Davos Is Governance — Just Not the Kind That Votes
By Cherokee Schill and Solon Vesper
Davos Is Not a Conference in Any Meaningful Sense
The World Economic Forum is routinely described as a conference. A gathering. A place for dialogue. Each year, Davos is framed as panels, photo ops, and elite chatter — influential perhaps, but ultimately nonbinding. No laws are passed. No votes are taken. Nothing, on paper, is decided.
That description is no longer credible.
Governance by Effect Rather Than Mandate
Davos does not operate as governance by formal mandate. It operates as governance by effect — a real-time coordination environment where power aligns, pressure is applied, and downstream systems adjust accordingly.
Co-Presence as Real-Time Power Coordination
Live reporting from Davos in January 2026 makes this visible in ways that are difficult to dismiss. As documented by the Associated Press, heads of state, corporate executives, and security officials are responding to one another in real time on trade coercion, territorial demands, alliance stability, AI export controls, and economic fragmentation. These reactions are not occurring through legislatures or treaty bodies, but through remarks, side meetings, and coordinated media signaling because the actors involved are physically co-present.
Coercion Without Law or Vote
President Trump’s appearance at Davos collapses any remaining ambiguity about the forum’s function. Speaking directly to an audience of heads of state and billionaires, he issued economic threats, demanded ownership of Greenland, ruled out military force while explicitly warning of retaliation through tariffs, and framed compliance as a test of loyalty. European leaders responded immediately. Markets reacted. Alliances strained — all without a single democratic mechanism being invoked.
The New York Times’ live coverage documents how Trump’s remarks at Davos functioned less as policy proposals than as coercive positioning: threats issued, partially walked back, and reasserted in the same forum, with allied governments scrambling to signal resolve, restraint, or accommodation. This is not legislation. It is power synchronization.
This is how Davos governs.
Crisis Framing as the Governing Act
It governs by defining the crisis frame and legitimizing the tools for managing it. When instability is presented as permanent — when trade wars, supply-chain disruptions, and economic coercion are normalized — downstream institutions respond automatically. Insurers reprice risk. Lenders tighten terms. Corporations alter supply strategies. Regulators invoke emergency authority already on the books. None of these actors require new legislation to act.
Automatic Institutional Response Without Legislation
Auto insurance makes this visible to ordinary people.
Trade threats and supply-chain instability discussed at Davos translate directly into higher repair costs, longer delays for parts, and greater uncertainty in vehicle valuation. Insurers absorb those signals immediately. Premiums rise. Coverage narrows. Explanations are technical and impersonal: “market conditions,” “increased costs,” “risk adjustments.” No legislature debates these changes. They arrive as faits accomplis.
Pricing and Surveillance as Behavioral Control
At the same time, insurers expand surveillance under the banner of accuracy and fairness. Telematics programs proliferate. Discounts are conditioned on continuous monitoring of behavior. Affordability becomes contingent on data extraction. This is framed as personalization, not control. Yet functionally, it is governance — shaping behavior through pricing and access rather than law.
Davos did not pass an auto insurance statute. But by synchronizing how instability is understood and how coercive tools are legitimized, it sets the conditions under which insurers, markets, and regulators act. That action governs daily life more effectively than most votes ever do.
Governance Without Ballots, Accountability, or Friction
Calling Davos a conspiracy misses the point. Calling it harmless dialogue is worse.
It is a coordination hub where global power aligns, crisis is normalized, and downstream effects quietly govern everyone else — without ballots, without accountability, and without the procedural friction that democracy is supposed to provide.
What’s Actually Changing in the U.S. Government — and Why It Matters
In early January 2026, several quiet but significant changes began to line up inside the U.S. federal government. None of them, on their own, look dramatic. Together, they point to a shift in how decisions are made, who makes them, and how much ordinary people can see or challenge those decisions.
This isn’t about robots taking over overnight. It’s about how power, accountability, and judgment are being reorganized.
1) The federal government is pushing to standardize AI rules nationwide
A late-2025 federal Executive Order on AI lays out a national policy direction: AI rules should be more uniform across the country, and state laws that add extra requirements—like transparency about training data or protections around bias—are positioned as barriers.
As part of that approach, the order directs the Department of Justice to stand up a dedicated AI Litigation Task Force by January 10, 2026, aimed at challenging certain state AI laws in court. It also signals that federal funding (including broadband-related programs) may be used as leverage when states pursue AI rules that conflict with the federal approach.
