Recognizing the Domestic Use of Irregular Warfare Techniques to Consolidate Executive Power

Introduction 

“Irregular Warfare” (IW) is a U.S. military term for tactics used by state and non-state actors to pressure or persuade populations and decision-makers, shape legitimacy, and wear down an adversary’s will—generally below the threshold of open war. In broader strategic literature, this same sub-threshold space is often called the “gray zone.” Familiar tools in both realms of literature include disinformation, deception, sabotage, economic coercion, and the use of proxies, guerrillas, and covert operations. 

Across that literature runs a recurring sequence: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. The first two erode confidence and capacity; the third—crisis—opens a narrow window when pressure and fatigue converge, allowing rapid moves that harden into the new normal. It is at that hinge that irregular warfare dynamics can migrate from foreign battlefields into U.S domestic governance—where crisis becomes both the means and the cover for the consolidation of executive power without changing a single statute. 

The following tactics are a diagnostic guide, not an endorsement. They describe mechanisms so practitioners can recognize— not replicate them. This guide is generic and nonpartisan; it makes no claims about any actor’s intent or any step’s legality. Individual actions can be lawful even as their combined, repeated use functions as an IW instrument. Many steps are routine on their own; repeated, coordinated, and timed tactics shift incentives in such a way that independence grows costly and alignment feels safe. 

A glossary of IW terms with source citations appears at the end of this guide. 

Section I — Repurposing Institutions to Concentrate Power 

This section lays out how the executive branch can convert the neutral machinery of government into levers of control without changing a single statute. The institutions at issue are: the courts; the Department of Justice (DOJ); the agencies that publish jobs, inflation, and growth numbers; the budget scorekeepers; the central bank; the intelligence community; inspectors general; and the regulatory, grantmaking, procurement, and contracting offices (including guidance writers) that turn rules and money into action. 

The method is systematic: cast doubt on those institutions, refit the bureaucracy to reward loyalty, use law and procedure to determine who faces pressure and who gets protection, turn regulation and money into bargaining chips, and move fast enough that checks arrive after decisions take hold. 

These moves do not unfold in sequence; they operate simultaneously and reinforce each other. Casting doubt on courts and data softens the ground for staffing changes. Staffing changes narrow what leaders see. Legal gatekeeping shapes which cases advance and which stall. Oversight, budgets, and approvals become pressure points. And a steady tempo of crises and churn keeps remedies behind the curve. 

The practical effect is cumulative: independent judgment begins to feel risky, alignment feels safe, and timing and visibility move into political hands. What follows are the concrete ways to achieve this effect 

1. Strike the Institutions that Anchor Legitimacy

Objective: Raise the personal and professional cost of independent judgment across the institutions that anchor public governance—courts, official statistics agencies, the budget scorekeepers, the central bank, and the intelligence community. 

IW Tie-Back: Information operations (narrative shaping) + infiltration of institutions + reflexive control. 

Methods: 

• Set the frame and counterprogram. Say plainly and repeatedly that courts, statistics offices, the budget office, the central bank, and the intelligence community aren’t neutral; make “bias” the backdrop to disputes; question motives; publish “companion analyses” that contradict official methods and metrics. 
• Gate and sandbag data. Require a “data review committee” to clear major statistics or reports; send drafts back for “methods checks”.
• Stage visible reviews. Announce “quality reviews” or audits and hint that officials may be moved—the chill is the message.
• Tag dissent. Use simple labels (“deep state,” “traitor”) that travel fast and stick.
• Control who’s in the room. Limit who can brief so fewer independent voices are heard.
• Manage access. Rotate analysts off sensitive work; rotate or downgrade analysts who won’t mirror the line.
• Throttle recurring indicators. Trim support for the monthly or quarterly measures that generate problematic results, causing delays or cancellations. 

Result: The institutions that produce official facts and independent judgments no longer feel neutral. Warnings arrive later, disputed numbers land softer, and inconvenient findings slide to the margins; inside, staff self-edit, and outside, users of those outputs hedge and delay. Independent calls grow rare; matching leadership’s position becomes the safest default. 

