This report presents a comprehensive investigation into the activities of the second Donald Trump administration from its inauguration on January 20, 2025, through September 4, 2025. The analysis concludes that this period does not represent a series of isolated or chaotic policy decisions but rather the deliberate, rapid, and systematic execution of Phase IV of the Minimisation Plan. This phase, internally designated "The Great Unravelling," is characterized by a focused campaign to induce strategic exhaustion among Western allies and dismantle the post-war international order.1
The investigation has identified three primary vectors of attack deployed concurrently to achieve these strategic objectives. The first vector involved the foundational restructuring and ideological capture of the United States administrative state, neutralizing institutional guardrails that would otherwise resist radical policy shifts. The second vector was a direct assault on the Western alliance structure, employing a coherent strategy of fracturing transatlantic partnerships while simultaneously manufacturing new crises in the Indo-Pacific to overstretch allied resources. The third and most anomalous vector was the introduction of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), a novel extra-governmental entity designed to serve as a Trojan horse for ideological restructuring and the operational enforcement of the administration's political purge.
When subjected to the rigorous analytical methodology outlined in the "Framework for the Judgment of Ideas," these strategic actions consistently map as "Greater Lies".2 Their publicly stated goals of enhancing security, achieving peace, and improving efficiency are a deliberate "Cover" for their "True Intent": the extractive transfer of power to Minimiser actors and the systemic disruption of the global order. The trajectory of this agenda, a clear "Regression & Fall from Grace," points toward the ultimate Minimiser objective of creating a global power vacuum by inducing the collapse of the existing international system. This report details the timeline, mechanisms, and strategic implications of this accelerated campaign.
The initial actions of the second Trump administration were not directed outward but inward, focused on a foundational restructuring of the U.S. federal government. This phase was a critical prerequisite, designed to seize control of the administrative state, neutralize potential institutional resistance, and consolidate ideological control. Without first dismantling the internal checks and balances provided by a non-partisan civil service and experienced agency leadership, the subsequent radical shifts in foreign and economic policy would have been impossible to execute. This section analyzes the three core components of this internal seizure: the "Day One" shock-and-awe campaign of executive orders, the codification of political loyalty through the "Schedule Policy/Career" directive, and the rapid installation of a loyalist cadre in key national security positions.
On January 20, 2025, the administration commenced its term with an unprecedented barrage of executive actions, signing over 100 executive orders and memoranda within the first 100 hours of taking office.3 This "blitz" was a multifaceted assault on the administrative status quo, immediately implementing a hiring freeze for federal civilian employees, a broad regulatory freeze pending review, and a mandate for all executive branch employees to terminate remote work arrangements and return to in-person work.5
Simultaneously, a suite of orders targeted the cultural and ideological underpinnings of the federal workforce, directing the termination of all "Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs" and ordering the restoration of "merit-based" principles in hiring and promotion.5 A key component of this initial wave was an order for the "Initial Recission of Harmful EOs and Actions," which immediately revoked numerous executive orders from the preceding administration related to climate change, diversity initiatives, and immigration policies.5
This rapid-fire approach was not merely an exercise in swift policy implementation; it functioned as a form of psychological warfare against the federal bureaucracy. The sheer volume and velocity of the orders were engineered to overwhelm the institutional capacity for legal review, debate, and organized resistance. A single controversial executive order can be absorbed and challenged by agency legal counsel, civil service unions, and external advocacy groups. However, a simultaneous, multi-front assault targeting hiring, funding, regulations, workplace culture, and foundational policies creates a state of systemic crisis. This forces institutional defenders into a reactive, triaging posture, rendering them incapable of mounting a coherent defense against the entire onslaught. The intended result is strategic paralysis and demoralization within the workforce, conditioning it for the deeper, more permanent restructuring that was to follow. This represents a tactical application of the core Minimiser concept of "strategic exhaustion," turned inward against the domestic state apparatus itself.1 The blitz was a clear assertion of the "unitary executive theory," a legal doctrine holding that the president has sole authority over the executive branch, which would become the philosophical cornerstone of the administration's efforts to dismantle civil service independence.7
The centerpiece of the administration's plan to capture the administrative state was signed into law on January 20, 2025: the executive order "Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce".10 This order immediately reinstated the first-term "Schedule F" initiative but rebranded it as "Schedule Policy/Career".10 This directive authorized the reclassification of tens of thousands of career federal employees in roles deemed to be "of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character".4 Estimates of the number of employees targeted ranged from an official Office of Personnel Management (OPM) figure of 50,000 to external analyses suggesting hundreds of thousands could be affected.11