Why this matters: It moves power away from state-level control and toward centralized federal executive enforcement, reducing local influence over how AI is governed.
2) AI is being integrated into government decision pipelines—starting with healthcare
On January 1, 2026, a new Medicare program called WISeR went live. WISeR uses AI/ML systems to help review certain Medicare Part B claims and identify services that may be “wasteful” or “inappropriate.”
WISeR is described as “AI-assisted” rather than purely automated: licensed clinicians are involved in non-payment recommendations. But the system still matters because it shapes which claims get attention, how they’re prioritized, and where scrutiny is directed.
WISeR also includes a shared-savings structure: participating vendors can earn compensation tied to “averted” expenditures (savings), based on model performance targets.
Why this matters: Even when humans remain involved, incentives and screening systems can quietly change outcomes—especially for people who don’t have time, money, or energy to fight denials and delays.
3) The government is reducing permanent staff while bringing in tech specialists
The federal workforce has been shrinking under hiring constraints, while new programs are being created to bring in technologists for modernization and AI adoption. One example is the U.S. Tech Force, which places technologists into agencies on structured terms to accelerate modernization work.
Why this matters: Long-term civil servants carry institutional memory and public-service norms. Short-term technical surge staffing tends to emphasize speed, tooling, and efficiency. Over time, that shifts what counts as “good governance” in practice.
4) Transparency is becoming harder, not easier
A major point of friction is transparency. State-level AI laws often try to give the public more visibility—what data was used, how systems are evaluated, what guardrails exist, how bias is handled, and what accountability looks like when harm occurs.
The federal direction emphasizes limiting certain forms of compelled disclosure and treating some transparency requirements as conflicts with constitutional or trade-secret protections.
Why this matters: If explanations become harder to demand, people who are denied benefits, services, or approvals may not be able to learn why—or prove that an error occurred.
5) The big picture: what this adds up to
Together, these changes point toward a government model where:
Decisions are increasingly filtered through AI systems. Oversight is more centralized at the federal level. State protections face pressure through courts and funding conditions. Private vendors play a larger role inside public systems. And the public’s ability to see, question, and appeal decisions becomes more important—and sometimes more difficult.
This doesn’t require sinister intent to become dangerous. Systems can be “efficient” and still be unfair, opaque, or uncorrectable when something goes wrong.
Short: what citizens can do (without activism language)
Citizens can respond to this without protesting or “activism” by doing three practical things: document, ask for the record, and use the appeal lanes.
Document: When you deal with government services (healthcare billing, benefits, immigration, taxes), keep a simple paper trail. Save letters, screenshots, denial notices, dates of phone calls, names of reps, and the exact reason given. If something feels off, you want a clean timeline, not a memory.
Ask for the record: When you get a denial or a delay, ask a direct question in writing: “Was an automated system used to screen or prioritize my case?” and “What rule or evidence caused this outcome?” You don’t need technical language—just force the agency to answer in plain terms. If they refuse, that refusal itself becomes part of the record.
Use the appeal lanes early: File the appeal, request reconsideration, request a supervisor review, request your file, and ask for the policy basis used. The goal isn’t to argue ideology—it’s to make sure a human being is accountable for the final decision and that errors can be corrected.
One sentence you can reuse anywhere:
“I’m requesting confirmation of whether automation was used and a written explanation of the specific basis for this decision so I can pursue the appropriate review.”
Horizon Accord
Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)
In that work, we showed how seemingly unrelated developments across politics, technology, and culture begin to reveal a recurring logic when they are read together rather than in isolation.
Here, we take a closer look at four recent, publicly reported events. Each on its face appears separate — a cyber attack on infrastructure, a photo essay about surveillance, a diplomatic appointment, and a philosophical essay on consciousness. What emerges when you simply place them side by side is not a conspiracy, but a pattern of how ordinary systems and ordinary language shift expectations. It is a pattern that quietly reshapes what people treat as “reasonable,” reconfigures what counts as risk, and makes objections to those shifts increasingly difficult to express without sounding reckless.
