A look back at our reality as it was five years ago

The final full week of November 2020 opened in a state of unresolved uncertainty. Several states were approaching certification deadlines, the General Services Administration still had not issued its ascertainment letter, and legal challenges continued to circulate through courts at multiple levels. People entered the week knowing that routine processes were underway, but the national interpretation of those processes remained fractured. Every procedural step, no matter how familiar to election officials, carried heightened political meaning for the public.

Sunday, November 22, brought a wave of attention to Michigan, where state legislators had met with the president at the White House late the previous week. Public reaction centered less on the specifics of the meeting—which remained largely opaque—and more on the idea that such a meeting was happening at all. Many Americans viewed the invitation as an attempt to influence certification. Others believed it was an appropriate part of addressing concerns about the election. These contrasting interpretations continued the pattern that had defined November: identical events generating incompatible narratives depending on the observer’s underlying assumptions.

Meanwhile, certification in some states moved forward with fewer complications. In Minnesota, Vermont, and Colorado, the process proceeded as expected, receiving only modest public attention. The relative quiet in these states offered a contrast to the intense focus on places where margins were narrow or where challenges were ongoing. This uneven distribution of attention created a national map where certain states carried symbolic weight far beyond their electoral totals.

On Monday, November 23, a significant development occurred when the administrator of the General Services Administration issued the ascertainment letter, permitting the formal transition process to begin. The decision did not resolve political disputes, but it changed the administrative landscape. The projected incoming transition team gained access to federal agencies, briefings, and coordination channels. Career officials, who had been operating in uncertainty, could now engage in the work that normally occurs earlier in November.

The release of the letter drew different interpretations across the country. Some people saw it as an acknowledgment of the projected results. Others framed it as a procedural necessity with no bearing on the outcome of ongoing legal challenges. Still others viewed the timing as evidence that political pressure had finally outweighed resistance. The letter itself was straightforward, but the meanings attached to it were not.

Despite the administrative shift, legal efforts from the president’s team continued. Press conferences reiterated claims of widespread fraud, although many of the allegations had already been dismissed by courts or contradicted by local election officials from both parties. Public reactions remained polarized. Some Americans viewed the legal defeats as confirmation that the allegations lacked merit. Others believed the defeats reflected institutional bias rather than substantive findings. The divide was no longer simply political; it had become epistemological.

In Georgia, attention returned to the Senate runoff elections scheduled for January. The outcomes would determine control of the U.S. Senate, and both parties began intensifying campaign efforts. Voters in the state found themselves at the intersection of two national storylines: the unresolved tension surrounding the presidential election and the impending fight over Senate control. Messaging from campaigns and national figures blended discussions of future policy with disputes about the integrity of the recent vote.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania prepared to certify its results. Election officials emphasized that certification was not optional and that the deadlines were set by state law. County-level updates varied from routine to contentious, depending on local conditions. Some counties completed their work with little pushback. Others became focal points of political attention. The unevenness contributed to a sense that routine civic processes had become entangled in broader national conflict.

Throughout the week, the pandemic worsened significantly. Case numbers rose across the country, and hospital systems reported increasing strain ahead of Thanksgiving. Public-health officials urged people to limit gatherings, avoid travel, and maintain precautions. Despite the warnings, airports saw higher volumes than previous weeks. Many Americans were torn between caution and a desire for normalcy after a year of extraordinary disruption.

State and local governments issued new restrictions. California announced a curfew targeting nonessential activity in several counties. Ohio implemented mask mandates and limits on gatherings. Other states introduced targeted measures intended to reduce transmission without closing large sectors of their economies. The patchwork nature of these policies reflected uneven public tolerance for restrictions, as well as varying political approaches to pandemic management.

Tuesday and Wednesday brought increased attention to the president’s public statements, which continued to assert that the election had been stolen. These statements shaped public expectations in communities where trust in the electoral process had eroded. People interpreted routine actions—such as certification votes, recount results, and court filings—through the lens of these assertions. The effect was cumulative, reinforcing the belief among many that the political system itself had become unreliable.