2. Reclassifying the Civil Service to Centralize Control

Objective: Turn the civil service into a loyalty-first workforce by redesigning roles, protections, and hiring so alignment is the safe career choice. 

IW Tie-Back: Infiltration of institutions + coercion. 

Methods: 

• Change terms. Where lawful, convert key posts to easier-to-dismiss status; extend probation; shorten appeal windows.
• Gate hiring. Require a political countersignature for policy-influencing hires.
• Screen in the paperwork. Rewrite job descriptions around “mission alignment,” speed, and communications awareness; build the same filter into onboarding training and assessments 
• Reshape reporting. Merge or split offices so crucial functions report through appointees; put compliance, legal, and communications on one chain.
• Maximize “acting.” Keep key roles provisional within the limits of the Vacancies Act.
• Manage exits and placements. Use buyouts and early retirements to move skeptics out of policy-influencing roles; assign holdouts to long back-office projects while seating aligned staff in the rooms that brief and decide.
• Use timing as leverage. Fast-track preferred candidates; slow-walk others, including clearances and transfers.
• Reassign authority. When removals are messy, shift signature rights and system permissions to aligned roles. 

Result: After a few cycles, people learn the safest path is to match the line. Loyalists apply and advance; skeptics are sidelined. Expertise doesn’t vanish, but it defers—briefings and memos come from teams that share the same view, and the system starts to run on loyalty first. 

3. Gatekeeping the DOJ through Executive Branch Control

Objective: Use law and procedure to control who faces pressure and who gets protection—deciding which cases move, where, and when. 

IW Tie-Back: Lawfare + tempo control. 

Methods: 

• Set priorities. Elevate some case categories; raise the approval bar for others—higher sign-off means fewer cases move.
• Choose forum and timing. File where venue is friendlier; transfer when possible; schedule actions around hearings and news cycles.
• Reshape units. Stand up new teams that report up; consolidate or retire task forces that don’t; reassign their case inventories to reset momentum.
• Control assignments. Put aligned attorneys on charging decisions and courtroom roles; rotate skeptics to training or admin work; decide who signs and argues.
• Raise or lower thresholds. Require extra memos/approvals and “special-matters” panels for disfavored matters; streamline the path for favored ones.
• Use settlements and declinations. Where lawful, resolve matters leniently for allies; pursue full penalties for opponents.
• Gate referrals and disclosures. Require DOJ clearance before agencies refer or announce certain enforcement and keep deliberations in privileged channels to limit disclosures.
• Target visible organizations. Open civil-rights reviews, grant-compliance audits, tax-exempt inquiries, and consumer/antitrust probes of universities, large nonprofits, media/platforms, major contractors/law firms, or state/local agencies; announcements and document demands create public pressure and operational drag. 

Result: Statutes don’t change, but control over approvals, venue, and timing does. Matters that help allies move; matters that threaten them slow, shift venues, or close—over time, pressure concentrates on opponents and protection wraps allies. 

4. Weaponizing Oversight, Regulation and Purse Strings

Objective: Turn rules, budgets, approvals, and enforcement discretion into leverage that rewards alignment and penalizes resistance. 

IW Tie-Back: Economic coercion + lawfare. 

Methods: 

• Pause and densify process. Put grants, permits, and rulemakings on short “reviews,” add impact statements/stakeholder rounds/legal checks, and control the timing of each step.
• Centralize sign-offs. Require an appointee countersignature for major grants, settlements, consent decrees, and enforcement actions.
• Let timing bite. Hold just long enough for application windows to close, matching funds to lapse, construction seasons to pass, or academic years to turn.
• Tilt scorecards. Weight “mission alignment,” “community partnerships,” or “innovation” so allies are already set up to win.
• Pace the money. Release funds quickly for favored programs and slowly—or in small tranches—for others.
• Direct and forbear. Accelerate some enforcement categories and ease penalties or oversight for aligned actors; maintain full pressure on others.
• Shape procurement. Bake behavioral conditions into contracts and eligibility rules; require compliance to bid and renew.
• Stage audits. Launch targeted audits where leverage is sought; the audit’s existence often changes conduct.
• Use timing on appropriations. For money Congress already approved, have OMB release funds in small, timed batches—sometimes with footnotes requiring pre-approvals before agencies obligate; agency budget offices then trickle those batches to bureaus. Late dribs can make one-year funds lapse without a formal denial (“pocket rescission”).
• Reopen baselines. Announce reconsideration of bedrock scientific/legal findings so dependent rules and programs sit in limbo.
• Condition eligibility and clearances. Signal that “enterprise risk”—including representation choices—will weigh in contract eligibility, facility clearances, and special-access reviews. 