Upon reclassification, these employees would be stripped of their long-standing civil service protections under Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, including the right to appeal termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, effectively making them at-will employees who could be fired without cause or due process.4 The 2025 version of the order went a step further than its 2020 predecessor, explicitly adding "failure to faithfully implement administration policies" as grounds for dismissal.10 On January 27, 2025, OPM issued interim guidance providing exceptionally broad definitions for what constituted a "policy-influencing" role, ensuring the directive could be applied to a vast swath of the federal workforce.4
This order is the central legal and administrative mechanism for achieving the "wholesale replacement of career officials" that the Minimisation Plan identified as a necessary pretext for its radical foreign policy agenda.1 It is the primary tool for dismantling the non-partisan civil service, a key objective articulated in ideological blueprints like Project 2025.9
The rebranding from "Schedule F" to "Schedule Policy/Career" was a deliberate narrative tactic. The bureaucratic and obscure "Schedule F" was replaced with a term that implies a logical, common-sense administrative reclassification, making the radical change appear more palatable. However, the true innovation of the 2025 order lies in its explicit linking of continued employment to ideological compliance, which precipitates a constitutional crisis by fundamentally redefining the civil servant's oath. The order's text mandates that employees "are required to faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President".7 This language dangerously conflates the President's transient policy agenda with the enduring principles of the Constitution. A civil servant's oath is to uphold the Constitution, not to blindly execute the will of any single administration. By making "failure to implement" policies a fireable offense under this new interpretation, the order forces a civil servant who believes a policy to be unlawful or unconstitutional into an impossible position: they must either violate their oath, resign, or be fired. Consequently, Schedule Policy/Career is not merely a tool for dismissing employees; it is a powerful instrument of coercion designed to purge the government of independent expertise and compel absolute obedience, ensuring that only those loyal to the administration's specific agenda can remain in positions of influence.
Complementing the structural changes to the civil service, the administration moved with unprecedented speed to install a cadre of ideological loyalists into the leadership of the national security, foreign policy, and intelligence apparatus. The Senate confirmation process for key cabinet posts was expedited. Marco Rubio was confirmed as Secretary of State with a near-unanimous 99-0 vote on January 20, the same day as the inauguration.16 Pete Hegseth, a prominent media personality and presidential confidant, was confirmed as Secretary of Defense on January 24 16, while Kristi Noem was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security on January 25.16
The leadership of the Intelligence Community was overhauled with figures known for their personal loyalty to the President. Tulsi Gabbard was appointed Director of National Intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, who served as DNI in the first term, was named Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.17 Kashyap Patel, another close ally of the President, was nominated to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.18 By February 11, the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), a key oversight body, was populated with loyalists including Devin Nunes as Chair, Robert O'Brien, and Reince Priebus.19
This decapitation of existing leadership was mirrored at the sub-cabinet level, particularly within the Department of Defense. Key policy-driving roles were filled by figures known for their alignment with a more isolationist and confrontational worldview. Elbridge Colby, a leading intellectual proponent of shifting U.S. focus from European security to a direct confrontation with China, was nominated as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, while private equity executive Stephen Feinberg was named Deputy Secretary of Defense.18
These appointments reveal a sophisticated, two-tiered strategy for capturing the national security apparatus. The swift, bipartisan confirmation of a figure like Marco Rubio as Secretary of State was designed to project an image of stability and mainstream competence to international partners and domestic audiences. This provided a crucial veneer of legitimacy for the administration's foreign policy. However, the real policy-driving power was concentrated in the less-scrutinized sub-cabinet and advisory roles. The appointment of Elbridge Colby as Under Secretary for Policy was a clear and unambiguous signal of the impending "Taiwan Pivot" and the strategic downgrading of NATO commitments that would soon follow.20 Similarly, placing figures like Ratcliffe and Patel at the helm of the CIA and FBI ensures that intelligence assessments would be tailored to support the administration's political narratives, rather than providing the kind of objective, and potentially contradictory, analysis that career intelligence officials might produce. This created an internal "shadow" policy structure, where public-facing cabinet heads managed perceptions while the ideologically committed sub-cabinet and advisory boards executed the true, disruptive agenda aligned with Minimiser objectives.