Certification deadlines in several states arrived midweek. Michigan certified its results on Monday, Georgia on Tuesday, and Pennsylvania continued through its county-level processes. Each certification generated immediate reactions online, with supporters and critics attaching political meaning to procedures that election administrators treated as legal obligations. The factual content of the certifications did not resolve broader disputes. Instead, they contributed to an expanding record of developments that people interpreted through conflicting frameworks.

On Wednesday, November 25, the projected incoming administration held briefings on pandemic response and potential cabinet nominees. These briefings were notable not for their content—which focused on public health, economic recovery, and transition planning—but for the fact that they occurred alongside ongoing disputes over the legitimacy of the election. The coexistence of transition preparation and rejection of the election outcome created a sense of dual political realities operating in parallel.

Thanksgiving arrived on Thursday under circumstances unlike previous years. Many families scaled down or canceled gatherings due to pandemic concerns. Others proceeded with traditions, sometimes modifying them with distancing or outdoor arrangements. Travel numbers remained below typical holiday levels but higher than many public-health officials had hoped. The day highlighted the degree to which personal decisions were influenced not only by health guidance but by months of accumulated stress, fatigue, and competing narratives.

Friday brought renewed attention to Wisconsin, where a partial recount was underway at the request of the president’s campaign. The recount focused on specific counties and was funded by a payment from the campaign to the state. Observers reported that the recount was proceeding normally, though disputes arose over whether certain ballots should be included. These disputes were not unusual for recounts, but their presence fed into national debates already in motion. In this environment, even routine administrative disagreements were interpreted as evidence of deeper systemic problems.

Meanwhile, Black Friday shopping patterns revealed another layer of the national mood. Retailers saw significant shifts toward online sales, driven by both pandemic precautions and changes in consumer behavior. In-person shopping occurred at reduced levels, with some malls and stores seeing modest crowds and others remaining quiet. The economic implications of the holiday season were a point of concern for small businesses already strained by months of uncertainty.

On Saturday, November 28, local governments across several states issued warnings about potential post-Thanksgiving case spikes. Hospitals in the Midwest, Mountain West, and parts of the South reported severe capacity challenges. Some communities prepared for the possibility of field hospitals or redirected patient flows. Yet even as the pandemic intensified, national attention remained divided between health concerns and ongoing political conflict.

Throughout the week, people struggled to navigate a national landscape where familiar markers of certainty were compromised. Certification deadlines came and went, but they did not settle the political conflict for large portions of the public. Administrative progress in the transition process occurred, but it did not create a shared understanding of legitimacy. Public-health warnings intensified, but they competed with holiday traditions and political disputes for attention. Americans were not simply disagreeing about what was happening; they were interpreting the same developments through fundamentally different lenses.

By the end of November 28, several states had certified their results, transition planning had formally begun, and the pandemic had entered its most dangerous phase to date. Yet public perception remained fractured. People were living through complex, overlapping crises without a shared interpretive framework to anchor them. The country moved forward procedurally while remaining divided conceptually.

The conditions of this week reflected a deeper shift in national life—one in which events no longer carried inherent meaning but instead were assigned meaning through separate, incompatible realities. The legal filings, the certifications, the recounts, the transition steps, and the public-health warnings all unfolded in plain view. What differed were the interpretations that people used to understand them.

The country was continuing through November with no consensus about the trajectory of the moment or the stability of the institutions guiding it.

Events of the Week — November 22 to November 28, 2020

U.S. Politics, Law & Governance

• November 22 — President-elect Biden receives additional calls from foreign leaders as the U.S. transition delay continues.
• November 23 — The General Services Administration finally authorizes the formal presidential transition, allowing the Biden team access to federal resources and briefings.
• November 24 — The Trump administration permits Biden to begin receiving the President’s Daily Brief.
• November 25 — States continue certifying election results ahead of the Electoral College deadline.
• November 26 — Thanksgiving Day: Public-health officials urge Americans to avoid travel; millions still travel despite warnings.
• November 27 — The U.S. reports its highest single-day case totals to date, with hospitalizations also breaking records.
• November 28 — Local governments impose new restrictions as winter surge intensifies nationwide.

