Is Trump preparing for global collapse? (even if he doesn’t realise it)

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO
From: Strategic Futures Group
To: National Policy Council
Subject: Strategic Ambiguity in Collapse-Contingency Policy Implementation
Date: April 1st, 2025

Summary:
This memo outlines the rationale for maintaining strict narrative control over the United States’ long-range policy measures that align with systemic collapse-preparedness. The intention is not to deny the biophysical limits or geopolitical volatility threatening global stability, but to emphasize the existential need for public and international secrecy regarding the real purpose behind current U.S. policy directions.

Background:
The global economic system is exhibiting clear signs of overshoot: accelerating climate disruption, energy and mineral scarcity, fragile supply chains, sovereign debt stress, and demographic imbalance. These align with the framework of systemic decline outlined in analyses such as Breaking Together and internal scenario planning (e.g., NSC Deep Shock, DHS Cascadia). While the public narrative continues to project resilience and normalcy, the policy portfolio increasingly reflects quiet adaptation to the prospect of multipolar collapse and biospheric contraction.

Policy Alignment with Contingency Strategy:
Recent and ongoing actions—industrial reshoring (CHIPS Act, IRA), border securitization, Arctic and mineral acquisition strategies (e.g., Greenland overtures), strategic immigration reform, and selective science discrediting—should be understood as part of a coherent contingency plan for national survivability and long-term positioning post-globalization.

Risks of Disclosure:
An open admission of systemic collapse would have cascading destabilizing effects:

• Public Panic: Loss of faith in the currency, food systems, infrastructure, and governance would likely trigger mass migration, hoarding, and civic breakdown.
• Economic Unravelling: Financial markets, especially those based on speculative growth, rely on the assumption of continuity. Collapse acknowledgment would collapse valuation models.
• Geopolitical Instability: Rivals would interpret any retreat from global leadership as weakness and move to secure regional hegemony or resource advantage ahead of U.S. readiness.
• Ally Fragmentation: Perception that the U.S. is preparing to abandon global stewardship could drive allies toward alternative blocs or non-alignment.

Strategic Recommendation:
Maintain strategic ambiguity around collapse-preparedness measures. Policies must continue to be framed in terms of:

• Security: Border and military actions justified by threats (e.g., terrorism, fentanyl).
• Competitiveness: Industrial policy as economic nationalism.
• Innovation: Domestic autonomy cloaked in tech and clean energy narratives.
• Decentralization: Civic resilience positioned as freedom and self-reliance.

Wherever possible, dual-use policies should be advanced that serve immediate political goals while quietly building systemic resilience (e.g., modular energy, food independence, controlled internal migration).

Next Steps:

• Develop consistent public messaging playbooks for high-visibility policies.
• Strengthen counter-disinformation units to pre-empt narratives linking U.S. strategy to global collapse theory.
• Maintain channels for quiet cooperation with key allies under the guise of “supply chain coordination.”

---

Prepared by:
S.F.G. / Strategic Futures Group, April 1st 2025
Classified Level: EYES ONLY

—

Hello, this is Jem Bendell writing. What you have just read is a fake memo. ChatGPT produced it after my prompting – although it suggested the creation of a pretend confidential security briefing (I added “April 1st”). I am sharing it here, along with the full thread of conversation, because I want to highlight the following:

• the policies of many governments do not appear to make sense, while we are encouraged to be disdainful of our fellow citizens and scared of foreign nations in ways that reduce our analysis of what might be occurring and the potential ways of responding;
• the full reality of biosphere destruction, climate destabilisation, unsustainable disease burden, and a broken economic and monetary model, are being hidden from the public worldwide, with it still being a taboo subject in mass media to discuss societal collapse due to those factors;
• for years some experts in the security services, military strategists and hedge funds have all known about likely societal breakdowns, and so leaving strategic discussion to them, rather than civil society, is inherently dangerous, as I explained years ago;
• politicians and senior bureaucrats might be ‘in the dark’ on the extent of the ‘metacrisis’ and could therefore be manipulated by people who have developed a strategy for how to respond to unfolding global collapse, even if a shortsighted or counter-productive approach;
• we need to keep articulating the fact of a creeping collapse of industrial consumer societies, so more people have the opportunity to process their anxieties together and develop local, national and international responses to reduce harm – including politicians;
• whatever the real agendas that might be motivating the people behind the politicians, rather than fall out with each other on the issues pushed at us by elites, or using our time to cheer for one elite group against another, we can re-commit to reclaiming power in our own lives, locally, regionally and beyond. That can involve the type of initiatives I’ve described in Breaking Together and on this blog in recent weeks (e.g. Dave Derby on building the commons, Malika Virah-Sawmy on local solidarity economies with a decolonial sentiment, and Skeena Rathor on new-yet-ancient identities of self and wider nature).