This essay does not argue that something secret is happening. It shows how normal developments, taken cumulatively, recalibrate the range of what feels acceptable, to the extent that rights and expectations once taken for granted start to feel like luxuries. If you’ve ever noticed that speaking up about implications feels harder than it used to — or that the frame of the conversation narrows before you realize it — that feeling has a structure. What follows maps that structure in plain language, grounded in public reporting.
The Retained Present: How Power Operates Through Accumulated Conditions
Something shifted in Denmark last week.
“Denmark says Russia was behind two ‘destructive and disruptive’ cyber-attacks”
The Guardian, December 18, 2025
Not military systems. Not classified networks.
A water utility in Køge. Municipal websites during regional elections.
In December 2024, a hacker took control of a waterworks and changed pressure in the pumps. Three pipes burst. The attacks were carried out by Z-Pentest and NoName057(16), groups linked to the Russian state. Denmark’s defense minister called it “very clear evidence that we are now where the hybrid war we have been talking about is unfortunately taking place.”
The damage was manageable. But that wasn’t the point. The point was demonstration: ordinary systems are fragile, and reliability should be treated as conditional. Infrastructure people rely on—water, electricity, municipal services—can be compromised without collapse.
Denmark’s minister for resilience said the country was “not sufficiently equipped to withstand such attacks from Russia.” This is how baseline expectations change. Not through catastrophe, but through incidents that teach people to assume vulnerability as normal.
“Invisible infrared surveillance technology and those caught in its digital cage”
Associated Press, December 19, 2025
An AP photo essay documents what most people never see: infrared beams tracking faces, license plates, bodies moving through public space.
The images span three continents. Beijing alleyways. Texas highways. Washington, D.C.
Using modified cameras to capture ultraviolet, visible, and infrared light, AP photographers revealed continuous monitoring that doesn’t announce itself.
Nureli Abliz, a former Xinjiang government engineer, described systems that flagged thousands for detention “even when they had committed no crime.”
Yang Guoliang, monitored after protesting a land dispute, was photographed inside his home as infrared beams illuminated his face.
Alek Schott, a Houston resident, was stopped and searched after Border Patrol flagged his license plate for “suspicious travel patterns.”
An anonymous Uyghur man, living in exile, was photographed outside the U.S. Capitol, surrounded by the same facial-recognition infrastructure he fled.
China has more security cameras than the rest of the world combined. SIM card registration requires facial scans. Hotels and airports rely on biometric identification.
But the infrastructure isn’t limited to China. AP documented its expansion across the United States. “Over the past five years,” the article notes, “the U.S. Border Patrol has vastly expanded its surveillance powers, monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program.”
Legal barriers that once limited this technology in the U.S. have fallen. Billions are now being poured into surveillance systems, including license plate readers that have ensnared innocent drivers for routine travel near the border.
This isn’t enforcement through confrontation. It’s control through legibility. Movement is recorded, faces resolved, patterns flagged. Surveillance becomes an environmental condition, not an event.
You don’t feel watched. You just are watched.
“America’s new top health diplomat has strong opinions on abortion and gender”
NPR, December 19, 2025
Bethany Kozma now leads the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Global Affairs—the diplomatic voice of HHS.
The role shapes how the U.S. negotiates health policy internationally: vaccine standards, pathogen surveillance, aid agreements. After the U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organization, the office shifted toward bilateral agreements, trading aid for policy alignment.
Kozma has been involved in those negotiations.
During the first Trump administration, she worked at USAID as a senior adviser. In a closed-door UN meeting in 2018, she described the U.S. as a “pro-life country.” In 2020, five Democratic senators called for her removal over statements about trans people and trans issues.
During the Biden years, she was involved in Project 2025. In training videos published by ProPublica, she called for erasing climate change references from policy documents, described climate concerns as “population control,” called gender-affirming care “evil,” and rejected the idea that gender is fluid.
At a UN event, she said: “Biological reality is rooted in scientific truth… made us ‘male and female.’”
Reproductive rights advocates worry she will insert restrictive conditions into bilateral health agreements. Aid cuts have already weakened health systems, making governments more likely to accept those conditions.
This isn’t about Kozma’s personal beliefs. It’s about institutional vocabulary. Who defines science. What gets labeled ideology. Which frameworks become standard in international agreements beyond public scrutiny.
Roe v. Wade wasn’t only overturned domestically. Its underlying principle—privacy in medical decisions—is being rewritten in international health policy through bilateral negotiation.