Global Politics & Geopolitics

• November 22 — Ethiopia’s government intensifies military operations toward Mekelle in the Tigray region.
• November 23 — European nations debate easing restrictions ahead of the December holidays.
• November 24 — Armenia continues political shakeups following the ceasefire agreement.
• November 25 — China identifies new small clusters prompting targeted testing campaigns.
• November 26 — France announces plans for a phased reopening after weeks of lockdown.
• November 27 — Germany extends restrictions into December as infections remain high.
• November 28 — The U.K. outlines a new tiered restriction system set to begin in early December.

Economy, Trade & Markets

• November 22 — Retailers prepare for a predominantly online Black Friday season.
• November 23 — Markets rise on the news that the formal transition has begun.
• November 24 — Consumer confidence shows slight improvement before holiday shopping begins.
• November 25 — Weekly jobless claims surpass 72 million since March.
• November 26 — Holiday spending patterns shift heavily toward e-commerce.
• November 27 — Retailers report strong online sales but limited in-store traffic.
• November 28 — Economists warn that December could bring major job losses without new federal relief.

Science, Technology & Space

• November 22 — Public-health officials warn that holiday gatherings may create “super-spreader” conditions.
• November 23 — Federal agencies begin sharing pandemic data with the Biden transition team.
• November 24 — AstraZeneca announces interim vaccine results showing varied efficacy depending on dosage.
• November 25 — CDC urges Americans to limit travel and indoor gatherings through winter.
• November 26 — Researchers warn that Thanksgiving travel may produce case spikes in mid-December.
• November 27 — Hospitals report rising numbers of younger patients among new admissions.
• November 28 — Climate researchers note persistent drought conditions across much of the West.

Environment, Climate & Natural Disasters

• November 22 — Remnants of Iota continue to affect Central America.
• November 23 — Heavy rain falls across the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.
• November 24 — Snowstorms hit parts of the northern Rockies and Great Plains.
• November 25 — Thanksgiving travel is disrupted in several states by weather systems.
• November 26 — Flooding affects coastal areas from heavy rain and high tides.
• November 27 — Wildfire season winds down across the West.
• November 28 — Temperature fluctuations bring mixed precipitation across the Midwest.

Military, Conflict & Security

• November 22 — Ethiopia issues a 72-hour ultimatum for Tigrayan forces in Mekelle to surrender.
• November 23 — Russia continues establishing peacekeeping operations in Nagorno-Karabakh.
• November 24 — Taliban attacks escalate across southern Afghanistan.
• November 25 — NATO jets intercept Russian aircraft near alliance airspace.
• November 26 — Iraq reports new ISIS activity in rural provinces.
• November 27 — Nigerian forces continue operations against Boko Haram.
• November 28 — Somalia expands counterterror operations in response to recent attacks.

Courts, Crime & Justice

• November 22 — Courts across the U.S. process ongoing election-related legal challenges.
• November 23 — Mexico reports new arrests tied to cartel activity.
• November 24 — Belarus intensifies detentions of opposition activists.
• November 25 — Hong Kong authorities make additional national-security arrests.
• November 26 — U.S. prosecutors highlight widespread unemployment-benefits fraud.
• November 27 — European agencies coordinate cybercrime crackdowns.
• November 28 — Brazil expands pandemic-related corruption investigations.

Culture, Media & Society

• November 22 — Media highlight widespread anxiety over holiday travel risks.
• November 23 — Public attention shifts to the beginning of the formal transition process.
• November 24 — Coverage focuses on Thanksgiving preparations and safety warnings.
• November 25 — Airlines report heavy travel despite public-health messaging.
• November 26 — Pandemic-altered Thanksgiving events take place across the country.
• November 27 — Black Friday shopping adapts to distanced, mostly online formats.
• November 28 — Communities prepare for a December defined by restrictions and uncertainty.

The Maytag dryer didn’t quit — it just began complaining. A quiet little squeal at startup, the kind you ignore because things still work. For a while, anyway.

We figured it was only going to get worse. So I ordered a repair kit. Well — I thought I did. I added it to the Amazon cart and walked away feeling accomplished… only to later discover nothing had been purchased.

