Report claims fired USAID employees are plotting to overthrow Trump using color revolution tactics



After the Department of Government Efficiency found rampant waste, fraud, and corruption in the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Trump administration fired nearly all of its 10,000 employees as part of a broader effort to dismantle the agency and transfer its functions to the State Department.

“Let me just remind you, USAID was a CIA front,” says Glenn Beck. “This is the group of people that started color revolutions all over the world, which is how to topple a nation.”

Now, a recent story has suggested that some of these former employees may be planning to use their color revolution tactics to undermine President Trump’s power and plot regime change.

“Some of the democracy-building experts President Donald Trump fired this year from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department are now reapplying the skills and knowledge they built up over decades to undermine Trump’s power,” Glenn’s co-host Stu Burguiere reads from a NOTUS article.

The piece goes on to quote a currently employed, anonymous federal official: “Take it from those of us who worked in authoritarian countries. We’ve become one. They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions. But they’ve done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the offices, it might have been safer to keep your regime.”

“What they're saying here is that they are plotting regime change in our own country,” Glenn translates.

And this isn’t just a broad idea. These usurpers have intricate plans that are already in motion.

Former USAID employees “are holding workshops on a tactic called non-cooperation. They're building a network of government workers willing to engage in even minor acts of rebellion in the office. They're planting the seeds of what they hope could become a nationwide general strike,” Stu continues reading from the article. “Some in the informal network of the Trump opponents are sharing an old CIA pamphlet with allies who still work in the government. It's called simple sabotage.”

“You have Democrats that have been so convinced that USAID is going to starve people to death because [Trump] cut it, and now the ‘aid’ workers are quote unquote planning revolution,” scoffs Glenn.

But he’s not surprised. The left has branded itself as the party of violent uprisings. Glenn revisits three recent news stories that prove this.

To hear them, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Deep-staters threaten to use color revolution tactics against Trump admin: Report



Despite delays in mass layoffs ordered by a Clinton judge, the Trump administration has already managed some significant housecleaning at the U.S. State Department.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has, for instance, fired scores of contractors who supposedly worked abroad building up civil society and democratic practices, and shuttered the rebrand of both the censorious Global Engagement Center and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

These actions, coupled with Rubio's plan to can thousands of State Department employees, have enraged all the right people — including the Democratic lawmakers in Congress who claimed in a June 27 letter that large-scale reductions in force of America's diplomatic workforce would "leave the U.S. with limited tools to engage as a leader on the world stage during this critical juncture."

It appears that the changes have angered bad actors besides those in Congress — some of whom intend to respond with something more serious than sternly written letters.

'They've done a very foolish thing.'

A number of anonymous former USAID and State Department officials recently told the Allbritton Journalism Institute's publication NOTUS about their plans to undermine the Trump administration.

While it largely sounds like a revival of the "resistance" that undermined the first Trump administration, this group of would-be saboteurs appears keen on using nation-destabilizing tactics practiced abroad on their own government.

RELATED: 'Nothing to be proud of': State Department spits on USAID's grave following Bono, Obama eulogies

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

According to NOTUS, some jilted establishmentarians who were previously "stationed across the globe actively supporting opposition movements in autocratic nations" are now building a network of federal workers who are "willing to engage in even minor acts of rebellion in the office" — what BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre and other critics have alternatively characterized as "treason."

"They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions," a currently employed federal official told NOTUS. "But they've done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the office, it might have been safer to keep your regime."

Color revolutions — such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes.

Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, color revolutionaries were afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by nongovernmental organizations.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius described such efforts plainly in a 1991 column about successful efforts undertaken at the time in Russia, noting that instead of engaging in Cold War-style covert operations, overt operatives "have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private — providing money and moral support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist rule."

Although the current Republican administration was given a clear mandate by the American people to rule, it may have repeated the error made by other sovereign governments targeted by color revolutions: Its agenda is not aligned with that of a clique of unelected bureaucrats in the District of Columbia.

RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class

oxinoxi/Getty Images

Those now plotting against the American government were once paid by the federal government to push Latin American militants to overthrow supposed dictators and to support African secessionist movements. They also apparently helped kick off "an ultimately successful uprising in the Middle East," according to the NOTUS report.

It's unclear whether that "successful" Middle Eastern uprising is the same one that resulted in both a civil war that claimed the lives of over 600,000 people and Islamic terrorists running Syria.

'Today it starts with four, but tomorrow it's 10.'

Former State Department officials told NOTUS that they are holding "noncooperation" training sessions, attempting to set the stage for a nationwide general strike, and circulating copies of the CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual, which notes that "acts of simple sabotage, multiplied by thousands of citizen-saboteurs, can be an effective weapon against the enemy" and will "demoralize enemy administrators."

The manual provides tips for interfering with organizations and productions, such as bringing up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible; haggling over the precise wordings of communications, minutes, and resolutions; advocating caution and generally slowing down processes by any means; demanding written orders; deliberately misunderstanding orders; waiting until current stocks of necessary materials are exhausted before ordering new materials; giving incomplete or misleading instructions to new workers; and holding "conferences when there is more critical work to be done."

Rosarie Tucci, the former deputy assistant administrator of the now extinct USAID Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, is apparently operating "in this space," co-leading a group called DemocracyAID with fellow USAID alumna Denielle Reiff. Their group is reportedly running workshops with those still employed by the federal government.

"The whole point of it is to start off slow," Tucci told NOTUS. "You're building up that muscle and that bravery, and you're building up your numbers. Today it starts with four, but tomorrow it's 10. We're helping them understand that is the organizing, and that is the process to get to a massive strike."

Blaze News has reached out to the State Department for comment.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to Blaze News, "It is inherently undemocratic for unelected bureaucrats to undermine the duly elected President of the United States and the agenda he was given a mandate to implement."

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

Katherine Maher gaslights about NPR's bias, claims cutting off federal funds undermines free speech



President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday directing the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and relevant agencies to terminate federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

While Trump's top reason for cutting off NPR and PBS was their unmistakable political bias, he also noted that government's funding of news media is "not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence."

NPR chief executive Katherine Maher apparently decided that the best way to respond to the threat of losing federal funding was to continue gaslighting the American people, characterizing Trump's executive order as an "affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR" and suggesting that her newsroom is politically neutral.

Maher — who wrote in a December 2010 NDI blog post, "Control over the flow of information in a closed society can be tantamount to control over the state" — vowed in a statement Friday to "challenge this executive order using all means available."

Less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants directly from the CPB and other federal sources; however, numerous CPB-funded public radio stations in NPR's syndication network pay for its programming. Consolidated financial statements show that the organization secured over $96.1 million in "core and other programming fees" in 2023, $93.2 million in 2022, $90.4 million in 2021, and $92.5 million in 2020.

Despite acknowledging that "significant financial support" comes from private sources, Maher suggested the loss of federal funding would be calamitous, equating it with an attack on constitutionally protected speech rights.

'An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR.'

"This is not about balancing the federal budget. The appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget," wrote Maher. "The president's order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities. It is also an affront to the First Amendment rights of station listeners and donors who support independent news and information."

Maher noted further that Trump's "action jeopardizes the national airing of beloved programming and essential news such as NPR's iconic hourly 'Newscast,' 'Morning Edition,' and 'Tiny Desk Radio.'"

On Thursday, the White House highlighted past reports that cast doubt on whether at least one of the shows Maher singled out as "essential news" deserves that label or federal funding.

"Morning Edition" noted in a piece ahead of Independence Day in 2021 that the Declaration of Independence "is a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies." Two years earlier, the same show issued an editor's note warning that the Declaration of Independence "contains offensive language."

Maher concluded her statement by asserting that NPR has "high standards," that her colleagues seek to "present issues fairly and without bias," and that NPR "will continue to tell the stories of our country and the world with accuracy, objectivity, and fairness."