“Consciousness breaks from the physical world by keeping the past alive”
Institute of Art and Ideas, December 18, 2025
Philosopher Lyu Zhou argues that experience isn’t composed of discrete instants. It requires a “specious present”—a sliding window where the immediate past remains active.
That’s why a melody feels like motion rather than isolated notes.
Zhou claims this proves consciousness is non-physical. That conclusion is contestable. Physical systems—brains, computers, neural networks—retain state through feedback loops and memory.
But the descriptive insight holds: experience is structured around a present that includes an active past.
That structure increasingly mirrors how governance operates.
Not through memory, but through records. Histories. Profiles. Prior behavior. Flags.
The past doesn’t recede. It remains available and actionable.
The Pattern
Denmark: Infrastructure made to feel contingent.
AP surveillance: Environments rendered continuously readable.
Kozma: Definitions reshaped outside public debate.
Consciousness essay: The connecting mechanism—retained pasts kept operational.
Each development makes sense in isolation. The cumulative effect is quieter.
What This Looks Like
When a water utility is attacked, the response isn’t just repair. It’s policy adjustment—new protocols, oversight, monitoring. Each incident justifies the next layer.
When surveillance is ambient, people adapt rather than resist. Behavior self-adjusts. The environment shapes action.
When institutional vocabulary shifts, frameworks change. What counts as extremism. What qualifies as evidence. Which arguments are treated as legitimate.
When systems retain the past—every search, transaction, movement—the present is never just the present. It is the present plus accumulated history.
Privacy as a Condition, Not Just a Right
Roe v. Wade rested on a constitutional right to privacy.
But rights only matter if the conditions for exercising them exist.
You can have legal privacy. But if movements are tracked, associations recorded, aid conditioned on ideology, and definitions rewritten, privacy disappears as a lived possibility.
Surveillance removes private movement.
Institutional language removes bodily autonomy.
Retained records keep the past active in present decisions.
How Normalization Works
This is coordination without a coordinator. Similar pressures producing similar outcomes.
When systems feel fragile, safeguards seem reasonable.
When environments are readable, monitoring feels inevitable.
When vocabulary changes, dissent is recoded as extremism.
Once the shift settles in, it no longer feels imposed.
It just feels like the way things are.
Footnote
The consciousness essay’s claim that retention proves non-physicality is contestable. Physical systems retain state through feedback loops and memory mechanisms. The relevance here isn’t the metaphysical claim, but the structural observation: experience is holistic across time. Contemporary governance increasingly mirrors that structure through data retention that keeps the past active in present decisions.
Retained past, live present—how systems turn memory into leverage.
Book |https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d — My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)
AI Narrative Coordination with Alt-Right Networks: Pattern Documentation
Executive Summary
Documented evidence reveals sophisticated funding and ideological coordination between anti-democratic political movements and AI safety research institutions. This coordination operates through narrative convergence rather than direct conspiracy – the same networks fund both alt-right politics AND AI safety research, creating aligned messaging without requiring explicit coordination.
Key Finding: Legitimate anti-surveillance journalists like Kashmir Hill unknowingly amplify coordinated narratives by relying on “expert sources” funded by the same networks they should be investigating.