Then, after a good while of doing that, the squeal turned into a scream — and Karen, wisely, shut it down before something burned, snapped, or caught fire.

Checking Returns & Orders on Amazon, I didn’t see anything about the package… noticed there was one item in the cart… realized what I had not done… got the kit ordered.

The real fix didn’t begin until the kit finally arrived.

By then, I’d watched half a dozen YouTube videos, none matching our dryer exactly. Different years, different layouts, different internal bones. Still, they all agreed: the noise was coming from the belt, the idler pulley, or the drum support rollers. Solid theory — vague map.

I turned to ChatGPT.

It told me the problem was “totally fixable,” which was technically true. But it also gave me diagrams and screw locations that didn’t exist, belt paths drawn by someone who thinks in four dimensions, and confidently contradictory answers about which end of the drum should face front. At one point, it declared the 11½-inch wear stripe went to the back. Later it declared it went to the front. Reliable, as long as you don’t ask twice.

But — and this matters — the AI still delivered real help in fragments. Correct terminology. Likely failure points. Standard belt routing logic. It never handed me the answer, but it handed me enough pieces to reason my way to one. Not a guide — more like a coworker who gives good ideas but bad directions.

Eventually, the drum was sitting on the floor like a stripped-down steel oil barrel — felt worn, belt track polished smooth by years of heat. The tensioner arm was yellowed with time, spring stretched like it had watched presidencies come and go. Lint caked places lint had no business being. Four rollers, two front, two rear, just like the machine remembered being young once.

I replaced everything: belt, rollers, tensioner/pulley assembly. Wrestling those triangular retaining clips into their grooves required more strength, reach, and profanity than the instructional videos ever mentioned. The drum went back in, the belt slipped around the motor and under the idler the way muscle memory wanted — not the way AI diagrams pretended.

Front panel on. Connections clicked. Screws found homes I’m still not sure they originally belonged to.

Plugged it in.

Pressed start.

It spun — smooth, quiet, ordinary. Like the noise had been a rumor.

And that’s the thing:
It works.
Not because the AI knew everything — but because it knew just enough, and I was stubborn enough to make up the difference.

In the end, a man, a machine, a drum with scars, and an AI that learned belt routing the same day I did.

The dryer runs.
The comedy was everything before that.

On Thanksgiving, just in time to get everything back in place and off the dining room table.

Full revolutions are rare. Partial ones are far more common and far more lasting. The New Deal wasn’t fully realized — but Social Security endured. Reagan didn’t dismantle the welfare state — but he rewired economic expectations for decades. PATRIOT Act provisions were trimmed, challenged, debated — yet surveillance became normalized, not reversed. In the United States, half-success often outlives total victory.

So the useful question isn’t whether Project 2025 wins everything.
It’s what the country looks like if it wins just enough.

A partial success means selective reform: the civil service weakened, not erased; agency independence trimmed, not annihilated; executive power expanded, but still contested by courts, states, and resistance within the bureaucracy — the institutional antibodies that activate when pushed too far.

Picture it. Future administrations inherit a government with fewer guardrails, greater consolidation of authority, and a precedent that the executive has the authority to remake agencies like furniture. Presidents come and go, but norms rarely grow back like they were. Once the Overton window shifts, even moderate successors operate inside the new room.

If Project 2025 sets the template, no one has to finish it.
Persistence does the work.

A half-realized framework could normalize politically aligned hiring, faster regulatory swings, and executive direction of what used to be professional discretion. Agencies would still exist. Courts would still rule. But the internal culture shifts: more caution, less independence, more obedience to political interpretation over institutional memory. Erosion isn’t theatrical. It’s procedural.

The real impact isn’t the blueprint — it’s the precedent.

If the civil service becomes more replaceable, future presidents — any party, any impulse — will face fewer restraints when ambition calls. Restraints abandoned by one leader are rarely reclaimed by the next. Power is something executives inherit, not something they voluntarily reduce. The danger isn’t ideological takeover. It is stability being traded for speed.

