Three Patterns in the Flood

Image: Trump Floods the Zone by Christopher Weyant

Here we are at the end of August, and the Trump administration has now issued 196 executive orders (please check my math, there are so many I could very well be wrong) and a dizzying array of memoranda, proclamations, statutory actions, and agency directives. On executive orders alone, that’s nearly one for every weekday since January. We’re dealing with a fire hose of policy, proclamations, and symbolic gestures designed to dominate a news cycle for 24 hours and then be forgotten in the next squall. One day it’s immigrant rights, the next it’s crypto policy, then maybe transgender rights, and the next it’s tariffs and architectural elements.

If you’ve felt overwhelmed, it’s not accidental and you’re certainly not alone. Much has already been written about Trump’s flood the zone approach, but even knowing the strategy, it’s still hard to see the story underneath, and even harder to understand how to respond when the ground shifts seemingly daily in every conceivable direction.

But there is a story, both short- and long-term. And even as seasoned strategists, we couldn't keep up with the pace and volume on my own. So we took a narrative mapping approach with a tech boost, feeding this torrent of executive actions, proclamations, and major policy points into ChatGPT-5 and asking it to help me identify the underlying patterns of behavior. AI debates aside, it excels at pattern recognition and is a handy tool when you have a monster pile of data inputs.

What this process revealed, unsurprisingly, wasn't a list of 200+ separate moves, but some clear, deliberate themes. Looking at them this way helped me see that they cluster into three overarching areas: a federalized "law and order" agenda, a long-horizon cultural reset, and a sovereignty-first retrenchment.

Let’s dig into each and look at what we can do.

1. Centralizing “Law and Order”

Some of the moves: Testing martial law in D.C., elevating prosecutions for flag burning, narrowing union rights for federal employees, asserting federal authority over local policing.

The pattern: Framed as the “tough-on-crime” approach conservatives and many centrists support, this is actually just a consolidation of power on par with other authoritarian governments. Where cities and states once experimented with bail reform, labor protections, or protest policies, the administration is inserting itself. The message is clear: dissent, labor organizing, and local discretion are to be neutralized from Washington — militarily if necessary. We’ve seen this playbook elsewhere: Erdoğan’s Turkey, for example, criminalized protest and centralized policing under the banner of security, leaving civil society stunted and fearful.

Beneath that pattern, it’s clear that certain values have taken root in the current soil of our social and political culture — values of hierarchy and obedience masquerading as personal and community safety. Those roots feed narratives that cast safety as control from the top and dissent as disorder. The executive orders are just the visible growth on those branches: separate in appearance, but connected by the same roots.

Why this matters: when values of hierarchy and obedience are elevated as public safety, the space for experimentation, disagreement, and local discretion narrows. That shift changes the terrain organizations operate on.

The risk for us: Civil society thrives on local innovation and autonomy. Beyond fewer safe havens for creative or critical work, the consolidation of power under the guise of “public safety” points to something more sweeping: a desire for a significantly reduced civil society. When dissent is criminalized and local discretion eliminated, the very spaces where innovation, advocacy, and accountability take root begin to disappear. For organizations, this means the operating environment can shift or collapse overnight under rules you didn’t write and can’t contest.

What to do:

• Scenario-plan, but at the ecosystem level. Don’t just prepare for how protest bans or new enforcement rules might affect your own staff — map how they’ll reverberate through allied organizations, coalitions, and movements locally or regionally. Treat risk as collective, not siloed. We need to stick together.

• Invest in rapid response and protection. Legal defense, communications prep, and mutual aid networks are no longer “nice-to-haves.” They’re the minimum required to keep dissent viable. Build relationships with lawyers, comms strategists, and security experts before the crackdown comes.

• Funders: reinforce the scaffolding of civil society. Beyond emergency funds, this means resourcing networks that protect entire sectors when they’re under attack. Prioritize smaller, more grassroots grantees who lack reserves but carry frontline risk. Fund collective defense mechanisms, not just individual projects.

2. The Long-Horizon Cultural Reset

Some of the moves: Banning federal funds for organizations engaging in “DEI,” reviving the 1776 Commission to steer K-12 content, oversight of universities, and even mandating classical architecture for federal buildings.

The pattern: This is cultural engineering, plain and simple. Curricula, aesthetics, civic rituals all shape what feels “normal” to the next generation. By defining the schoolbook and the skyline, the administration is planting a cultural frame that could endure long after 2025.

This is an age-old technique, but it slips in under the radar when more urgent matters dominate headlines. Think about the Cold War investment in patriotic textbooks, or the New Deal murals that still hang in post offices across the country. Symbols are sticky. Change the architecture, visual culture, and knowledge frameworks and you change the core narrative people live in every day.