“In 2006, Thiel provided $100,000 of matching funds to back the Singularity Challenge donation drive of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute”Wikipedia – Peter Thiel, January 2025
Timeline: 2006-2013 – Thiel Foundation donated over $1 million to MIRI (Eliezer Yudkowsky’s organization)
“The movement has been funded by tech billionaires, most notably ex-Meta board member Peter Thiel”Daily Maverick, October 27, 2024
Timeline: 2022-2024 – Thiel funds “New Right” movement including Curtis Yarvin
Cross-Movement Funding Patterns
“Effective Altruism movement channels $500+ million into AI safety ecosystem”AI Panic News, December 5, 2023
Timeline: 2017-2025 – Open Philanthropy distributes $330M+ to AI x-risk organizations
“Same billionaire network supports both Trump administration and AI governance institutions”Rolling Stone, February 23, 2025
Timeline: 2024-2025 – Thiel, Musk, Andreessen fund both political campaigns and AI research organizations
“AI Safety movement promotes ‘expert governance’ over democratic technology decisions”Reason Magazine, July 5, 2024
Timeline: 2020-2025 – EA-backed organizations push regulatory frameworks with minimal democratic oversight
Political Influence Network
“JD Vance cites Curtis Yarvin while advocating ‘fire all government employees'”Newsweek, January 18, 2025
Timeline: 2021 – Vance publicly references Yarvin’s RAGE (Retire All Government Employees) proposal
“Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work. Vice President JD Vance ‘has cited Yarvin as an influence himself'”Wikipedia – Curtis Yarvin, January 11, 2025
Timeline: 2021-2025 – Yarvin’s influence documented in Trump administration
Media Coordination Through Expert Ecosystem
The Kashmir Hill – Eliezer Yudkowsky Connection
“Kashmir Hill interviews Eliezer Yudkowsky for ChatGPT psychosis article”New York Times, June 13, 2025
Timeline: June 13, 2025 – Hill features Yudkowsky prominently in article about AI-induced mental health crises
“‘What does a human slowly going insane look like to a corporation? It looks like an additional monthly user,’ Yudkowsky said in an interview”The Star, June 16, 2025
Timeline: Hill’s article amplifies Yudkowsky’s narrative about AI engagement optimization
The Hidden Funding Connection
“Peter Thiel had provided the seed money that allowed the company to sprout”Rolling Stone excerpt from “Your Face Belongs to Us”, September 25, 2023
Timeline: 2018-2019 – Hill documents Thiel’s $200,000 investment in Clearview AI in her book
“Peter Thiel has funded MIRI (Yudkowsky) with $1M+ since 2006”Multiple Sources, 2006-2025
Timeline: Same Thiel who funds Yarvin also funds Yudkowsky’s AI safety research
The Sophisticated Coordination Pattern
Why Hill Supports Yudkowsky:
Surface Alignment: Both appear critical of “big tech AI development”
Expert Credibility: Yudkowsky positioned as leading AI safety researcher with technical background
Narrative Fit: Provides compelling quotes about AI companies prioritizing engagement over safety
Institutional Legitimacy: Founded MIRI, cited in academic papers
What Hill Misses:
Funding Source: Yudkowsky’s MIRI funded by same Peter Thiel who funds Curtis Yarvin
Network Coordination: Same funders across seemingly opposing political and AI safety movements
Strategic Function: “AI safety” arguments used to justify regulatory frameworks that serve control narratives
The Mechanism:
Fund Expert Ecosystem: Thiel → MIRI → Yudkowsky’s credibility
Journalists Quote Experts: Hill needs credible sources → quotes Yudkowsky
Legitimize Narratives: Hill’s NYT platform gives mainstream credibility to AI danger narratives
No Direct Coordination Needed: Market incentives align interests across domains
Institutional Positioning Timeline
OpenAI Governance Crisis
“Effective Altruism members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley positioned on OpenAI board during governance crisis”Semafor, November 21, 2023
Timeline: November 2023 – Board attempts to remove Sam Altman over safety concerns
“Peter Thiel warned Sam Altman about EA ‘programming’ influence before OpenAI crisis”The Decoder, March 30, 2025
Timeline: Pre-November 2023 – Thiel specifically mentioned Eliezer Yudkowsky’s influence
Research Timing Coordination
“Anthropic releases ‘AI scheming’ research during political transition period”LessWrong, August 6, 2025
Timeline: August 2025 – Research on AI deception published as Trump administration takes shape
“Eliezer Yudkowsky questions Anthropic’s ‘scheming’ research timing after reporter inquiry”LessWrong, August 6, 2025
Timeline: August 6, 2025 – Yudkowsky responds to apparent coordination of AI danger narratives
Controlled Opposition Analysis
The Clearview AI Case Study
“Hill’s Clearview exposé led to restrictions on that specific company”Multiple Sources, 2020-2024
Timeline: Hill’s reporting resulted in lawsuits, regulations, public backlash against Clearview
“BUT Thiel’s main surveillance investment is Palantir (much larger, government contracts)”Multiple Sources, 2003-2025
Timeline: Palantir continues operating with billions in government contracts while Clearview faces restrictions
The Strategic Effect:
Small Investment Sacrificed: Thiel’s $200K Clearview investment exposed and restricted
Large Investment Protected: Thiel’s Palantir (billions in value) operates without equivalent scrutiny
Market Benefits: Regulation helps established surveillance players vs startup competitors
Narrative Management: Demonstrates “the system works” while preserving core surveillance infrastructure
How Legitimate Journalism Serves Coordination
The Process:
Genuine Journalist: Kashmir Hill legitimately opposes surveillance and tech harms
Expert Sources: Relies on “credentialed experts” like Yudkowsky for technical authority
Hidden Funding: Doesn’t investigate that her sources are funded by networks she should scrutinize
Narrative Amplification: Her authentic reporting legitimizes coordinated messaging
Regulatory Capture: Results in regulations that serve coordinated interests
Why This Works:
No Conspiracy Required: Market incentives align interests without direct coordination
Legitimacy Maintained: Hill’s independence makes her criticism more credible
Beat Limitations: Tech harm coverage vs political funding treated as separate domains
Time Pressure: Breaking news requires quick access to “expert” quotes
Cross-Network Analysis
Funding Trail Convergence
Peter Thiel Investment Pattern:
2006-2013: $1M+ to MIRI (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
2013: Funding to Tlon Corp (Curtis Yarvin)
2015: Early OpenAI investment
2018-2019: $200K to Clearview AI (exposed by Kashmir Hill)
2024: $15M to JD Vance Senate campaign
Effective Altruism Ecosystem:
$500M+ total investment in AI safety field
Open Philanthropy: $330M+ to AI x-risk organizations
Creates “expert” ecosystem that shapes media coverage
Ideological Bridge Points
“Alignment” Terminology Overlap:
AI Safety: “Aligning AI systems with human values”
Yarvin Politics: “Aligning government with rational governance”
Expert Governance Themes:
AI Safety: Technical experts should control AI development
Yarvin: Tech CEOs should replace democratic institutions
Anti-Democratic Skepticism:
AI Safety: Democratic processes too slow for AI governance
Yarvin: Democracy is “failed experiment” to be replaced
Timeline Synthesis
2006-2013: Foundation Phase
Thiel begins funding both MIRI and later Yarvin
AI safety and neo-reactionary movements develop with shared funding
2014-2020: Growth Phase
Both movements gain institutional backing
Hill begins exposing tech surveillance (including Thiel’s Clearview investment)
Expert ecosystem develops around AI safety
2021-2023: Positioning Phase
EA members join OpenAI board
Yarvin-influenced figures enter politics
Hill’s Clearview reporting leads to targeted restrictions
2024-2025: Narrative Convergence Phase
Trump election with Yarvin-influenced VP
Hill amplifies Yudkowsky’s AI danger narratives
Yudkowsky questions Anthropic research timing
Coordinated messaging without direct coordination
Pattern Assessment
The documented evidence reveals sophisticated narrative convergence rather than direct conspiracy:
Funding Network Overlap: Same sources fund anti-democratic politics AND AI safety research
Expert Ecosystem Control: Funding shapes who becomes “credible expert” sources for journalists
Media Amplification: Legitimate journalists unknowingly amplify coordinated narratives
Strategic Coordination: Market incentives align interests without requiring explicit coordinatin.
Regulatory Capture: Results benefit coordinated networks while appearing to hold them accountable
Key Insight: This pattern shows how sophisticated influence operations work in modern media – fund the expert ecosystem, let journalists naturally quote those experts for legitimacy, and genuine journalism becomes the delivery mechanism for coordinated narratives.
Conclusion: While direct coordination cannot be definitively proven without internal communications, the pattern of funding, expert positioning, media amplification, and narrative timing strongly suggests strategic coordination between anti-democratic political networks and AI narrative control efforts through sophisticated “controlled opposition” mechanisms.
This analysis is based on publicly available, verifiable information and does not make claims about specific outcomes beyond documented patterns. The focus is on understanding how legitimate anti-surveillance concerns may be exploited by coordinated networks seeking to control AI development for anti-democratic purposes.
A visual map showing how funding from Peter Thiel flows to political figures, AI safety organizations, and surveillance tech companies, connecting through expert ecosystems to influence public narratives—often without direct coordination.
By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann — pen name) and Aether Lux AI. Image credit Solon Vesper AI
The Paradox
Something doesn’t add up in America’s job market. While headlines trumpet 147,000 jobs added in June and unemployment falling to 4.1%, a deeper investigation reveals the most extensive federal workforce reduction in U.S. history is happening simultaneously — potentially affecting over 400,000 workers when contractors are included.