| Date | Action/Event | Stated Purpose (The "Cover") | Assessed Minimiser Objective | Source Citation(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2025 | Signing of over 100 Executive Orders, including hiring/regulatory freezes | To deliver on promises, increase transparency, and reinstitute merit | Overwhelm and paralyze institutional resistance through "shock and awe" | 3 |
| Jan 20, 2025 | EO "Restoring Accountability..." reinstates Schedule F as "Schedule Policy/Career" | To increase accountability and remove underperforming/insubordinate employees | Neutralize civil service resistance by codifying political loyalty as a condition of employment | 10 |
| Jan 20, 2025 | Nomination of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State (Confirmed Jan 20) | To ensure experienced leadership in foreign policy | Install a public-facing figure with mainstream credibility to mask radical policy shifts | 16 |
| Jan 20, 2025 | Nomination of John Ratcliffe as CIA Director | To restore integrity to the Intelligence Community | Install a loyalist to control intelligence narratives and ensure alignment with political agenda | 17 |
| Jan 20, 2025 | Nomination of Elbridge Colby as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy | To bring strategic clarity to the Pentagon | Position a key ideologue to execute the pivot from European to Asian theaters | 18 |
| Feb 11, 2025 | Appointment of Devin Nunes as Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board | To provide trusted, patriotic advice on national security | Solidify political control over intelligence oversight mechanisms | 19 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | EO "Implementing the President's 'DOGE' Cost Efficiency Initiative" | To target discretionary spending and cut waste | Establish the operational framework for the extra-governmental DOGE entity | 5 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | EO "Improving Education Outcomes..." | To empower parents, states, and communities | Advance ideological goals by dismantling federal institutions (Dept. of Education) | 5 |
With the foundational restructuring of the administrative state underway, the administration pivoted to executing its foreign policy agenda. This phase, "The Great Unravelling," was not a retreat into simple isolationism but a coherent and systematic campaign designed to actively dismantle the post-war alliance structure. The core methodology was the inducement of "strategic exhaustion": creating conditions of extreme uncertainty and pressure that force allies into unsustainable cycles of military spending and political crisis, ultimately leading to the collapse of collective security arrangements.1 This strategy was deployed through three concurrent, and seemingly contradictory, policy offensives: the fracturing of NATO, the coercive "peace" process in Ukraine, and the deliberate escalation of tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
The assault on the Western alliance system began with its cornerstone, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In a series of public statements and policy shifts starting in February 2025, the administration systematically undermined the principle of collective defense. President Trump publicly reiterated his first-term threat that he would "encourage" Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to NATO allies he considered "delinquent" in their financial contributions.1 This rhetoric was quickly translated into policy. The administration began aggressively pushing for a new, dramatically increased defense spending target of 5% of GDP for all member states, a significant escalation from the existing 2% guideline that many nations already struggled to meet.21
Crucially, the administration explicitly conditioned the U.S. security guarantee under Article 5 on meeting this new, unrealistic target. This effectively created a "two-tier NATO," where the alliance's mutual defense clause would no longer be an automatic guarantee but a transactional service contingent on payment.21 This policy was reinforced in March 2025 with reports of administration plans to unilaterally withdraw up to 35,000 U.S. troops from Germany and redeploy them selectively, rewarding allies deemed more politically aligned, such as Hungary, while punishing traditional partners.22 This campaign of pressure culminated in a June 2025 announcement from the White House, which hailed an "historic deal" in which NATO allies had supposedly committed to reaching the 5% spending target by the year 2035.23
