The Machinery Is Being Built: What Eight Days in February Revealed About November 2026

 

[This essay condenses findings from a 37-page report documenting Trump administration activity February 2-10, 2026, with comprehensive sourcing.  Full report available here]

On February 2, President Trump said Republicans should "nationalize" elections and "take over" voting in "15 different places." Six days later, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responded: "What Donald Trump wants to do is try to nationalize the election. Translation: steal it."

Elite consensus now openly acknowledges the stakes. If you've been trying to follow the news and feeling like the pieces don't quite add up to adequate response—this is why. The question is whether we can see the whole picture clearly enough, quickly enough, to respond before the window closes.

The Problem We Face

Here's what makes this moment different from the daily chaos of Trump 1.0: mainstream media covers the pieces  with varying degrees of (in)accuracy, but more importantly they are covered and interpreted separately. Immigration reporters cover ICE expansion. Election reporters cover voter roll litigation. Investigative teams document detention facility construction. Each story appears in its own section, its own day, its own frame.

This fragmentation isn't accidental—it's structural. And it may serve consolidation of authoritarian power by preventing us from seeing what's actually being built: integrated infrastructure across three domains, all converging on a single November Elections 2026 deadline.

I wrote this to explain why the daily news feels increasingly fragmented, as if incapable of or unwilling to report what many of us can see happening in real time; and why institutions seem unable to respond to it adequately. I integrated just eight days of coverage across different beats in a report this week, and a systematic picture emerged that no single outlet I'm aware of has presented to the public.

Though I've written about this problem before here, the stakes are now much higher. The integrated operations of the Trump administration are outpacing institutional capacity to respond in the decisive months between now and the election. What follows is documentation of what eight days in early Feb. revealed.

 

What Eight Days Revealed

Between February 2 and 10, three systems advanced simultaneously:

Operational Capacity: WIRED published leaked documents showing ICE and Border Patrol securing 150+ new field office locations across nearly every state. Not temporary surge capacity—multi-year leases establishing permanent presence near schools, medical facilities, places of worship. Detention capacity expanding to 150,000 beds (five times current levels), with warehouse-scale facilities under construction. Personnel doubled from 11,000 to 22,000+ agents. All funded through $75-80 billion in multi-year appropriations independent of annual budgets—meaning shutdown threats are theater that affects TSA and FEMA but leaves enforcement fully operational.

Voter Suppression Systems: DOJ demanding complete voter rolls from all 50 states, including Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, email addresses, phone numbers, party registration, and voting history. Three federal judges ruled against DOJ in four days (Oregon, California, Michigan), with judges explicitly questioning DOJ's trustworthiness. Meanwhile, Palantir's $60+ million system integrates voter data with Medicaid/SNAP databases, DMV records, and facial recognition into "confidence scores" for bulk deportation processing. And Reuters reported ICE maintains a surveillance database tracking 655+ individuals prosecuted for observing immigration operations—a pre-election target list of civically engaged activists.

Institutional Constraint Neutralization: Fifth Circuit eliminated bond hearings for broad categories of detainees (mandatory indefinite detention). A Biden-appointed judge struck down California's ban on masked immigration enforcement. Congress questioned agency heads while Tom Homan—the actual operational commander—was absent, running enforcement from the White House as unconfirmed advisor bypassing normal oversight.

The Rosetta Stone

How do we know these aren't separate controversies occurring simultaneously? Because Attorney General Pam Bondi told us.

Her January 24 letter to Minnesota Governor Walz explicitly demanded three things as conditions for considering operational changes in Minneapolis: complete voter registration rolls, all Medicaid and SNAP recipient data, and state law enforcement cooperation with ICE.

This is documentary proof. Not interpretation—proof cited by federal judges as evidence DOJ "could [no longer] be taken at its word" and seeks to "abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots."

Immigration enforcement creates leverage for data extraction. Data extraction enables voter identification and intimidation. Operational capacity enables removal. All converging on November.

The Timeline Is Arithmetic, Not Rhetoric

All systems operational by November 2026. That's not hyperbole—it's construction timelines:

• ICE office leases being signed now on multi-year terms

• Detention warehouses have summer completion targets

• Hiring surges ongoing

• Voter roll litigation will extend months past deadline regardless of outcome

The infrastructure will be operational for the midterm election whether or not courts rule favorably or Congress passes restrictions. This isn't about legal permission—it's about physical capacity becoming reality while opposition negotiates over guardrails.

Why Institutions Seem Unable to Respond

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, asked about threats against officers: "Let me send a message to anyone who thinks they can intimidate us: You will fail. We are only getting started."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, same day: "The clock is ticking for Republicans to negotiate seriously with Democrats to rein in ICE."

Two parallel realities. Schumer negotiates over masks, warrants, body cameras. Lyons announces operations are escalating. Democrats propose legislation requiring Trump's signature. Republicans fund enforcement independently for multiple years. Democratic timelines unfold over months. Enforcement operates daily.