Result: Criteria-based approvals turn discretionary and politically conditioned. Money moves for allies and waits for others; for some, rules feel flexible, for others, heavy—the administrative state becomes leverage. 

5. Administrative & Contracting Ratchets

Objective: Build one-way decisions—namely contracts, guidance, and precedents—that are lawful to make and expensive to unwind. 

IW Tie-Back: Ratchet effects + lawfare. 

Methods: 

• Lock in vendors. Sign multi-year contracts with termination fees; lean on unique software or data formats that are costly to replace.
• Bank consent decrees. Resolve disputes with agreements that set durable practices and court-enforced timelines.
• Seed guidance chains. Issue cross-referenced manuals so many processes depend on one central text.
• Shift data standards. Change how information is collected and reported; downstream systems will follow.
• Transfer assets/authority. Move programs, property, or decision rights to entities that are harder to claw back.
• Stage precedents. Time actions to generate favorable rulings; once on the books, they shape future choices.
• Layer approvals. Require multiple sign-offs to reverse a step; more gates mean more time. 

Result: Successors face time, money, and legal friction. Even with will and votes, reversing course means breaking contracts, retooling systems, and litigating against precedent—lock-in without new law. 

6. Controlling Tempo, Churn & Crisis to Lock-In Consolidation of Power

Objective: Use speed, churn, and staged crises to compress decision time so checks and remedies arrive after decisions take effect. 

IW Tie-Back: Tempo control + crisis exploitation + faits accomplis. 

Methods: 

• Keep a crisis rhythm. Sustain multiple “urgent” issues—announcements, investigations, emergency reviews—so watchdogs trail events.
• Compress windows. Issue “effective immediately” directives, Friday-night memos, and short deadlines; run comment periods at the legal minimum.
• Govern by emergency. Invoke emergency authorities where they exist, renew as allowed, and umbrella related moves under one declaration.
• Create faits accomplis. Move first, litigate later: execute reassignments, obligate funds, sign contracts, or shift assets before a stay arrives.
• Play vacancy games. Leave key roles unfilled or “acting”; use temporary delegations so decision-makers remain provisional and dependent.
• Start the IG removal clock. Send the 30-day notice (e.g., “loss of confidence”), place the IG on leave, and name an acting; use the window to redirect audits and staff.
• Engineer churn. Reshuffle leaders, spin up short-lived task forces and “czars,” rename or reorganize offices so procedures never harden into counterweights.
• Project federal presence—push the envelope. Within arguable authority, federalize Guard units or deploy other federal assets; expand protective perimeters; surge DHS/DOJ task forces.
• Flood and fragment oversight. Generate parallel controversies and heavy productions; assert privileges; drip materials in formats that slow review.
• Exploit timing and mootness. Toggle policies or reissue revised directives just before rulings, stack deadlines during recesses/holidays, and reset clocks to blunt review.
• Fast-track procurement. Use emergency and no-bid awards to lock in vendors before oversight reacts.
• Litigate for time. Seek stays and strategic venue changes; pursue appeals that extend timelines even if outcomes are uncertain.
• Narrate urgency. Cast resistance as risky to safety or order so speed sounds responsible and delay looks reckless.
• Erode stamina. Freeze hiring, cut training, and overload key teams so errors rise and capacity to resist falls. 