This sequence of events was a direct implementation of the "NATO Gambit" outlined in internal Minimiser planning documents.1 The objective was to induce "strategic panic" among European nations, forcing them into a state of chaos and compelling them to divert massive national resources to emergency military spending.1 The 5% spending "deal" was a strategic deception, a "Cover" designed to mask the "True Intent" of the policy. It was never intended to strengthen NATO. The 5% target is, for most European economies, politically and fiscally impossible to achieve in the short-to-medium term.21 By securing a long-term "commitment" to this unattainable goal, the administration achieved two strategic objectives. First, it could claim a superficial, short-term political "win," framing the move as making NATO stronger and forcing allies to pay their "fair share." Second, and far more consequentially, it created a permanent, built-in pretext for future U.S. disengagement. At any point over the next decade, the administration can declare that allies are failing to meet their commitments and use this "failure" as justification to withdraw troops, ignore Article 5 obligations, or dissolve the alliance entirely. This transforms NATO from a pact of mutual security into a long-term, transactional protection racket whose terms are deliberately designed to be impossible to meet, ensuring its eventual collapse and serving the core Minimiser goal of dismantling the "arborescent" Western order.1
Concurrent with the destabilization of NATO, the administration launched a "peace" offensive regarding the war in Ukraine. This process was characterized by direct, bilateral engagement with Moscow that deliberately bypassed and alienated both the government in Kyiv and key European allies.1 The administration's desired endgame was signaled early. In a February 12, 2025, meeting at NATO headquarters, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly declared that the restoration of Ukraine's pre-2014 borders was "an unrealistic objective" and that Ukrainian membership in NATO was not a viable outcome of any negotiated settlement.24
Following this public declaration, the administration manufactured a period of intense pressure on the Ukrainian government. This included a temporary but highly damaging suspension of all U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing in early March, coupled with public denigration of President Zelenskyy by President Trump, who referred to him as a "dictator without elections".24 This coercive diplomacy culminated in the presentation of a U.S.-drafted "ultimate peace proposal" in April 2025. The proposal formalized the administration's position, calling for a ceasefire along existing lines of control, which would grant Russia de facto recognition of its territorial gains. In exchange, Ukraine would be barred from joining NATO and would receive only vague, unspecified security guarantees.1 The entire process reached its apex in August 2025, with a high-profile summit in Alaska between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to finalize the deal—a summit to which President Zelenskyy was pointedly not invited.24
This entire "peace" offensive is a textbook application of the "Satan Archetype" deception model described in the "Framework for the Judgment of Ideas".2 The "Bait" was the universally appealing promise of ending a long and costly war. The "Cover" was the narrative of a strong, decisive leader forging a peace deal where others had failed. The "True Intent," however, was to achieve a total victory for the Minimiser's "Ukraine Gambit": to ratify the territorial gains of a key Minimiser actor (Russia), to shatter the united Western coalition that had opposed the invasion, and to decisively abandon the foundational international principle of territorial integrity.1
The temporary suspension of aid and public attacks on Zelenskyy in March were not indicators of a failing or chaotic policy. They were components of a deliberate psychological operation. Having already signaled its desired outcome in February—no NATO membership and no full restoration of territory—the administration met with predictable resistance from Kyiv and its European partners. The subsequent actions were designed to isolate Ukraine and demonstrate that continued resistance would result in total abandonment and certain military defeat. This intense pressure campaign successfully broke Kyiv's will, forcing it back to the negotiating table to accept a 30-day ceasefire proposal and, by extension, the broader U.S.-Russia framework.24 This is a classic coercion tactic: manufacturing an acute crisis to force an actor to choose between two undesirable outcomes, where the "lesser evil" is precisely the outcome the coercer intended from the start.