Maher continued pushing the neutrality claim Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," telling talking head Margaret Brennan that the NPR newsroom "would really take issue" with its characterization by Trump as politically biased.

Trump is far from the only person to call out NPR's heavy political skew.

After working for 25 years at NPR, Peabody Award-winning business editor Uri Berliner noted last year that "an open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR."

'Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground.'

"That wouldn't be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience," continued Berliner. "But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it's devastating both for its journalism and its business model."

Maher stressed to Brennan that she doesn't make editorial decisions at NPR and added, "We have an extraordinary Washington desk. And our people report straight down the line."

Berliner revealed that 87% of the Washington, D.C., editors and reporters at NPR were registered Democrats and none were registered Republicans.

While Maher appears to be strategically downplaying her team's bias, she might be unable to recognize their bias on account of her own. The NPR CEO revealed her remoteness from the political center when she previously:

  • rejected the idea of "radical openness," which she associated with a "white male Westernized construct";
  • stated "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done";
  • claimed "America is addicted to white supremacy";
  • tweeted during the Black Lives Matter riots, "I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive. But it's hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people's ancestors as private property"; and
  • writing in September 2020, "Let's be clear here too: I am a white woman. I already got the leg up. ... My race is consistently an advantage."

'No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies.'

"If we were to see a claw-back of these funds, which we know is part of the conversation from a rescission standpoint, or if we were to see that the stations were no longer able to participate in their membership dues, that would be damaging," Maher told Brennan.

In his executive order, Trump emphasized that "Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize."

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

Pelosi’s secret fixer caught at the Capitol on January 6 — what was his role?



If you’ve been paying attention to the political landscape in this country, you know that the depths of corruption and manipulation run far deeper than what most mainstream outlets are willing to acknowledge. I’ve spent years trying to expose the truth about what’s really going on behind the scenes, but every once in a while, something comes across my desk that makes even me stop and take a breath. This is one of those stories.

I woke up yesterday morning to a bombshell story at Blaze News by Steve Baker and Joseph M. Hanneman that should send chills down your spine. The story lays out one of the most disturbing connections we’ve uncovered to date — a connection that ties former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) herself to the chaos on January 6, 2021. And it’s not just a tangential link; it’s a direct involvement with someone who has a history of causing unrest and manipulating narratives for political gain.

Make no mistake: Nancy Pelosi is right at the heart of this story.

I’ve been warning for years about the radical influence of people like Pelosi and their ties to groups that are willing to do anything to push their agenda, but this is a whole new level of dirty politics. Pelosi had a “fixer” in the Capitol on January 6 — and the evidence is damning.

Who is Aaron Black?

Baker and Hanneman’s report reveals that Aaron Black, one of the key organizers behind the infamous Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, is tied to Pelosi and the events surrounding January 6. He is the same man who has been caught on hidden cameras by Project Veritas bragging about his role in inciting violence at Donald Trump rallies in 2016, using a tactic known as “bird-dogging” to agitate Trump supporters and provoke confrontations.

Following his key role in organizing Occupy Wall Street, Black became a “key political operative” for the “progressive consultant Democracy Partners and, by extension, the Democratic National Committee and the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.” Several years later, Black re-emerged as a “senior political adviser” to Pelosi. Suddenly, we find him, once again, in the thick of things — this time, at Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.

What exactly did he do that day? According to multiple sources and whistleblowers who came forward to Baker and Hanneman, Black was responsible for organizing paid agitators to stir the pot at the Capitol and helped set the stage for the narrative that would dominate the media coverage of that day. The goal wasn’t just to incite violence; it was to control the story.

Color revolutions on American soil

This is the same type of manipulation and agitations the State Department, through USAID, has been doing for years in countries like Libya, Syria, and Ukraine — using our tax dollars to fund operations that create unrest, with the ultimate aim of toppling governments. And now, it appears that those same tactics have been brought home to America. These “color revolutions” aren’t just happening overseas — they’re happening right here on our own soil.