Half-success means a nation that still recognizes itself, but behaves differently.
A government that functions, but doesn’t question.
A democracy that still votes, but has fewer buffers between vote and command.

History shows that the middle outcome — not the triumph, not the failure — is what reshapes republics. Not overnight. Not loudly. But steadily.

If Project 2025 achieves even half its goals, the American state that emerges won’t collapse. It will continue. It will govern. But it will govern under a new assumption: that the executive is not merely one branch, but the engine. And engines are built for acceleration, not hesitation.

The risk isn’t that they complete the plan.
The risk is that they don’t need to.

There’s something uncanny about watching a government attempt to rebuild itself while standing on top of the old one. Project 2025 isn’t subtle, and subtlety isn’t the point. The people behind it believe institutions should answer to ideology first and democracy second — if at all. They call it restoration. In practice, it looks like consolidation. Not policymaking. Power-making.

The scale is staggering. Replace civil servants with loyalists. Rewrite regulations from scratch. Strip agency autonomy. Turn the executive branch into a single, responsive unit rather than a distributed system designed to resist bad ideas long enough for sanity to catch up. It’s efficiency by design — but stability rarely comes from speed.

Every generation produces a group convinced they can finally “fix” America if only no one slows them down. Reconstruction. The Business Plot. The CIA overthrows of the 1950s. The PATCO firings. The post-9/11 reorganization of homeland security. Power never arrives quietly, and it never holds forever. Every revolution assumes permanence. None have achieved it.

Project 2025 reads like it believes it can.

The weak seam in the plan isn’t moral — it’s mechanical.
Government isn’t a machine, it’s an ecosystem. You can remove career expertise, but you can’t replace it instantly. You can rewrite rules, but implementation is the battlefield. You can centralize authority, but courts, states, press, financial markets, federal employees, and public resistance each have veto points. History shows that even strong administrations bend before bureaucracy more often than bureaucracy bends before will.

Those pushing Project 2025 may succeed in reshaping the executive branch, maybe for years. But a total restructuring of constitutional power? That requires alignment across every lever — courts, Congress, military leadership, public consent, and institutional compliance. The plan demands more than authority. It demands frictionless America. Nothing in American history has ever been frictionless.

That’s the quiet irony:
The more aggressively a government tries to simplify a democracy, the more complicated the results become.

Project 2025 will leave a mark — maybe deep, maybe shallow, but not uniform. It might accelerate shifts already underway. It might fracture under its own ambition. It might spark something entirely unintended, the way reforms often do when the designers forget that 330 million people don’t move in one direction just because a blueprint says they should.

States remember. Courts remember. Citizens remember. Bureaucracies remember.

And history especially remembers when someone tries to redesign the country all at once.

AI systems should not be judged by “trust.”

AI systems should not be judged by “trust.”

AI is not a person you can trust or mistrust. It’s a tool built from code and huge amounts of data. It may sound confident, fair, or neutral, but that does not mean it’s always right. AI can give answers that look accurate but are completely wrong — these are called hallucinations. It can also stall, skip steps, or produce confusing or incomplete answers. And it can repeat hidden biases from the data it was trained on, even when the response sounds objective.

The problem is simple: AI sounds believable, and that makes it easy for people to assume it’s telling the truth when it might not be.

However, it can be constrained through protocols — clear rules and checks that guide how it works.

One example is an Explicit Honesty Protocol between ChatGPT and me. Developed through trial and error, it forces the AI to give direct, factual answers, admit errors quickly, and avoid hiding uncertainty.

These kinds of protocols don’t make AI “trustworthy,” but they help reduce mistakes, prevent stalling, and increase transparency.

So instead of asking, “Can we trust it?” we should ask better questions:
Has it been tested?
Is it accurate?
Does it show bias?
Does it hallucinate?
How does it handle mistakes?

AI shouldn’t be judged by trust at all. What we need is verification and evidence — not gut feelings.

Bayfield, Wisconsin, harbor.

In the style of Edward Hopper.

There’s no single “mysterious vault goblin” gripping all the IOUs. What we call the national debt is really just the total value of U.S. Treasury securities sitting in millions of folders, accounts, pension plans, and central banks around the world. It isn’t a monolith — it’s a giant patchwork of investors who treat Treasuries like the world’s safest parking spot for money.