I thank Peter Dawes for prompting me to reflect on potentially hidden government strategies. He responded to my blog, when I wrote about how US policies can be understood as ways to shore up US imperial power by forcing countries to give US Big Tech companies the freedom to monopolistically own their digital territories (therefore the ‘public squares’ and market places) – thereby being able to manipulate the public and extract wealth in a new ‘technofeudal’ age. He asked me to consider whether the truth was, instead, or in addition, that they understood the ‘metacrisis’ and were attempting to insulate the US from some of its effects.

Subscribe / Support / Study / Essays

The full thread with ChatGPT is here, and the highlights are below….

Jem’s Prompt: As a thought experiment, assume that Trump policies to reindustrialise USA, secure the minerals, energy and future sea routes from Canada and Greenland, offer purchased citizenship, and build a southern border barrier, and publicly dismiss all science on climate, is part of a strategy to prepare for the collapse of more economies and societies around the world, due to the world economy breaching the biophysical and other limits, as outlined in Breaking Together. What other US policies are being adopted or considered that align with that strategy? What other policies could be imagined, based on that strategy?

ChatGPT said:

This is a compelling thought experiment—treating Trump’s and similar nationalist policies not as short-sighted denialism, but as preparations for systemic collapse due to overshoot, as discussed in Breaking Together. If we interpret the policies through that lens—as realist positioning for a harsher, post-globalized world—then certain other U.S. policies make more sense, and additional ones can be anticipated.

Policies Already Adopted or Considered That Align with Collapse Preparation

1. Reshoring of Manufacturing and Critical Supply Chains
   • CHIPS and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act: Designed to rebuild domestic capacity for semiconductors, clean energy tech, and pharma.
   • Strategic in securing autonomy from global supply chains vulnerable to climate, conflict, or collapse.
2. Militarisation of Space and Cyber Capabilities
   • Establishment of the U.S. Space Force, increasing cyber-warfare budgets.
   • Reflects the need to dominate in new strategic domains as conventional conflict becomes less predictable.
3. Decoupling from China
   • Tariffs, investment restrictions, tech bans (e.g., on TikTok or Huawei).
   • Recognition that globalization with geopolitical rivals is unsustainable; collapse-aware positioning.
4. Food System Consolidation and Ag-Tech Investment
   • Support for precision agriculture, lab-grown meat, etc.
   • Prepares for global agricultural instability, aiming for food security in a resource-stressed future.
5. Strengthening Domestic Policing and Surveillance
   • Increased funding for ICE, DHS, and militarization of local police.
   • Anticipates civil unrest as economic and ecological stresses mount.
6. Permitting Reforms to Accelerate Energy Projects
   • Easing environmental review processes for energy infrastructure.
   • Suggests urgency in securing domestic energy flows for a post-globalized world.

---

Policies That Could Be Imagined Based on This Strategy

1. Mandatory National Service (Civil or Military)
   • Used for infrastructure repair, disaster response, or border control.
   • Prepares a young population for crisis response and instills collective discipline.
2. Water and Land Nationalization Measures
   • As freshwater becomes critical, federal control over major aquifers and watersheds could be expanded.
3. Tiered Citizenship or Internal Migration Controls
   • If climate migration becomes internal (e.g., from the Southwest), policies might restrict resettlement or give priority access to resources based on loyalty, work, or merit.
4. Digital Rationing or Resource Management Systems
   • A controlled economy during crises, possibly through tokenized or blockchain-based rationing systems for fuel, water, food.
5. Climate Engineering Projects
   • Despite public denial, the government could secretly fund geoengineering (e.g., solar radiation management) to preserve US agricultural output or strategic regions.
6. Disaster-Ready Urban Design
   • Investment in fortress cities or hardened infrastructure, especially in regions of strategic value (Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest).
7. Subsidies for Private Bunkers, Homesteading, and Off-Grid Living
   • To decentralize populations and reduce urban unrest, policies might encourage a neo-pioneer ethic.
8. Strategic Immigration Programs
   • Similar to “purchased citizenship,” but targeted at high-skill, high-loyalty migrants from collapse-prone countries to strengthen the U.S. knowledge base.

---

Underlying Logic of These Policies (in a Collapse-Framed Strategy)

• Security over Sustainability: Prioritize control, access, and autonomy rather than idealistic cooperation or ecological harmony.
• Triaging the World: Allow failing systems to collapse while securing the core (North America, key allies).
• Collapse as Opportunity: Economic nationalism, resource grabs, and civilizational cohesion become a competitive advantage in the disintegration of global norms.