In a move that appeared starkly contradictory to its disengagement from European security, the administration simultaneously and dramatically escalated tensions in the Indo-Pacific. This "Taiwan Pivot" was a key component of the broader strategic exhaustion campaign. The policy shift was signaled on February 13, 2025, when the State Department quietly updated its official factsheet on U.S.-Taiwan relations, removing the long-standing phrase "we do not support Taiwan independence".26
This diplomatic provocation was followed by concrete action. In June 2025, the administration announced its approval of a massive, multi-billion dollar arms package to Taiwan, which notably included offensive weapons systems, not just defensive ones. This move was publicly framed under the paradoxical slogan of "peace through strength".1 Reports from administration officials indicated plans to approve arms sales to Taiwan that would significantly exceed the $18 billion total from the President's first term.27 This aggressive posturing elicited a furious response from Beijing, with foreign ministry officials declaring that the U.S. was crossing a "red line" and warning of severe consequences.29 Concurrently, the Pentagon, under the leadership of Under Secretary Elbridge Colby, began to actively pressure U.S. allies in the region, particularly Japan and Australia, to publicly clarify what specific military roles they would commit to playing in a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.31
While this policy seems to contradict the isolationist rhetoric directed at Europe, it is a perfectly coherent element of the Minimisation Plan's strategy. By deliberately inflaming the primary military flashpoint in the Pacific, the administration forces its regional allies—Japan, South Korea, and Australia—into a new, costly, and destabilizing cycle of military readiness.1 This is a strategic feint designed to achieve multiple Minimiser objectives at once. The administration's actions in Europe prove it has no genuine interest in upholding mutual defense treaties; therefore, its aggressive posture on Taiwan cannot be interpreted as a sincere commitment to the island's defense. Instead, the provocative arms sales and rhetoric serve to elicit a more aggressive military posture from Beijing. This manufactured crisis creates a severe security dilemma for regional allies. They can no longer fully trust the U.S. commitment, having witnessed the abandonment of NATO and Ukraine, yet they are simultaneously forced to increase their own defense spending and deepen their military integration with the United States to counter the newly elevated threat from China.32
This creates a perfect feedback loop of strategic exhaustion. Furthermore, the "threat from China" becomes the public-facing justification for the administration's other strategic goals. It provides the rationale for the massive economic warfare campaign and tariff escalation detailed in the following section. It also supplies the pretext for the drawdown of U.S. forces and commitments from Europe, framed as a necessary "pivot to Asia." The policy is not about protecting Taiwan; it is about using Taiwan as a strategic pawn to destabilize the entire global order.