Result: Decisions take effect first and are reviewed later. Courts, inspectors, and legislators arrive after the fact; opponents are spread thin; what begins as exception becomes habit—and tempo itself, more than any single order, concentrates power. 

Section II — Turning Grievance Into Mobilization 

This section shows how to turn grievance into action by using identity, ritual, and media to rally supporters and chill critics—without changing any law. These moves do not unfold in sequence; they run in parallel and reinforce the institutional levers in Section I. 

1. Loyalty Filtration & Retaliation

Objective: Sort officials and influencers by loyalty and raise the career cost of independence. 

IW Tie-Back: Psychological operations (PSYOP/MISO) +  narrative warfare. 

Methods: 

• Set the baseline. Praise those who stay on message; treat departures as suspect.
• Tag dissent. Use quick labels (“disloyal,” “enemy,” “deep state”) that travel and stick.
• Tie access to alignment. Link briefings, invitations, airtime, and committee roles to message discipline; pull access after visible breaks.
• Gate opportunities. Condition endorsements, fundraising lists, and rally slots on public alignment; publish “watch lists” to steer donor money and volunteer time.
• Signal sanctions. Threaten or deliver demotions, reassignments, clearance delays, or removal after repeated breaks.
• Coordinate allies. Nudge donors, media, and advocacy groups to reward aligned figures and freeze out skeptics.
• Use “reviews” as deterrents. Announce investigations into alleged bias or misconduct; the announcement alone sends the message.
• Offer protection to loyalists. Use pardons, commutations, or public defense to show that loyalty carries insurance. 

Result: Access, assignments, endorsements, and protection track message discipline; criticism brings labels and career costs. Many echo the line, some go quiet, a few step aside. Over time the bench tilts toward those least likely to break ranks; independence fades because the price is clear. 

2. Identity and Faith as Mobilizers

Objective: Wrap policy in national, cultural, and religious identity so agreement signals belonging and disagreement reads as disloyalty. 

IW Tie-Back: PSYOP/MISO + legitimacy shaping. 

Methods: 

• Stage policy in symbolic venues. Announce major actions at patriotic or religious sites so the setting carries the message.
• Turn rituals into loyalty moments. Time rollouts for holidays, memorials, and ceremonies that double as public tests of “who is with us.”
• Define the “we.” Use plain imagery—flags, pledges, heritage themes—to draw a bright line between “us” and “them.”
• Build official channels. Create offices, councils, and initiatives that link faith and cultural leaders to policy campaigns.
• Reframe education and heritage. Promote curricula and public-history projects that reinforce the favored national story.
• Link policy to protection. Cast proposals as safeguarding children, community, or sacred values; opponents then appear to threaten the group.
• Elevate martyrs and exemplars. Spotlight “unfairly treated” allies and honor supportive leaders to model desired conduct.
• Micro-target messaging. Tailor outreach to congregations, cultural groups, and local networks; provide ready-made talking points and tasks. 

Result: Policy disputes become identity tests. Agreement signals belonging; disagreement reads as betrayal or sacrilege. Supporters act to “defend the group,” and neutrality feels unsafe. 

3. Spectacle to Digital Mobilization

Objective: Use spectacle, humiliation, repetition, and timed releases to set the agenda, mobilize supporters, and deter critics before verification can catch up. 

IW Tie-Back: Information operations + PSYOP/MISO + reflexive control. 

Methods: 

• Script the show. Use rallies, briefings, and posts to single out opponents by name or type; turn conflict into shareable clips.
• Make discipline public. Announce firings, demotions, or rebukes in ways designed to be clipped, captioned, and spread.
• Flood the zone. Push rapid, repeated claims and frames so familiarity outruns fact-checking; keep tomorrow’s headline ready today.
• Pre-bake content. Maintain an in-house video/graphics pipeline to publish short clips, quotes, and calls to action within minutes.
• Direct action. Point followers to call, comment, attend, file complaints, or boycott; publicize volume to amplify pressure.
• Discredit fact checks. Cast independent media and fact-checkers as partisan; fold corrections into a story of “attacks on us.”
• Sync with influencers. Feed friendly voices early material; coordinated posts create momentum and the appearance of consensus.
• Control cadence. Post at peak-attention moments; pair controversial steps with distracting spectacle to crowd out scrutiny.
• Keep channels sticky. Run parallel newsletters, groups, and video feeds so preferred narratives have persistent homes. 