Aaron Black is the perfect example of how the left manipulates events to fit their narrative. On January 6, Black and others like him made sure that the media had a story to run with — a story that focused on the violence, the chaos, and the “threat” posed by Trump supporters.

And who was there to help spread that story? None other than Nancy Pelosi, who famously said the goal of the January 6 committee was to “preserve the narrative” of that day.

Pelosi’s ‘precious’

Baker and Hanneman’s article featured a screenshot of Black’s previous X profile picture, picturing Pelosi cradling his face in her hands like some kind of adoring fan. It’s hard to imagine a more fitting image of corruption. Pelosi’s “precious” — as Baker aptly called him — is a man who has made a career out of inciting division and unrest. And now we know that he was right there in the Capitol on January 6, working behind the scenes to further divide this country.

The story Baker and Hanneman uncovered is just the beginning. What’s happening here goes far beyond January 6. It’s part of a larger strategy to control the narrative and undermine any efforts to restore order and sanity to this country.

And make no mistake: Nancy Pelosi is right at the heart of it.

This is just beginning

So what are we going to do about it? The answer is simple: We have to keep exposing the truth. This is the kind of story that should make every American sit up and take notice. If Pelosi and her ilk are willing to go to these lengths to manipulate the public, what else are they capable of?

We can’t afford to look the other way. We need to wake up, speak out, and demand accountability for the actions that have been taking place right under our noses.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Why USAID is fighting Elon Musk’s DOGE — and what the left doesn’t want you to know



The left wants you to believe the U.S. Agency for International Development is a benevolent force — a humanitarian group dedicated to building schools, fighting disease, and spreading democracy. But history tells a different story. USAID has long served as a front for covert CIA operations, influencing foreign elections and even toppling governments that don’t align with U.S. interests.

Now, under scrutiny from the Department of Government Efficiency — a Trump-backed initiative led by Elon Musk to cut excess and corrupt government spending — USAID has responded with fierce resistance. What is it hiding?

The administrative state operates beyond voter control and congressional oversight. And now, for the first time, an outsider with real power is demanding to see the books.

Last weekend, USAID’s director of security, John Voorhees, and his deputy, Brian McGill, were placed on administrative leave after refusing to grant DOGE access to USAID’s security systems, classified personnel files, and intelligence networks.

Think about that: an “aid organization” treating transparency as a national security threat.

What kind of humanitarian work requires classified intelligence? What kind of aid needs protection from the very government that funds it? The answer is clear — USAID isn’t just an aid organization. It’s an extension of the intelligence apparatus, operating in the shadows with billions of taxpayer dollars at its disposal.

A long history of covert operations

This isn’t conspiracy theory. This is historical fact. Since its founding in 1961, USAID has funneled money into foreign student groups, cultural programs, and agricultural projects — all serving as covers for intelligence-gathering and regime-change operations.

From Latin America to Eastern Europe, USAID has been accused of influencing elections and engineering revolutions under the guise of “democracy promotion.”

USAID played a key role in the notorious “color revolutions,” orchestrated covert arms transfers in the Middle East, funneled money to Afghan warlords, propped up Hamas in Gaza, and armed opposition groups in Syria — all while selling the American people the lie that their tax dollars were building wells and feeding children.

Why the establishment fears DOGE

Federal agencies like USAID that have metastasized into unaccountable, corrupt entities fear DOGE because Elon Musk is doing more than just “balancing the budget” — he’s threatening to dismantle the power structures that have allowed agencies like USAID to operate unchecked for decades.

Musk, an industry-disruptor by nature, is looking under the hood of America’s covert operations, and the entrenched bureaucracy is terrified. That’s why USAID is resisting transparency with every tool at its disposal.

If DOGE gains full access, it won’t just expose waste — it will expose decades of covert operations, intelligence overreach, and corruption that has cost American taxpayers billions.