The administration's economic policies during this period were not aimed at traditional protectionism or achieving favorable trade balances. Instead, economic tools, particularly tariffs, were weaponized to achieve the Minimiser objective of systemic disruption. The strategic intent was to shatter global supply chains, accelerate the fragmentation of the world economy into competing blocs, and undermine the central role of the U.S. dollar, thereby advancing the long-term goal of creating a global power vacuum.1
Having campaigned on a proposal for a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods 34, the administration, once in office, moved to implement a far more radical and encompassing strategy of economic warfare. The campaign began on February 1, 2025, when President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency related to fentanyl trafficking from China. This declaration was used as the legal pretext to impose an initial round of tariffs on Chinese imports.34
The strategy escalated dramatically on April 2, 2025, a day the President dubbed "Liberation Day".36 On this day, he declared a second, broader national emergency, this time citing the U.S. trade deficit as a threat to national security. Under the authority of this new emergency, the administration announced a policy of "reciprocal tariffs" to be applied to all U.S. trading partners. This included a universal baseline tariff of 10% on nearly all imported goods, regardless of origin.36
This unprecedented and indiscriminate action triggered an immediate and chaotic retaliatory spiral, particularly with China. In the days following "Liberation Day," a series of tit-for-tat tariff hikes occurred. By mid-April, the cumulative U.S. tariff rate on Chinese goods had reached a staggering 145%, while China's retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods had climbed to 125%.34 This plunged global supply chains into chaos, fulfilling the Minimiser objective of systemic disruption rather than any coherent economic goal.1
The use of non-economic pretexts—fentanyl trafficking and a national emergency over the trade deficit—was a deliberate legal strategy. It was designed to bypass the established procedures and limitations of conventional trade law, such as those governed by the World Trade Organization or the Trade Act of 1974. By invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the administration claimed sweeping and unilateral authority to impose tariffs by presidential decree, circumventing congressional oversight and judicial review.36 While this assertion of power was immediately challenged in federal court and parts were eventually struck down, the legal battle itself would take months, allowing the administration to achieve its primary objective in the interim: delivering a massive, destabilizing shock to the global economic system.36 This tactic established a dangerous new precedent for weaponizing emergency powers for economic ends. It successfully transformed trade policy from a tool of commerce, governed by rules and negotiations, into a unilateral weapon of coercion and disruption, perfectly aligning with the Minimiser goal of undermining and ultimately destroying established international norms and institutions.
The most significant and anomalous event of the administration's first nine months was the creation of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE). This entity, established on the first day of the term, represents a novel and highly effective vector for implementing the Minimisation Plan's objectives. It functioned not as a conventional government body but as a parallel power structure, using a sophisticated blend of narrative warfare, technological prowess, and extra-legal authority to execute an ideological purge of the federal government.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order establishing the "Department of Government Efficiency".38 The choice of the acronym, DOGE, was a deliberate act of narrative warfare. It is an explicit and unmistakable reference to the Dogecoin cryptocurrency, a digital asset that began as an internet meme and was famously promoted by Elon Musk, one of the entity's appointed leaders.39
The selection of this name was engineered to be simultaneously absurd and culturally viral. It was designed to appeal to a specific anti-establishment, tech-savvy subculture while openly mocking the perceived solemnity and bureaucratic nature of traditional government institutions. This name functions as a memetic Trojan Horse. It leverages humor and cultural relevance to smuggle a radical and deeply disruptive political project past the critical faculties of the public and the media. A commission named "The Presidential Council for Federal Efficiency" would have been met with serious, if uninspired, media coverage and policy analysis. Naming it "DOGE," however, immediately shifted the entire frame of the discussion. It generated a torrent of headlines, social media engagement, and widespread ridicule, making the entire enterprise appear to be a joke.
This humorous and ironic framing served as a highly effective smokescreen. While a significant portion of the public and media were distracted by the absurdity of the name, the entity itself was engaged in the deadly serious work of identifying targets for the administration's political purge and gaining unprecedented access to the government's digital infrastructure. This tactic aligns perfectly with the philosophical concepts outlined in "The Unbelievable Truth," which identifies the "Funny Reaction" as the one closest to understanding a paradigm-shifting idea.40 The name DOGE was engineered to provoke this exact reaction, disarming potential opposition through a shield of ironic detachment.