Result: Attention concentrates where directed. Supporters are energized and organized; would-be critics see the cost of speaking up. Perception sets before facts land, and grievance stays lit long enough to move real behavior. 

Section III — Lock-In Through a Parallel Ecosystem 

Disruption opens the door (Section I) and grievance mobilizes supporters (Section II). Lock-in comes from building durability outside the federal structure—so the line holds even if formal control wobbles. These moves do not unfold in sequence; they run in parallel and reinforce one another; the more parts stood up, the harder any single part is to unwind. 

1. External Playbooks & Alignment Pipelines

Objective: Pre-commit agencies to a single line by shifting playbooks and staffing pipelines to an external network that outlasts turnover. 

IW Tie-Back: Preparation of the environment (cadre development) + infiltration of institutions. 

Methods: 

• Commission action kits. Outside groups draft ready-to-file orders, guidance, FAQs, procurement templates, and org charts—sequenced for week one, month one, quarter one.
• Pre-screen rosters. Maintain candidate lists vetted with scenario drills and references that test implementation choices (not party labels).
• Run fellowship-to-placement tracks. External short courses feed directly into legal, budget, and regulatory roles with placement agreements and mentors.
• Provide legal/communications backstop. Donor-funded counsel and rapid-response communications support aligned appointees; deviations lose cover.
• Offer landing spots. Post-service fellowships, think-tank roles, and media platforms reward those who hold the line. 

Result: New officials arrive with actions, timelines, and support already built. Deviation carries cost; staying on script brings resources and protection. Even with turnover, the external network keeps the program moving—lock-in by pre-commitment, not statute. 

2. External Litigation & Legal Pressure Networks

Objective: Build outside-government permanent legal firepower that advances priorities, defends contested moves, and shapes precedent. 

IW Tie-Back: Lawfare. 

Methods: 

• Stand up litigation shops. Fund nonprofit firms to bring test cases, defend policies, and coordinate amicus support.
• Bank cases in favorable venues. File in waves on fact patterns likely to generate helpful rulings.
• Use remedies strategically. Seek injunctions and settlements that set durable practices and are costly to unwind.
• Subsidize defense. Create legal-support pools for aligned officials and organizations so they can hold their ground.
• Leverage public-records law. File targeted requests and suits that tie up adversaries while surfacing material for narratives. 

Result: The legal terrain tilts. Allies act with cover; opponents face cost and delay. A stack of orders and precedents accumulates, making reversal slow and expensive. 

3. State-Level Force Multipliers

Objective: Use states to run the program in parallel so momentum persists across federal election cycles. 

IW Tie-Back: Proxies/partners. 

Methods: 

• Publish model bills. Provide ready-to-introduce texts that mirror national priorities.
• Build attorneys-general coalitions. Coordinate joint suits, investigations, and comment campaigns.
• Write interstate compacts. Lock cooperative programs across state lines so they outlast any single administration.
• Mirror and extend. Encourage states to adopt parallel rules, guidance, and procurement terms that reinforce federal aims.
• Align public finance. Use state purchasing and pension policies to reward aligned conduct and raise costs for resistance.
• Use state courts. Seek declaratory judgments and state-law remedies that keep pressure on even if federal action pauses. 

Result: The project has many fronts instead of one. Even if Washington slows, states carry the program; undoing it later means fighting on multiple legal and policy battlefields at once. 

4. Narrative & Distribution Infrastructure

Objective: Keep preferred frames dominant and police in-group orthodoxy across platforms and communities. 

IW Tie-Back: Information operations. 