The tempo mismatch appears decisive. And it's not just tempo—it's fragmentation. Only three states (New York, Massachusetts, Maine) have enacted coordinated restrictions on ICE cooperation. If that expanded to 10-15 states acting simultaneously, the operational friction would multiply significantly. But sequential resistance allows operations to shift to less-resistant jurisdictions. Coordinated multi-state action could -- potentially-- overwhelm federal administrative capacity to adjust.

That's not happening.

What Scholars Are Saying

In December 2025, Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way, and Daniel Ziblatt—authors of How Democracies Die—published "The Price of American Authoritarianism" in Foreign Affairs. Their assessment: the United States has crossed the threshold from democracy to competitive authoritarianism—a system where elections are held and opposition operates, but the playing field is systematically tilted through state institutions.

What we may be witnessing now is the consolidation phase: infrastructure build-out that makes the regime type change irreversible. Whether consolidation locks in, they wrote, depends on "how citizens and institutions respond in coming months."

Nine months remain. The machinery is being built. The question is whether we can integrate understanding and coordinate operationally fast enough to disrupt construction before the system becomes operational.

Why This Matters

If the news seems to fragment into disconnected outrages that somehow don't add up to adequate response, that fragmentation is real and structural. Seeing it clearly, together, refusing to accept the fragmentation even when our institutions can't—that matters. Not because it guarantees we can stop what's being built, but because witnessing together while there's still time is what we owe each other and the future.

This is for the record. For future understanding of how consolidation succeeded or failed despite being visible to anyone willing to integrate the evidence. And for the possibility, however small, that someone positioned to disrupt construction gains the clarity needed to act.

Nine months remain. The machinery is being built. What emerges will be determined not by what public negotiations promise, but by what operational infrastructure accomplishes—and whether enough of us see clearly enough, quickly enough, to disrupt construction before it's complete. We can't know if that's possible. But we can refuse to look away. That's what we owe each other, and everyone who comes after.

---

Key Sources:

• Levitsky, Way & Ziblatt, "The Price of American Authoritarianism," Foreign Affairs, December 2025

• Bondi letter to Governor Walz, January 24, 2026: Minnesota SOS

• WIRED: "ICE Is Expanding Across the US at Breakneck Speed", February 10, 2026

• Reuters: "ICE is cracking down on people who follow them", February 10, 2026

• Oregon v. DOJ, California v. DOJ, Michigan v. DOJ (February 7-10, 2026): Federal court rulings blocking voter roll demands

• House Homeland Security Committee hearing, February 10, 2026 (Lyons testimony)

   [Comprehensive bibliography follows full report here] 

A MAGA politician has a mini-epiphany - "wow"

The Hill writes:

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said Monday she now understands “what the big deal is” after reviewing unredacted files tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“I’ve not been one of the members who has glommed on to this as an issue,” Lummis said in an interview with journalist Pablo Manríquez. “I’ve sort of intentionally deferred to others to find out about it. But 9-year-old victims … wow.”

“I’ve sort of intentionally deferred to others to find out about it. But 9-year-old victims … wow. Well, initially, my reaction to all this was, ‘I don’t care. I don’t know what the big deal is.’ But now I see what the big deal is, and it was worth investigating,” she added. “And the members of Congress that have been pushing this were not wrong. So that’s really my only reaction.”

Her initial reaction was ‘I don’t care’. Her only reactions are “wow” and that people in congress wanting to investigate weren’t wrong. Wonderful. That's blistering, over the horizon insight and analysis. /s 

This is a candid glimpse into the mind of the standard-issue congressional MAGA Republican. Lummis represents classic MAGA incompetence coupled plus classic callousness, apathy, stupidity, and Dog only knows what other moral horrors lurk in her black MAGA character.

Q: Is it over the top or simply wrong to harshly criticize Lummis and all other congressional MAGA Republicans like this? If there are exceptions, who are they? 

Analysis of political polarization in the US

A recent research paper, A new measure of issue polarization using k-means clustering: US trends 1988–2024 and predictors of polarization across the world, describes results researchers got from trying to measure political polarization over time and across countries. Trying to assess political polarization has been messy and error-prone. This paper describes the use of a data collection and analysis method they call k-means clustering (KMC). KMC appears to afford a better way to assess what issues are dividing Americans so bitterly and thus threatening our democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.

In this paper, scientists tracked polarization over time and compared it across countries. Instead of relying on whether people call themselves "liberal" or "conservative," or "Democrat" or "Republican," the researchers used KMC, a computer algorithm. The algorithm looks at how people actually answer a wide range of policy questions, then sorts them into groups of like-minded people from the ground up, without any named political labels. Polarization was measured by separation (how far apart groups are in their views), cohesion (how much people within each group agree with one another), and size (groups sizes compared). That is new in analysis of political polarization. Clusters of issues were assessed in the groups, e.g., abortion, gun control, immigration, gender roles, social values, etc.

The results are interesting. First, KMC analysis found polarization increased in the USA from 1988 to 2024, driven almost completely by a period of rising separation between clusters of beliefs from 2008 to 2020. Data from across the world indicated that mass issue polarization is driven primarily by disagreement over cultural issues, but that varied according to each nation's Human Development Index (HDI), a measure of health (life expectancy at birth), education level (years of schooling) and standard of living (income). Since 1988, the US has been more highly polarized compared to high HDI countries.