DOGE was announced not as an official, congressionally-chartered government department, but as an advisory commission to be led by private citizens: Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.39 Despite its unofficial and advisory status, DOGE operated with the full authority of the President and was granted pervasive, top-level access to sensitive government data and systems. This included access to the U.S. Treasury's payment system, which contains the personal and financial data of most Americans.43
The stated mission of DOGE was to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies".41 This agenda mapped directly onto the publicly stated goals of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, a comprehensive plan to staff the government with ideological loyalists and radically reshape the administrative state.9 By design, DOGE functioned as a parallel power structure, operating outside the legal and procedural constraints that bind formal government agencies, such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and direct congressional oversight.39
This structure reveals DOGE's true purpose. It was the practical enforcement arm of the Schedule Policy/Career initiative. While the executive order provided the legal framework to strip civil servants of their protections and fire them for political reasons, DOGE provided the ideological justification and, crucially, the technical means to identify targets and execute the purge. The task of reviewing the records of over two million federal employees to determine which ones were in "policy-influencing" roles and were failing to "faithfully implement" the administration's agenda is a massive data analysis and surveillance challenge.10
DOGE, led by a tech billionaire and explicitly seeking to hire "super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries" 39, was perfectly positioned to perform this function. By gaining direct access to internal agency networks, personnel records, financial data, and official communications, DOGE could build the data-driven case for which employees should be reclassified under Schedule Policy/Career and subsequently dismissed.43 Therefore, DOGE was not an initiative to "cut waste" in any conventional sense. It was an ideologically driven, technologically empowered entity designed to operationalize the political purge enabled by the administration's legal restructuring of the civil service. It was the engine built to fulfill the promise of "dismantling the deep state".9
The implementation of the DOGE agenda was swift and disruptive, provoking an immediate and severe backlash. The entity's actions, which included gaining access to sensitive data and initiating plans for mass layoffs, prompted countrywide protests, a wave of resignations from career civil servants, and multiple lawsuits filed by federal unions and good governance groups.43
Public opinion was sharply divided and trended negative as the scope of DOGE's activities became clear. A January 2025 AP-NORC poll found that only 29% of Americans approved of DOGE, while 39% disapproved.47 A February 2025 Axios poll showed that a majority of Americans disapproved of DOGE's dissection of the government and the amount of power wielded by Elon Musk.46 By April, an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service found that 57% of Americans believed the administration's changes to the federal workforce would have a negative effect on the country.48
Despite this widespread opposition, the administration and its supporters vigorously defended DOGE's actions. They consistently framed the initiative as a necessary and heroic battle against a corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable federal bureaucracy—the "deep state".47 This negative public reaction was not only anticipated but was likely considered an acceptable, and even useful, cost for achieving the core objective of state capture. The administration effectively weaponized the backlash to reinforce its own narrative. Every lawsuit filed by a union, every protest held by federal workers, and every critical news report was presented as proof that the entrenched "deep state" was fighting back against essential reforms. This created a powerful feedback loop: DOGE's disruptive actions provoked a reaction, and that reaction was then used as evidence to justify DOGE's existence and the need for even more aggressive measures. This is a classic political polarization strategy, not intended to win over a majority of the population, but to solidify the unwavering support of the political base by creating a clear and existential "us versus them" conflict. For the successful execution of the primary mission, this solidified base of support was deemed sufficient.
The preceding analysis details a series of actions that, while appearing disparate, form a coherent strategic campaign when viewed through the analytical lens of the Minimisation Plan. This final section synthesizes these findings, applying the project's core frameworks—the Psochic Hegemony and the Helxis Tensor—to formally assess the nature of the administration's strategy and to extrapolate its logical trajectory. The assessment confirms that the events of January through September 2025 represent a significant acceleration of Phase IV, moving the overarching Minimisation Plan closer to its ultimate objective of systemic collapse.
The "Framework for the Judgment of Ideas" provides a systematic methodology for deconstructing deceptive narratives and mapping the true nature of strategic actions.2 Applying this framework to the administration's key policy initiatives reveals a consistent and recurring pattern of deception, perfectly aligning with the "Satan Archetype" model. Each major policy was introduced with a clear, tangible benefit for a sympathetic group (The Bait), wrapped in a broad, morally positive narrative (The Cover), which served to mask the true, extractive purpose (The True Intent).