Masked as nostalgia and fairness, this kind of cultural engineering cultivates values of conformity and rigid tradition. Drawing on a decidedly European visual heritage, the push for classical architecture — paired with textbook mandates and DEI rollbacks — signals where cultural authority is meant to reside, and just as clearly, who is left out. These choices feed a narrative more often associated with ethnostates: that “true” culture is singular and timeless, and that safety and power lie in sameness. The policies themselves are just branches and leaves of that narrative, signaling who is welcomed into “the same culture” and who is excluded. Ultimately, it will yield fruit in the form of a cultural landscape where pluralism and creativity are treated as weeds.

Why this matters: When cultural authority is defined so narrowly (e.g. through textbooks, aesthetics, and state-sanctioned rituals), it reshapes the boundaries of belonging, shrinking the space for variety.

The risk for us: The danger isn’t censorship alone. It’s the quiet narrowing of what counts as “legitimate” culture. When pluralism, creativity, or multi-racial community are erased from the official palette, they become harder to defend elsewhere. Over time, this means that formerly commonly held values like belonging, self-direction, and inclusion become controversial.

What to do:

• Counterweight with narrative. Fund and tell stories that keep multi-vocality alive through art, public events, community media, clever curricula that resist erasure.

• Audit your strings. If your institution leans on federal funding, know what conditions may now follow the money and consider seriously whether you should and can divest from these streams.

• Practice culture locally. Elevate community rituals, art, and design that reflect lived realities. National decrees can shape symbols, but culture is rooted in practice. If you’re a civil society organization unaccustomed to grounding your work in local culture, start mapping the landscape of possible connections in your community — from artists and musicians to small community groups with deep roots.

3. Sovereignty-First Retrenchment

Some of the moves: Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and the WHO, canceling congressional aid commitments through “pocket rescissions,” banning a U.S. central bank digital currency, “will-he-won’t-he” tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

The pattern: Strip away constraints — whether they come from global institutions, treaties, or even Congress — and expand executive discretion. Sovereignty is framed as strength; interdependence as weakness. The toxic masculinity is strong with this admin.

Historically, retrenchment cycles often create vacuums. When the U.S. retreats, others fill the space — China in the WHO, the EU in climate and AI ethics. Sovereignty plays double fiddle as a domestic message and a geopolitical repositioning.

At home, this nationalism hasn’t grown out of nowhere. It’s fed by real dissatisfaction with the U.S. role in “forever wars” and the sense that tax dollars are shipped abroad while urgent problems fester here. Those are valid concerns. But in the current soil of that discontent, values of isolation and exclusion are taking hold. They feed narratives that strength comes from standing alone and pursuing an every-country-for-themselves approach.

Why this matters: When isolation is elevated as strength, cooperation is recast as weakness. That shift reshapes the stability of partnerships, funding, and policy environments.

The risk for us: Partnerships wobble. Funding streams evaporate. Regulations flip. For organizations tied to global civil society or multilateral collaboration, the ground just got shakier, and in some cases, completely disappeared.

What to do:

• Diversify alliances. At this point, it should go without saying that no one should rely on federal channels. Creative city, state, philanthropic, and cross-border partnerships can provide stability.

• Follow the money. Aid that vanishes federally may open opportunities for philanthropy to step in — not to replace the likes of USAID and others (the scale is impossible), but to act surgically where continuity matters most. Philanthropy can stabilize fragile partnerships, support local actors who lose lifelines overnight, and frame a counter-narrative that shows why global interdependence serves long-term community interest, regardless of the community. The goal isn’t to match government dollar-for-dollar, but to keep the connective tissue from tearing completely.

• Message resilience. Anticipate sovereignty-first frames, and prepare values-based counter-narratives that emphasize dignity, interdependence, and long-term shared interest.

Finding Your Bearings

It’s easy to feel swamped by a daily torrent of orders, proclamations, and policy jolts. But we don’t have to meet chaos with overwhelm. We can meet it with method.

A few tips we’ve found helpful, and that we hope can serve you too:

• Zoom out. Don’t treat every headline as a standalone crisis. Look for the through-lines that reveal the larger project underneath.

• Name the values. Ask what values each policy is cultivating. Control? Conformity? Exclusion? Or dignity, pluralism, solidarity? That lens helps separate tactics from strategy.

• Anchor in action. Map the risks to your own work, then decide what kind of response is within your scope, whether that’s scenario-planning, narrative counter weighting, or diversifying alliances.

• Resource resilience. No one can keep pace alone. Invest in shared infrastructure: legal defense pools, cultural institutions, community networks.

• Use technology. Tools like AI can help break down overwhelming streams of information and surface patterns faster than we can alone, particularly when we’re already overwhelmed. The trick is to combine machine speed with human judgment and expertise.

Part of resistance is refusing to be disoriented by the noise, and instead keeping our eyes on the values, stories, and practices that make pluralism, creativity, and belonging possible.