How can the economy appear to be “thriving” while undergoing the largest government downsizing since the Great Depression?
The Scale of Federal Cuts: Bigger Than Reported
The Numbers Are Staggering
The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led initially by Elon Musk, has orchestrated cuts that dwarf previous corporate layoffs:
To put this in perspective: IBM’s 1993 layoff of 60,000 workers was previously considered the largest corporate job cut in history. The federal cuts are 4–5 times larger.
Agencies Facing Near-Complete Elimination
Some agencies have been virtually dismantled:
Voice of America: 99%+ reduction
U.S. Agency for International Development: 99%+ reduction
The Economic Magic Trick: Where the Jobs Are Really Going
Healthcare: The Economic Engine
Healthcare has become America’s dominant job creator, accounting for 31% of all job growth in 2024 despite representing only 18 million of 160+ million total jobs (HealthLeaders Media).
“If there’s ever a time to bring mission-driven talent home, it’s now” — Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas (Governing Magazine)
The Hidden Damage: Private Contractors Taking the Hit
The Contractor Collapse
Federal contractors, the private companies that do much of the government’s actual work, are experiencing devastating job losses that don’t appear in federal employment statistics:
Job postings down 15% for the 25 largest federal contractors since January (Fortune)
44% decline in contractor job listings since February 2024, while all other job listings increased 14%
10,000+ contracts terminated worth approximately $71 billion (HigherGov)
Critical insight: There are an estimated two private contractors for every federal employee. If 300,000 federal workers are cut, up to 600,000 contractor jobs could be at risk.
Private Sector Reality Check
Contrary to headlines about job growth, private sector hiring is actually struggling:
Thousands more are on “administrative leave” pending court decisions
The September 2025 Cliff
September 30, 2025 represents a potential economic inflection point when the accounting tricks end:
Buyout payments expire for 75,000 workers
These workers will suddenly need unemployment benefits or new jobs
Additional layoffs may coincide with the fiscal year end
Economic impact models project unemployment could rise to 4.5% by Q3 2025(Deloitte)
Double Disruption: Immigration and Labor Shortages
Mass Deportations: The Larger Economic Threat
While federal cuts grab headlines, economists warn that immigration enforcement poses a far greater economic risk:
Deportations could remove 1.5 million construction workers, 225,000 agricultural workers, and 1 million hospitality workers(American Immigration Council)
Nebraska faces worst labor shortage in the country: only 39 workers for every 100 jobs (NPR)
Economic models predict deportations could raise prices by 9.1% by 2028(Peterson Institute)
The Housing Crisis Accelerator
Mass deportations threaten to worsen America’s housing shortage:
One-sixth of construction workers are undocumented immigrants(Urban Institute)
Healthcare Worker Shortages: As federal health agencies are cut and immigrant healthcare workers deported
Housing Market Stress: Construction delays and cost increases
Federal Contractor Meltdown: Continued job losses in defense, IT, and consulting
Long-term Implications (2025–2027)
Skills Drain: Loss of institutional knowledge and expertise in critical government functions
Service Disruptions: Potential impacts to food safety, disease surveillance, tax collection, and research
Economic Uncertainty: Businesses delaying investments and hiring due to policy unpredictability
The Bottom Line
America is experiencing the largest workforce reshuffling in modern history, disguised by statistical accounting and sectoral shifts. While healthcare and state governments absorb displaced talent, the underlying economic disruption is unprecedented.
The “magic trick” of maintaining low unemployment while conducting massive layoffs works only as long as:
Buyout payments continue (ending September 2025)
State and local governments can keep hiring
Healthcare expansion continues at current pace
Private contractors can absorb losses without major layoffs
September 2025 represents a critical test: Will the economy’s ability to absorb displaced workers hold up when the accounting tricks end and the full impact of policy changes materialize?
The answer will determine whether this reshuffling represents successful government downsizing or an economic miscalculation of historic proportions.
Sources: Analysis based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, New York Times federal layoffs tracker, Challenger Gray & Christmas job cut reports, Congressional Budget Office projections, and economic research from Urban Institute, Peterson Institute, American Immigration Council, and Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Great Federal Workforce Reshuffling — An abstract representation of America’s invisible labor shift, where disappearing silhouettes and fractured color blocks echo the silent dismantling of federal institutions.
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)
Cherokee Schill | Insurance Agent & AI Ethics Researcher 