Methods: 

• Own channels. Support outlets, newsletters, podcasts, and social feeds that carry daily cues.
• Pre-produce content. Maintain a small studio for short videos, graphics, and one-pagers; publish within minutes of news.
• Coordinate influencers. Give friendly voices early material and talking points; synchronize releases for momentum.
• Seed community networks. Work through churches, civic groups, and local leaders with tailored scripts and tasks.
• Standardize language. Issue daily “lines to take” so surrogates and officials sound consistent.
• Measure and adapt. Track engagement; keep what sticks, drop what doesn’t.
• Pressure advertisers. Encourage allied groups to organize advertiser pulls; publicize defections to signal momentum. 

Result: The same story appears everywhere at once. Supporters know what to say and do; critics see the costs of dissent. Agenda-setting happens upstream of verification. 

5. Standards, Accreditation & Philanthropy

Objective: Tilt the rules of recognition—what counts as quality, compliance, and merit—so downstream institutions align by default. 

IW Tie-Back: Legitimacy shaping. 

Methods: 

• Place allies on boards. Target accreditation bodies, editorial boards, and professional associations where standards are written.
• Rewrite rubrics. Adjust criteria and scoring (eligibility, “mission fit,” partnership requirements) to privilege aligned approaches.
• Aim grants and prizes. Set RFP and award criteria that steer money and prestige toward preferred programs and research.
• Influence rankings. Back rating systems that elevate aligned behaviors and penalize others.
• Endow capacity. Fund institutes, centers, and chairs that keep producing work consistent with the frame. 

Result: Education, research, healthcare, and professions begin to reflect altered yardsticks. Statutes stay the same, but the criteria that govern access, funding, and prestige shift toward the preferred line. 

Section IV — Comparative Glimpses: When Democracies Use IW-Style Methods 

Hungary and Turkey are contemporary examples of elected governments using irregular-warfare-style methods at home to concentrate executive power. In both, consolidation began with tactics that pressured institutions, shaped narratives, and reweighted incentives—well before later legal changes locked the shift in place. The difference matters: much of the de-facto control arrived through administration, media concentration, prosecutions, emergency authorities, and timing—then constitutions and framework laws ratcheted permanence.

Turkey 

For years before the 2017 referendum that created an executive presidency, the Erdoğan government relied on emergency authorities, prosecutions, and information control to centralize power. After the 2016 coup attempt, an extended state of emergency enabled sweeping decree laws (KHKs), mass purges—well over 100,000 civil servants.  It also brought judicial reshuffles, and broad closures of media and associations, all by executive order. A new “disinformation” law later criminalized speech deemed “contrary to the truth.” Electoral venue and tempo tactics also surfaced: Turkey’s election authority annulled the opposition’s March 2019 win in Istanbul and ordered a re-run—an episode observers flagged as extraordinary manipulation of process and timing. The through line: emergency decree powers, prosecutorial leverage, and media control shifted behavior first; the 2017 constitutional change sealed it. 

Hungary

Beginning in 2010, the Orbán government moved quickly through ordinary laws to capture regulators, reshape the civil service, and pressure the Constitutional Court’s remit.  It later adopted a new Fundamental Law and “cardinal” statutes to entrench changes. Media was consolidated via a government-stacked regulator and, later, the creation of KESMA, a giant pro-government foundation that unified hundreds of outlets and steered state advertising to friends. Civil society and academia were squeezed by “foreign-funded NGO” rules and measures that pushed Central European University out of Budapest, signaling that supporting critical institutions carried costs. Oversight bodies and courts were reconfigured, and sector-specific taxes/regulations burdened unfriendly media. The pattern: administrative and market pressure moved first; constitutional and “cardinal” laws locked the gains. 

Conclusion 

This IW toolkit shows how executive power can be concentrated through non-violent methods that sit inside existing law. The approach is cumulative: repurpose neutral machinery so independence feels risky and alignment safe; convert grievance into mobilization so supporters act on cue and critics hesitate; and build a parallel ecosystem—doctrine, people, lawsuits, states, standards, and media—that keeps the line in place even when formal control wobbles. These levers run together, each amplifying the rest. 