The battle for control

This isn’t about bureaucracy. This is about who runs the country. The administrative state, the “fourth branch of government,” operates beyond voter control and congressional oversight. It decides who gets to know what, both in America and abroad. And now, for the first time, an outsider with real power is demanding to see the books.

Think about who has run USAID historically. Samantha Power, an Obama-era bureaucrat whose husband co-authored “Nudge,” a book about manipulating public behavior, was in charge of shaping USAID into the organization it is today. Do you think she was just funding schools in Africa? Or was she helping steer foreign governments in a direction that served the interests of a hidden power structure?

Power is the ultimate example of the revolving door between so-called humanitarian efforts and deep-state manipulation. She wielded influence far beyond humanitarian aid, engaging in covert operations that shaped political outcomes worldwide. And now, her legacy continues to influence USAID’s resistance to oversight.

What happens next?

If Trump and Musk break through this wall, it would set a precedent that no part of the government is beyond scrutiny. The intelligence community will lose one of its key tools for clandestine influence. The American people might finally see how much of their money has gone to secret operations and regime-change efforts under the guise of humanitarian projects.

The media will try to bury this story under the latest celebrity scandal or political outrage. Don’t let them. Ask questions. Why does an aid organization need classified intelligence? Why is transparency a threat to democracy? Most importantly, remember that the loudest defenders of “democracy” are often the ones most afraid of real accountability.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Businesses board up their windows in heavily Democratic cities ahead of Election Day



Heavily Democratic cities are now in the habit of boarding up windows and shuttering businesses ahead of political events that might upset local leftists.

That is certainly the case with Washington, D.C., which erected "Black Lives Matter"-branded plywood boards and fencing outside of stores ahead of the 2020 election and saw businesses brace for chaos again when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Some businesses in the city also took precautions ahead of the January 2017 anti-Trump riots, where all the rioters ultimately got off scot-free, as well as ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, protests, where rioters were held to a different standard.

Possibly anticipating more chaos in the District of Columbia, where 92.1% of the vote in the last presidential election went to Joe Biden, businesses are once again reinforcing their windows and preparing for potentially "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."

Resident Stacy Snyder told WJLA-TV, "Hopefully no riots. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt or any damage. After what happened last time, I guess, you have to be prepared for anything. So, like I said, better safe than sorry."

Ebony Boger, who works downtown, indicated she recently received an email from building management indicating it was going to fortify the exterior.

"It's not shocking. I'm kind of used to it. I think they should do it," said Boger.

The managers of various buildings confirmed to WJLA that the election was the reason behind the plywood reinforcement.

According to the Washington Post, some business and property owners have also boosted their private security in anticipation of possible riots and looting.

'If people choose to riot, I feel like we need to listen to the people.'

Leon Beresford, executive vice president of Admiral Security Services, indicated that his company, which provides security to 150 commercial office buildings in D.C., is mobilizing around 2,000 guards in time for Election Day.

"People would rather be overprepared and have nothing happen, as opposed to the alternative," said Eric Jones, vice president of government affairs for the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington.

Washington Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela A. Smith said at a press conference last week, "I want to be very clear: We will not tolerate any violence of any kind. We will not tolerate any riots. We will not tolerate the destruction of property. We will not tolerate any unlawful behavior. Offenders will be arrested and will be held accountable."

Smith indicated that well over 3,000 police officers will be working 12-hour shifts through the election.

Storefronts in Portland, Oregon — another heavily Democratic city — have similarly disappeared behind protective boards. While big-name businesses like Chase Bank have reinforced their establishments, some have alternatively chosen to trust the mob.

Katherine Morgan, the owner of the relatively new Grand Gestures Books, told KATU-TV, "When I got the business, the windows were boarded up because of the protest, and they just never came down. For me, if people choose to riot, I feel like we need to listen to the people."

Morgan indicated she won't be boarding up her establishment, noting, "I'm someone who believes in protesting, I'm someone who believes in doing whatever you can for your voice to be heard."