This approach doesn’t require belief in climate science per se—it only requires belief in other countries failing first. Which is compatible with a public stance of denial, while privately preparing for scarcity, chaos, and ecological limits.

Jem’s Prompt: Explain why this (hypothesised) collapse-preparedness logic behind such a policy agenda would need to be kept secret, both from domestic and international audiences.

ChatGPT said:

The logic behind a collapse-preparedness strategy, if real, would almost certainly need to be kept secret for both domestic and international reasons—chiefly to maintain order, avoid panic, and retain strategic advantage.

---

Domestic Secrecy: Maintaining Legitimacy and Stability

1. Preventing Public Panic and Economic Collapse
   • If the government openly admitted that global systems are on a trajectory toward collapse, consumer confidence would plummet, financial markets could crash, and social cohesion might break down.
   • The entire structure of democratic capitalism is built on the narrative of progress and resilience. Collapse prep undermines that story.
2. Preserving Political Credibility
   • Leaders would be accused of defeatism, fearmongering, or totalitarianism.
   • Collapse-preparation involves authoritarian tools (e.g., surveillance, border walls, rationing) that would be rejected by the electorate unless framed as responses to immediate threats, not long-term system failure.
3. Avoiding Widespread Civil Disobedience
   • Acknowledging collapse could legitimize pre-emptive resistance or withdrawal from civic responsibilities: tax refusal, hoarding, separatism, or radical localism.
4. Preventing Loss of Faith in Institutions
   • Governments, science, and law would be viewed as complicit in the long decline, sparking generational rage and potentially revolutionary sentiment.
   • Especially damaging in a society that relies on large-scale systems to deliver food, fuel, water, and healthcare.

---

International Secrecy: Preserving Strategic Position and Global Influence

1. Avoiding Acceleration of Collapse Elsewhere
   • If powerful nations admitted the system is collapsing, it could trigger resource grabs, financial decoupling, or mass migration before the U.S. is ready to enforce its borders or secure supply chains.
2. Maintaining the Dollar System and Global Trade
   • The U.S. benefits from the reserve currency and a global market that still prices risk as if the future will be mostly stable.
   • Revealing collapse expectations could destroy trust in U.S. debt, global trade networks, and the dollar itself.
3. Preventing Geopolitical Rivals from Adopting Similar Strategies First
   • Keeping the true motives hidden allows the U.S. to move first—quietly seizing resources, reshoring industries, and building defenses without provoking symmetrical responses from China, Russia, or the EU.
4. Managing Alliances and Client States
   • Allies must believe in the continuity of U.S. leadership. If the U.S. appears to be circling the wagons, smaller nations might hedge toward multipolarity, eroding the American sphere of influence.

---

The Messaging Trick: Plausible Deniability

To maintain secrecy while enacting preparations, these policies are often:

• Framed as patriotic renewal (“America First,” job creation, security).
• Justified by surface-level threats (immigration, terrorism, trade deficits).
• Sold as pragmatic realism (“decoupling,” “energy independence,” “supply chain security”).

This allows the public to support the measures without realizing their deeper purpose. It also permits leaders to walk back the policies if needed—collapse prep becomes a Schrödinger’s strategy: real, but deniable.

Would you like a version of this logic turned into a policy advisor-style briefing or internal memo?

[Jem: that is the one you read in the opening of this blogpost]

Jem’s Prompt: What real-world pronouncements from US military specialists, national security specialists, or others connected to government, are aligned with this hypothetical strategy?

ChatGPT said:

​Several real-world pronouncements from U.S. military and national security officials align with the hypothetical strategy of preparing for systemic global challenges by emphasizing domestic resilience and security.​

Climate Change as a National Security Threat

U.S. defense leaders have consistently identified climate change as a significant national security concern:​

• In 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III stated, “Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis. We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does.” ​Defense.gov+1Defense.gov+1
• Retired Navy Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn emphasized, “Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America.” ​American Security Project+1Media Matters for America+1

Reshoring Critical Industries

Efforts to relocate essential manufacturing back to the U.S. have been framed as measures to bolster national security:​

• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick questioned the reliance on foreign production, particularly in Taiwan and China, suggesting that vital electronics could be produced domestically using robotics. ​Business Insider

Supply Chain Resilience

The U.S. has implemented tariffs and trade policies aimed at reducing dependence on foreign supply chains:​

• President Trump’s tariff policies are intended to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit and transform the economy to be more manufacturing-focused, aiming to attract foreign businesses to the U.S. and boost domestic jobs. ​Latest news & breaking headlines