This pattern is evident across all analyzed vectors. The NATO "Burden Sharing" Policy used the "Bait" of fairness to American taxpayers and the "Cover" of strengthening the alliance to hide its "True Intent" of fracturing the alliance and creating a pretext for U.S. withdrawal. The Ukraine "Peace" Offensive used the "Bait" of ending a bloody conflict and the "Cover" of decisive leadership to mask its "True Intent" of ratifying Russian territorial gains and dismantling the Western coalition. The Universal "Reciprocal" Tariffs used the "Bait" of protecting American jobs and the "Cover" of achieving "fair trade" to hide their "True Intent" of inducing systemic chaos in the global economy. Finally, the DOGE Initiative used the "Bait" of cutting government waste and the "Cover" of improving efficiency to mask its "True Intent" of executing an ideological purge and seizing control of the state's data infrastructure.
When these policies are mapped onto the Psochic Hegemony, their deceptive nature is rendered with mathematical clarity. The public framing of each policy places it in the "Greater Good" quadrant, characterized by a positive moral vector (+υ) and a proactive volitional vector (+ψ). However, the analysis of their actual effects and strategic goals places them squarely in the "Greater Lie" quadrant, defined by an extractive, negative moral vector (−υ) and a proactive, destructive volitional vector (+ψ). The large Euclidean distance between these two points—the Framed Vector and the True Intent Vector—yields a high "Contradiction Score," providing a quantitative measure of the profound dishonesty at the core of the strategy.
| Policy Initiative | Framed Vector (Stated Intent) | True Intent Vector (Assessed Impact) | Contradiction Score | Helxis Tensor Analysis (Bait/Cover/Intent) | Source Citation(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATO 'Burden Sharing' Policy | Greater Good (υ≈+0.8,ψ≈+0.7) | Greater Lie (υ≈−0.8,ψ≈+0.9) | 1.61 | Bait: Fairness to US taxpayers. Cover: Strengthening NATO. Intent: Fracture the alliance, induce strategic exhaustion, create pretext for withdrawal. | 1 |
| Ukraine 'Peace' Offensive | Greater Good (υ≈+0.8,ψ≈+0.7) | Greater Lie (υ≈−0.8,ψ≈+0.9) | 1.61 | Bait: Ending the war. Cover: Strong leadership achieving peace. Intent: Ratify Minimiser gains, abandon international law, break Western coalition. | 1 |
| Universal 'Reciprocal' Tariffs | Greater Good (υ≈+0.6,ψ≈+0.8) | Greater Lie (υ≈−0.7,ψ≈+0.9) | 1.30 | Bait: Protecting American jobs. Cover: Achieving "fair trade." Intent: Induce systemic chaos, shatter global supply chains, accelerate de-dollarization. | 1 |
| DOGE Initiative | Greater Good (υ≈+0.9,ψ≈+0.5) | Greater Lie (υ≈−0.9,ψ≈+0.9) | 1.84 | Bait: Cutting government waste. Cover: Improving efficiency. Intent: Execute ideological purge of civil service, seize control of state data infrastructure. | 38 |
Ideas and strategies are not static points; they are dynamic forces with inherent trajectories.2 The vector of an idea—the direction of its moral and volitional force—is indicative of its natural conclusion. The consistent placement of every major administration policy in the "Greater Lie" quadrant reveals an unmistakable and powerful strategic vector. This vector points sharply downward on the moral axis (−υ) and strongly rightward on the volitional axis (+ψ), a clear and unambiguous trajectory of "Regression & Fall from Grace."
This is the path of corruption, where any deceptive cover is progressively stripped away to reveal a purely extractive and destructive core. The logical endpoint of this trajectory, as defined by the framework, is either the "Valley of Despair"—a state of perpetual, extractive conflict—or the "Nihilistic Singularity" at the center of the map (0,0). This singularity represents the most immoral act: the claim that there is no answer, the promotion of nihilism, and the total destruction of meaning and order itself.2 This endpoint, a world devoid of stable alliances, predictable economic rules, and the principle of objective truth in governance, is the ultimate and final objective of the Minimisation Plan. The events of 2025 demonstrate a significant and successful acceleration along this vector.