Real estate developer Jordan Schnitzer told the Oregonian he is praying his building will go unscathed.

"If your sports team loses, do you go out and break windows?" said Schnitzer. "In this day and age to see that this type of behavior in America is so commonplace is heartbreaking."

Portland Police Chief Bob Day said last week, "We never can eliminate risk, but the confidence that I have in our community, the confidence I have in our law enforcement response, I'm really hopeful that that's not going to be necessary."

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

Are Elected Republicans Ready To Respond To Potential Post-Election Chaos?

Democrats have publicly demonstrated they are well-prepared to work all post-election scenarios in their favor, including deploying street thugs and the U.S. military.

Is the New York Times gunning for a color revolution if Trump wins?



The New York Times published a think piece last week strategizing how leftists might be able to thwart the will of American voters and rescue democracy from President Donald Trump should he win on Nov. 5.

Using the term "democracy" euphemistically for a state of things in which Democrats or leftists of other stripes are in power, the authors — a pair of Harvard University professors hostile to Trump, the Constitution as written, and the Electoral College — recommended "societal mobilization" should the powers that be fail to get their way.

Daniel Ziblatt and Steve Levitsky's call to action, which critics have noted sounds a lot like color revolution, appears to be the desperate finale following a series of failed efforts by Democrats to remove Kamala Harris' opponent from the ballot or to kneecap him with lawfare.

The duo, working under the assumption that Trump would "dismantle" the republic's electoral system of which they themselves are critics, identified "five strategies that pro-democratic forces around the world have employed" against so-called "authoritarian threats."

The first four are as follows:

  • laissez-faire — the "self-correcting power of electoral competition," which the Harvard authors say is "distorted by an 18th-century institution, the Electoral College";
  • militant or defensive democracy, whereby public officials who self-identify as pro-democracy censor supposedly undesirable speech, outlaw undesirable groups, and criminalize opponents — a tactic Germany's leftist establishment is presently bringing to bear against the popular right-leaning populist party Alternative for Germany;
  • partisan gatekeeping, whereby establishmentarians neutralize popular candidates deemed "antidemocratic" or prevent their ascent through the ranks; and
  • containment, where establishmentarians form coalitions across party lines to deny voters the option of a choice deemed "antidemocratic" by the ruling elite.

Ziblatt and Levitsky, convinced that these four strategies have failed, noted that there is yet a fifth way by which supposed champions of democracy could rob the electorate of their desired outcome: "societal mobilization."

"Democracy’s last bastion of defense is civil society," wrote the duo, who made no mention of the antidemocratic provenance of Harris' candidacy. "When the constitutional order is under threat, influential groups and societal leaders — chief executives, religious leaders, labor leaders and prominent retired public officials — must speak out, reminding citizens of the red lines that democratic societies must never cross. And when politicians cross those red lines, society's most prominent voices must publicly and forcefully repudiate them."

'It was always a Color Revolution.'

The Harvard duo's German and Brazilian examples suggest that they are advocating far more than for Americans simply to "speak out." These examples, when coupled with their other other coercive strategies, call to mind violent demonstrations — not just those of yesterday, such as the Black Lives Matter riots, but the bloody roundup executed by the republican radicals ahead of the Spanish Civil War.

The duo wrote,

The U.S. establishment is sleepwalking toward a crisis. An openly antidemocratic figure stands at least a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have abdicated their gatekeeping responsibilities, and too many of America’s most influential political, business and religious leaders remain on the sidelines. Unable to rise above fear or narrow ambition, they hedge their bets. But time is running out. What are they waiting for?

Jeffrey Tucker, president of the Brownstone Institute, said of the piece, "That is one chilling article: abolishing democracy to protect it. Amazing. Harvard. Notice how at the end, they tip their hand and call for a defense of 'the U.S. establishment.' Every single one of the cases they mention concerns a populist movement against elites."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the Times piece, writing, "Once again, NYT publishes something fundamentally un-American."