Here’s the real breakdown — and it’s a lot more ordinary than conspiracy memes make it out to be.

1. Americans (yes, mostly us) — roughly 70%

People underestimate this every time. The majority of U.S. debt is held by Americans in one form or another. Not through some grand patriotic plan — just because Treasuries are safe, boring, and reliable.

• U.S. investors & institutions
  Pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, banks, and money-market funds stack Treasuries because the returns are steady and the risk is low. These organizations manage trillions in assets and are legally required to hold safe instruments. Treasuries are the backbone.
• The Federal Reserve
  The Fed holds a massive chunk — not because it’s trying to “own” the country’s debt but because Treasuries are how it conducts monetary policy. When the Fed buys or sells them, it influences interest rates. It’s a steering wheel, not a piggy bank.
• State & local retirement systems
  Teacher pensions, firefighter pensions, city worker retirement funds — they all rely on stable long-term investments that won’t evaporate in a market crash.
• Individual Americans
  Savings bonds, I-bonds, retirement accounts, TreasuryDirect. Regular people are part of this story too — even if most don’t think of it that way.

Bottom line: Much of the national debt is just America lending money to itself.

2. Foreign countries — around 30%

Foreign governments buy Treasuries for the same reason American institutions do — stability. They want dependable reserves, and the U.S. dollar remains the global safety standard.

Japan and China hold the largest foreign shares, but nowhere near a controlling stake. They buy Treasuries because the U.S. is the safest place to store liquid reserves during global uncertainty. And when they eventually sell, they do so on fixed schedules — they can’t just “call in” the debt.

Other holders include the UK, South Korea, Switzerland, and central banks across Europe and the Middle East. Some hold Treasuries to stabilize their own currencies; others use them as emergency reserves.

Foreign ownership is meaningful, but it isn’t a lever they can pull to collapse the U.S. economy.

3. One thing everyone forgets

The U.S. owes this debt in U.S. dollars, a currency it fully controls. This single fact separates the U.S. from countries that get crushed by debt denominated in someone else’s currency.

Treasuries mature on fixed timetables. No country or investor — not even China — can demand early repayment or use the debt as political blackmail.

The national debt matters, yes. But not because anyone “owns” America. It’s simply the running tally of who has purchased pieces of the world’s safest financial instrument.

And, as it turns out, the mythical vault goblin isn’t real — we are.

In November 2025, the debate over unlawful orders has erupted into a national flashpoint, pulling the military, Congress, and the White House into direct confrontation.

A group of veteran lawmakers publicly reminded service members that their obligation is to the Constitution, not to any individual leader, and urged them to refuse illegal commands if they arise.

The administration responded with extraordinary hostility, labeling the statements “seditious” and even invoking language about capital punishment, escalating the conflict into a full-scale political brawl.

At the same time, courts are weighing the legality of several contested deployments, raising new questions about executive overreach and the limits of military obedience.

Together, these developments have thrust the long-standing principles governing lawful and unlawful orders into the center of America’s political crisis.

In December 19712, I took the same oath that military enlistees, including officers, take today.

10 U.S. Code § 502 – Enlistment oath: who may administer

(a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

(b) Who May Administer.—The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

✅ The Core Rule: You Must Obey Lawful Orders. You Must Not Obey Unlawful Ones.

This isn’t a slogan — it’s baked into multiple layers of law:

1. UCMJ Article 90, 91, 92

These define:

• Failure to obey a lawful order as a crime.
• The word lawful is doing the heavy lifting.
  There is no requirement to obey an unlawful order.

Courts-martial have repeatedly affirmed that any order that violates the Constitution, federal law, or the laws of war is void on its face.

🔍 What makes an order unlawful?

An order is unlawful if it:

A. Violates the U.S. Constitution

Example:

• An order to punish someone without due process.
• An order to discriminate based on race or religion.

B. Violates U.S. federal law

Example:

• Ordering troops to conduct actions prohibited by statute.
• Ordering the suppression of lawful speech.

