By Recordings circulated by data analyst Jennica Pounds have exposed discussions about using an election crisis to challenge the federal government’s legitimacy and pursue sweeping constitutional changes, according to published accounts of the footage. The conversations involve former federal officials and activist organizers preparing for potential confrontations over the midterm elections and federal troop deployments.
The releases, titled “The Democracy Files,” center on Renew to Thrive and Renew American Democracy. Pounds describes those initiatives as connected to a broader United Democracy Alliance, which she alleges coordinates organizations involved in anti-Trump protests, including Indivisible and 50501. The extent of that coordination remains an allegation based on her presentation of the materials.
According to The Post Millennial, Danielle Reiff told a March meeting that she was “foreseeing a crisis of legitimacy around the November election.” She discussed using a disputed election as an opening for constitutional transformation, including a process outside the existing constitutional framework.
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 1: THE PLAN 🚨
I am working on gathering all the documents.
Now, here's something to understand about the "democracy" and protest ecosystem: almost nobody knows the 'grand plan' so to speak. They simply agree to play a role.
For example, 99% of… pic.twitter.com/4YloQIYYzB
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 19, 2026
In another discussion, Paul Zeitz reportedly described preparations to identify red lines, coordinate information during the elections and present governors with options if the federal government were deemed illegitimate. The proposed approach envisioned governors assuming a leading governing role. Participants reportedly discussed circulating the proposal to governors’ offices, although their statements do not establish that any governor agreed to implement it.
Commentator Joe Oltmann sharply criticized the discussions in an October 20 post responding to Pounds’ releases. He argued that organizers were establishing their own conditions for rejecting federal authority while presenting the effort as a defense of democracy.
“They are building the excuse before the event even happens,” Oltmann wrote. “They coordinate the protests, they decide in advance which government response crosses their line, and then they hold that response up as proof the whole government is illegitimate and the governors should take over.”
Oltmann also challenged the political neutrality of National Security Leaders for America, an organization Pounds identifies as involved in the network. The group describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition of more than 1,600 former senior military, diplomatic and national-security officials. Its founder and president, retired Rear Adm. Michael E. Smith, was among the signatories of a 2024 statement supporting Kamala Harris for president and most of his organization’s work reeks of paranoia aimed more at delegitimizing a GOP victory than defending the country.
🚨 THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 4: YES, MANY ARE AWARE OF THE GOALS 🚨
This one is a thread because there are multiple materials.
On January 15, 2026, Renew American Democracy (RAD), the strategy built around the Democracy Renewal Group's (DRG) ex-USAID… pic.twitter.com/vPqJNHQLI8
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 21, 2026
Some of the preparations described in the releases are documented in the organizers’ own public communications. An August newsletter by Reiff and Zeitz described a July gathering with election organizers from Serbia, Slovakia, Guatemala and Brazil to discuss tactics American groups could use. Those included election observation, coordination among lawyers and activists, outreach to business and religious leaders, and efforts to counter anticipated misinformation.
The newsletter also emphasized the relationship between demonstrations and institutional action, promoted training in lawful, nonviolent noncooperation, and announced a forum on constitutional reform. Pounds argues that the combination resembles overseas color-revolution campaigns, with election disputes becoming the catalyst for a broader challenge to governing authority. That comparison is her interpretation; the international consultations alone do not establish a foreign-directed operation.
National Security Leaders for America has separately published a toolkit for potential military intervention in the midterms. It recommends that local officials prepare coordinated legal, law-enforcement and communications responses to possible deployments under the Insurrection Act or following allegations of a foreign attack on voting systems. The organization describes the guidance as contingency planning to protect voters and ballots, rather than a prediction that either scenario will occur.
The distinction between those public preparations and the constitutional changes discussed in the recordings remains central to the controversy. The materials reviewed do not establish that governors accepted a plan to displace federal authority, and the full recording archive has not been independently authenticated in the reporting reviewed. Oltmann nevertheless called for the named organizers to release the complete record and answer questions publicly.
“Admiral Smith, Ms. Reiff, Dr. Zeitz… release every recording in full and explain to the American people, under oath, exactly what you were planning for the day after,” he wrote.
The organizers describe their work as “defending democracy,” much like Democrats who have used that phrase to justify a crackdown on political opponents. Their discussions about declaring Washington illegitimate raise a fundamental question about who they believe has the authority to decide when an elected government no longer deserves to govern.
[READ MORE: What They Found In Ilhan Omar’s Wine Barrels Sparked Investigation]