Most of the increasing polarization came from the groups moving farther apart from each other on issues. not from people in each group becoming more uniform, or from one side growing much larger than the other.

Data analysis indicated that people's opinions become more "packaged" or clustered. In 1988, someone with right-leaning views on the economy didn't necessarily oppose abortion. Today, positions on different issues increasingly go together in a bundle. If you know someone's view on one topic, you can more reliably guess their views on many others. Interestingly, data analysis also indicated that some of American society was liberalizing, with the left-leaning cluster being significantly more socially liberal in 2024 than in 1988, while the right-leaning cluster was rather stable becoming only slightly more conservative.

What that data and analysis does not capture is radicalization of the right-leaning cluster. It is only slightly more conservative on the issues analyzed, immigration, taxes, gun regulations, social spending, etc. But support for radical right authoritarianism, e.g., supporting strong leaders breaking laws to set things right, or loss of respect for democratic norms and institutions, is a different political dimension than what this research paper analyzed. 

In other words, many or most conservatives (about half the country) generally hold about the same policy views they held in 2008 (abortion probably being an exception), but became more authoritarian in how they believe those policies should be implemented (another link). Meanwhile, about half of the US, more or less liberalized and retained their support for democracy and the rule of law.

A consciousness science update

A current SciAm article, Why consciousness is the hardest problem in science, summarizes the state of the art. In a nutshell, it's stuck. There are 29 theories but we don't have technology that's sophisticated and sensitive enough to detect enough in the staggering complexity of normal brain activity. We can't tell one theory from the other. Some of the theories are backed by no experimental evidence. A unifying experimental observation and consensus belief is that, whatever it is, consciousness is very complex and is grounded in diffuse brain activity. It can't yet be pinned down to small parts of the brain.

 

Two of the leading theories are the global workspace theory (GWT) and the integrated information theory (IIT, mentioned below).

Current thinking is that consciousness has three dimensions, all of which vary in a range of states from full off to on. The dimensions are described in the image below.

Philosophers and scientists still struggle to simply define consciousness without falling back on what it feels like to experience something. Philosophers call that “definition by pointing.” There is a way to measure an approximate degree of consciousness that expert consensus believes is real and clinically useful. The measure is called the perturbational complexity index or PCI. PCI is a crude measure of consciousness, but it reliably estimates someone’s status on the spectrum of consciousness. The SciAm article describes PCI like this:

It suggests that complexity is an important part of a conscious brain. In an awake or dreaming brain, diverse networks of neurons are in constant back-and-forth communication with one another. In this way, conscious brain activity is both differentiated (or rich in information) and integrated (forming one unified whole)—principles that Massimini borrowed from IIT, the theory that doesn’t begin with the brain. These interactions build up complexity, or what IIT theorists call a “cause-effect structure,” so that when you stimulate one part of a conscious brain, other parts respond.

But during dreamless sleep or when someone is under anesthesia, all that communication goes away. “Everything collapses,” Massimini says. “The cathedral falls apart.” Slow brain waves travel across the cortex as neurons cycle rhythmically between two electric states. In the “silent periods” between the waves, neurons enter what’s called a down state, in which they can’t respond to electric signals from their neighbors. This state is why there’s silence when you stimulate an unconscious brain with TMS: “No feedback, no unity, no complexity,” he says.

The SciAm article mentions the hostility that mainstream science still has for possible non-materialist explanations because that drifts into spiritualism/religion. After a massive study to failed to prove or disprove the leading IIT and GWT theories, some scientists got very upset. They publicly called IIT pseudoscience because they believed IIT strayed from materialism into dualism (spirituality or religion). SciAm writes:

 

An open letter calling IIT pseudoscience was published online in September 2023, signed by 124 researchers in or adjacent to the field. The argument focused less on the theory than on its coverage in the media, which the letter’s authors saw as credulous. The authors also took issue with the panpsychist implications of IIT, highlighting descriptions of it as unscientific and “magicalist.” “These bold claims threaten to delegitimize the scientific study of consciousness,” many of the authors wrote in a follow-up article.

The prospect that the field could lose its legitimacy hung over the fight. One side feared IIT’s reputation would drag consciousness science even further toward the fringes, and the other worried that publicly tarring one theory with a “pseudoscience” label would lead to the downfall of the entire field.

What a mess. Scientists still cannot even entertain the possibility of a partial non-physical or immaterial explanation for consciousness without the whole field getting in an uproar. Of course, the press, being the sensationalist, for profit beast it is, one can see why scientists worry about how the science related to IIT will be misunderstood and abused. 

The problem is that there could still be material things we know nothing about, can't even detect yet, that could be a part of consciousness. It is still possible that the immaterial has nothing to do with spirituality or religion, but is something still beyond our ability to detect and understand.

This tension between the immaterial (religious, spiritual) and the material does not seem likely to go away in the near term. We're stuck with it.