Energy Independence and Security

The Department of Defense has recognized the strategic risks associated with energy dependence:​Media Matters for America

• The Pentagon’s Operational Energy Strategy notes that “the volatility of oil prices will continue to be a budgetary challenge for the Department, and the realities of global oil markets mean a disruption of oil supplies is plausible and increasingly likely in the coming decades.” ​Media Matters for America

These statements and policies reflect a broader strategic approach to enhance U.S. resilience and security in anticipation of potential global instabilities.​

Jem’s Prompt: What are the logical flaws or potential counter productive impacts of such a hypothetical strategy, in terms of the average US citizen, and then, the rest of the world?

ChatGPT said:

​Implementing a strategy focused on preparing for systemic global collapse through policies such as reindustrialization, resource security, strict immigration controls, and public dismissal of climate science carries several logical flaws and potential counterproductive impacts. These effects can be analyzed from the perspectives of the average U.S. citizen and the international community.​

Impacts on the Average U.S. Citizen:

1. Economic Strain from Trade Wars:
   • Increased Consumer Prices: The imposition of tariffs on imports can lead to higher costs for goods, as domestic industries may not be able to produce alternatives efficiently or cheaply. For instance, recent U.S. tariffs prompted retaliatory measures from China, resulting in significant market losses and raising fears of a recession. ​The Guardian
   • Job Market Volatility: While reshoring aims to boost domestic employment, industries reliant on global supply chains may suffer due to increased production costs and reduced export opportunities, potentially leading to job losses.​
2. Erosion of Civil Liberties:
   • Enhanced Surveillance and Policing: Policies emphasizing national security could lead to increased surveillance and militarization of law enforcement, potentially infringing on personal freedoms and privacy.​
   • Social Polarization: Strict immigration controls and nationalist rhetoric may exacerbate societal divisions, fostering discrimination and xenophobia.​
3. Public Health and Environmental Risks:
   • Neglect of Climate Science: Dismissing climate science can hinder efforts to address environmental challenges, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes and increased disaster vulnerability.​
   • Resource Scarcity: Focusing solely on domestic resource extraction without sustainable practices may deplete natural reserves, impacting future generations.​

Impacts on the International Community:

1. Global Economic Disruptions:
   • Trade Instability: Unilateral tariffs and protectionist policies can disrupt international trade, leading to global market volatility. The recent U.S. tariffs resulted in a $2.5 trillion loss on Wall Street and prompted retaliatory measures from multiple countries. ​The Guardian
   • Strained Diplomatic Relations: Aggressive economic policies may sour relationships with allies and trading partners, reducing cooperation on global issues.​
2. Humanitarian Concerns:
   • Impact on Developing Nations: Restrictive immigration policies and reduced foreign aid can exacerbate challenges in developing countries, potentially leading to increased migration pressures and regional instability.​
   • Global Health Collaboration: A nationalist approach may hinder international collaboration on health crises, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting global response effectiveness.​
3. Environmental Consequences:
   • Global Climate Action Stagnation: Publicly dismissing climate science can undermine international efforts to combat climate change, as U.S. leadership is pivotal in global environmental initiatives.​
   • Cross-Border Pollution: Environmental degradation does not respect national borders; neglecting environmental responsibilities can have transboundary effects, impacting neighboring countries.​

Logical Flaws in the Strategy:

• Short-Term Focus: Prioritizing immediate national interests without considering long-term global interdependencies can lead to unsustainable policies.​
• Isolationism vs. Globalization: In an interconnected world, complete self-reliance is impractical. Collaboration is essential for addressing transnational challenges.​
• Scientific Denialism: Ignoring established scientific consensus, especially on issues like climate change, can result in policies that are ineffective or harmful in the long run.​

In summary, while the intent behind such a strategy may be to safeguard national interests in anticipation of global instability, the potential negative repercussions on both domestic well-being and international relations suggest a need for more balanced and cooperative approaches.​

Jem’s Prompt: In what ways might a national strategy based on either Transformative Adaptation (Read) or Deep Adaptation (Bendell) differ in approach, if applied by a US government? Include both a transparent version of the strategy and a clandestine (non public) version.

ChatGPT said:

Implementing a national strategy based on Transformative Adaptation (as advocated by Rupert Read) or Deep Adaptation (as proposed by Jem Bendell) would entail distinct approaches for the U.S. government, depending on whether the strategy is transparent or clandestine.