"This op-ed is advocating pure authoritarianism under the guise of guarding against authoritarianism," wrote Jeremy Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. "It's amazing how far Harvard's Government department has fallen that it would have professors express such views."

The Federalist's editor in chief, Mollie Hemingway, noted, "I just read a bat guano insane NYT op-ed that said four ways to stop MAGA had failed (hoping it loses, banning the GOP/Trump from ballot, having GOP overturn its voters, establishment resistance) and now recommends what sounds like a color revolution."

"It was always a Color Revolution," wrote Blaze News senior editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford.

Color revolutions — such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004 — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes. Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, the revolutionaries appear to have been afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by non-governmental organizations.

Christopher Rufo noted in April, "The West's favored methods of supporting Color Revolutions include fomenting dissent, organizing activists through social media, promoting student movements, and unleashing domestic unrest on the streets."

New Hampshire state Rep. Mike Belcher tweeted, "Communist have no qualms about a (any) solution to the paradox of toleration. Our republic tried, but failed to solve for this problem re: Communist subversion about 80 years ago and failed. Recognize that, even in a Trump victory, we are still counter-revolutionary to the established Marxist Regime."

In June, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck detailed the seven conditions that must be met for a color revolution to successfully topple a government.

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

Why Glenn Beck is on a US-funded Ukrainian ‘ENEMIES’ list



A Ukrainian publication has placed dozens of American politicians, activists, and media outlets on a list of those allegedly known to have shared Russian disinformation or otherwise made anti-Ukrainian statements.

Glenn Beck and Blaze Media made the list, which was published in an article titled, Rollercoaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the US impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it.

There are 388 people and 76 publications on the list, and Glenn is shocked.

“Why is The Blaze, why am I on this list?” he asks. “Because I believe I’m telling you exactly what’s happening. We have a color revolution happening within our own government, within the NGOs and George Soros and all those people.”

The publication, Texty.org.ua, was founded by Anatoly Bondarenko — who was involved in the TechCamp, which is a public diplomacy program established by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

“The TechCamp is when they go into these countries where they’re going to do a color revolution, and they find all these tech-savvy people, and they show them how to build movements against their government. That’s what our State Department is doing,” Glenn explains.

“Would they like to clarify this, would anyone like to make a public statement on why we’re there, and you know, curious why the editor in chief and the cofounder was trained by the State Department?” Glenn asks. “It’s really interesting that this organization has ties to the State Department and USAID. Their founder was a part of the TechCamps.”

“It’s almost like we’ve been outed for saying bad things about the State Department and the U.S. government perpetrating color revolutions and saying this is how they do it and so then, they have a shell organization that they themselves have created to what? Prove me right?”





Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn warns: All 7 conditions for an American color revolution have been met



There are seven conditions that must be met for a color revolution to successfully topple a government, and it all must revolve around a national election.

The timing couldn’t be more ripe as America heads into one of the most tumultuous and important elections we’ve seen in our lifetime. Not only that, but according to Glenn Beck, we currently meet all seven conditions.

The first condition is a “semi-autocratic regime.”

“We’re not a fully autocratic regime, and that’s not what you need. You need a semi-autocratic regime,” Glenn explains.

The second condition is an “unpopular incumbent.”

As Joe Biden’s disastrous polls reflect, we can definitely check that one off on the list.

The checklist goes on, with number three being a “united and organized opposition” and number four “an ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified," which then begets number five: “media to inform people about the falsified vote.”

Number six is the “opposition capable of mobilizing thousands of demonstrators,” and last but not least, number seven is “divisions among the regime's coercive forces,” which are military and police.

“They’ve got a fully united opposition, they’re prepared to drive home the point that the election was illegitimate. Hillary Clinton has been saying that just about every week since 2016,” Glenn says.

“Listen to the media; they’re already planting the seeds again,” he adds. “It’s never been more biased.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.