The effects endure because procedure becomes pressure: approvals turn into favors, timing becomes a weapon, money becomes a message. Courts may uphold individual steps while the combination shifts how the system behaves; over time, terrain that was neutral becomes contingent on political clearance. 

This is not a prediction but a map. The same clarity that makes it a “how-to” also makes it a diagnostic: if the aim is resilient, rules-bound governance, the pressure points are visible—costs, cadence, and capacity. 

Glossary of IW Terms 

Coercion (in IW context) — A mode of influence in irregular warfare characterized by the application or threat of pressure, constraint, or adverse consequences—without resorting to overt force—to shape another actor’s behavior. In IW, coercion is typically applied via indirect, non-attributable, or asymmetric means (e.g., economic, informational, legal, or administrative) to compel compliance, deter resistance, or degrade the target’s will. 

Crisis exploitation — The deliberate creation, amplification, or opportunistic use of crisis conditions to accelerate decisions, outpace oversight, and lock in administrative, legal, or narrative outcomes below the threshold of open war. In practice, crisis exploitation couples long-term narrative and legitimacy work (demoralization), targeted institutional disruption (destabilization), and tempo-driven action in compressed windows (crisis) to achieve consolidation — the practical lock-in of authority that precedes any later normalization. (This term is introduced here as an analytic synthesis. It combines the concept of crisis—as framed in gray-zone and irregular-warfare literature (e.g., the IW Annex’s discussion of exploiting instability and tempo advantage)—with the established strategic idea of exploitation (the use of opportunity to secure positional or institutional gain). The term integrates doctrinally recognized IW mechanisms into a single descriptive label for how crises can be operationalized as instruments of governance.) 

Economic coercion — Instances in which a state (including through its designees) uses, or threatens to use, trade and investment barriers or constraints to other forms of economic engagement to interfere with the legitimate sovereign choices of another government.  

Faits accomplis — A strategy in which an actor unilaterally changes the status quo and then presents others with a finished, often irreversible situation. The move is typically limited in scope but calculated to force acceptance — on the assumption that opponents will avoid escalating a larger conflict to undo it. In gray-zone and irregular-warfare campaigns, fait-accompli tactics secure incremental gains that accumulate into lasting advantage without crossing into open war. 

Information operations (IO) / narrative shaping — Integrated use of information-related capabilities to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversary decision-making. 

Infiltration of Institutions — Installing aligned personnel, rules, or processes inside key offices so decisions tilt without changing statute. (This term is introduced here as an analytic synthesis from irregular-warfare concepts of infiltration and political-warfare influence, applied here to institutional capture within governance systems.) 

Lawfare — The strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve objectives.  

Legitimacy shaping — Deliberate efforts—through information, legal, institutional, symbolic, or narrative means—to influence how target audiences perceive the authority, rightfulness, and moral or normative fitness of an actor or institution. The goal is to build, preserve, or restore consent (or acquiescence) in the governed population (and relevant elites), thereby reducing resistance and increasing the effectiveness of governance or coercion. 

Narrative warfare — The sustained construction, projection, and reinforcement of a coherent story that defines legitimacy, identity, and causality — framing perceptions of reality so that audiences internalize desired conclusions without feeling coerced. 

Proxies/Partners — Outside groups or local actors used to carry out parts of a campaign on behalf of a government or sponsor. They extend reach, add deniability, and keep pressure on multiple fronts without the sponsor acting openly. Proxies can include militias, political movements, contractors, media outlets, or other organizations that share goals and receive guidance, resources, or protection in return.  

Psychological operations (PSYOP/MISO) — Planned operations to convey selected information to influence emotions, motives, and objective reasoning.  

Ratchet effects — Any process where movement is in one direction and difficult to reverse. 

Reflexive Control — Control over their opponent’s decisions by imposing on them assumptions that change the way they act. 

Tempo control — Not a formal doctrine term used by the U.S military, the word “tempo” is used in U.S military IW literature to encompass the practice of managing speed and sequencing so checks, reviews, and counters arrive too late to matter.