan all the time now," Levin said. "The more radical, the more left the Democrat Party and its candidates are and become, the more they try to run their campaigns not on their radical ideology but on character assassination."

"It's an Alinsky tactic; he wrote all about it. You've got to target your enemy, personalize it, and destroy their character. And they're Alinskyites," Levin continued.

"They don't want to run on socialism; they want to run on racism."

Keep reading...Show less