Transformative Adaptation focuses on proactive systemic changes to address climate change, aiming to reshape societal structures to enhance resilience and sustainability. This approach acknowledges the limitations of current systems and seeks to implement fundamental reforms to better cope with anticipated environmental challenges.​

Deep Adaptation, on the other hand, operates under the premise that societal collapse due to climate change is either likely or inevitable. It emphasizes preparing for and adapting to this collapse by fostering resilience, relinquishment, restoration, and reconciliation. This framework encourages individuals and communities to confront the emotional and practical realities of potential societal breakdown.​Deep Adaptation+3Deep Adaptation+3Living Resilience+3

Transparent Implementation:

1. Transformative Adaptation:
   • Public Engagement: The government openly communicates the necessity for systemic changes, involving citizens in dialogues about transitioning to sustainable practices.​
   • Policy Reforms: Introduction of legislation aimed at overhauling energy infrastructures, promoting renewable resources, and incentivizing sustainable agriculture and transportation.​
   • Education Initiatives: Implementing programs to raise awareness about climate challenges and the benefits of transformative actions.​
   • Economic Restructuring: Investing in green technologies and creating jobs that support a sustainable economy.​
2. Deep Adaptation:
   • Community Resilience Programs: Establishing initiatives that encourage local self-sufficiency, such as community gardens and localized energy production.​
   • Mental Health Support: Providing resources to help citizens cope with the psychological impacts of anticipating societal disruptions.​Deep Adaptation
   • Infrastructure Decentralization: Promoting the development of decentralized systems to reduce reliance on large-scale infrastructures that may be vulnerable to collapse.​
   • Cultural Preservation: Encouraging the revival of traditional practices that emphasize harmony with the environment.​

Clandestine Implementation:

1. Transformative Adaptation:
   • Covert Policy Shifts: Gradually integrating sustainability measures into existing policies without explicit acknowledgment, to avoid public resistance.​
   • Selective Funding: Discreetly allocating resources to research and development of green technologies under the guise of economic innovation.​
   • Strategic Alliances: Forming partnerships with private sectors and international bodies to advance sustainability goals without direct governmental involvement.​
2. Deep Adaptation:
   • Confidential Risk Assessments: Conducting internal evaluations of potential collapse scenarios and formulating contingency plans without public disclosure.​
   • Resource Stockpiling: Secretly accumulating essential supplies and establishing secure facilities to be utilized in the event of societal breakdown.​
   • Selective Information Release: Controlling the dissemination of information regarding environmental risks to manage public perception and prevent panic.​
   • Elite Preparedness Programs: Developing exclusive initiatives aimed at ensuring the survival and continuity of government and key institutions.​

In summary, while Transformative Adaptation seeks to proactively reform societal systems to mitigate climate impacts, Deep Adaptation prepares for the possibility of societal collapse by fostering resilience and acceptance of potential disruptions. The choice between transparent and clandestine implementation would significantly influence public perception, engagement, and the overall effectiveness of the strategies.

Jem’s Prompt: Has any author posted an analysis of US policies as aligned with a covert global collapse-preparedness strategy?

ChatGPT said:

​While explicit analyses of U.S. policies as part of a covert global collapse-preparedness strategy are limited, certain authors and experts have explored related themes:​

• Michael Klare, a professor emeritus of peace and world security studies, has extensively examined U.S. military strategies in the context of resource competition and climate change. In his book “The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources”, Klare discusses how U.S. policies may be driven by the anticipation of resource scarcity, suggesting a form of preparedness for global instability.​
• Christian Parenti, in “Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence”, analyzes how climate change acts as a catalyst for violence and how U.S. foreign policy addresses these emerging threats. While not explicitly framing it as a covert collapse-preparedness strategy, Parenti highlights the intersection of environmental stress and security policies.​
• Jem Bendell, known for his work on Deep Adaptation, has discussed the concept of societal collapse due to environmental factors. Although his focus is more on adaptation at the societal level, his insights contribute to understanding how governments might perceive and prepare for such scenarios.​

These works suggest that while there may not be overt acknowledgment of a covert collapse-preparedness strategy, elements of U.S. policy can be interpreted as aligning with measures that anticipate and prepare for significant global disruptions.​

See the full thread here: https://chatgpt.com/share/67f914e3-4af0-8002-890b-20ecdd60a5c1

Donate to keep Jem writing / Read his book Breaking Together / Ask JemBot a question / Read Jem’s key ideas on collapse / Subscribe to this blog / Study with Jem / Browse his latest posts / Read the Scholars’ Warning / Visit the Deep Adaptation Forum / Receive Jem’s Biannual Bulletin / Receive the Deep Adaptation Review / Watch some of Jem’s talks / Find Emotional Support / Jem’s actual views on Covid