C. Violates the Law of Armed Conflict / Geneva Conventions

These are the big ones everyone knows:

• Targeting civilians.
• Torture.
• Summary executions.
• Using banned weapons.
• Refusing to take prisoners.

D. Is not connected to a valid military purpose

An officer cannot issue:

• Personal errands (“go mow my lawn”).
• Abusive commands (“clean my house or I’ll write you up”).
• Orders made solely to humiliate or harass.

If it’s not tied to mission, discipline, or duty — it’s not lawful.

⚖️ Legal Standards and Doctrines

Here are the actual legal pillars:

1. “Manifestly Illegal Orders” Doctrine

From the Nuremberg principles and adopted by U.S. courts:

• You cannot hide behind “I was just following orders”
• If an order is obviously illegal, obedience is not a defense

The U.S. military has fully integrated this standard.

2. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (Law of Land Warfare)

Still influences all services.
It explicitly states:

“Members of the armed forces have an obligation to disobey manifestly illegal orders.”

3. DoD Directive 2311.01

This directs compliance with the Law of War and requires personnel to:

• Report violations
• Refuse illegal orders
• Follow escalation/reporting channels

Applies to all branches.

4. The Oath

Every enlisted member swears to:

• Support and defend the Constitution
• Obey the orders of the President and officers according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

That last clause is the safety valve.
No one swears to obey illegal orders.

🚫 Examples of Orders You Must NOT Obey

And would be criminal to obey:

• Shoot unarmed civilians.
• Torture detainees.
• Plant evidence or kill prisoners.
• Target churches, schools, hospitals (unless being used militarily).
• Destroy cultural property for no military necessity.
• Participate in war crimes.
• Participate in a coup, illegal detention, or unconstitutional seizure of civil authority.
• Fabricate reports, falsify logs, or hide operational misconduct.

🛡️ How the military expects you to respond

The services don’t want freelancing, but they also don’t want blind obedience.

Correct procedure:

1. Politely question the legality.
2. Request clarification.
3. State the concern if it still appears unlawful.
4. Refuse the order if it remains unlawful.
5. Report the incident through the chain or IG if necessary.

Every branch’s regs say you cannot be punished for refusing an unlawful order.

🔨 Case Law Examples (Real U.S. Precedents)

United States v. Kinder – conviction overturned because order was unlawful.
United States v. Calley (My Lai) – following clearly illegal orders is no defense.
United States v. New – refusal must be based on law, not personal beliefs.

🧭 Bottom Line

If an order violates:

• the Constitution
• federal law
• military regulations
• or the laws of war

…it is not a lawful order, and you are required to refuse it.

The chain of command, the UCMJ, and the oath all align on this.

Mid-November 2020 carried an undercurrent of unresolved tension. Projected results from earlier in the month remained in public view, but the political and administrative processes that normally follow an election had not settled into their usual patterns. People entered this week with an awareness that the transition was stalled, the legal challenges were multiplying, and the pandemic was accelerating at its fastest rate yet. The convergence created a feeling that the country was moving in multiple directions at once without a clear sense of which development would shape the next phase.

Sunday, November 15, saw large demonstrations in Washington, D.C., where supporters of the president gathered to protest the projected results and to assert that the election had been unfair. Similar rallies had happened the prior week, but this one drew particular attention because of its scale and its visibility. The crowds framed their presence as a defense of democracy, while critics saw the events as an attempt to delegitimize an outcome that had not gone in the president’s favor. The same scenes—flags, signs, speeches—were interpreted differently depending on where viewers stood politically and what they believed about the election so far.

At the same time, counter-protests appeared in parts of the city, though on a smaller scale. The interactions between the groups were tense in some locations but largely separated by police presence. For many Americans watching from elsewhere, the very fact of dueling rallies in the nation’s capital signaled a deeper fracture in national understanding. The protests did not resolve anything; they highlighted the distance between groups that now viewed the country’s trajectory through incompatible frameworks.

On Monday and Tuesday, state officials continued the complex work of canvassing and certifying results. Normally, this phase attracts little attention from the general public. In 2020, it became a central storyline. States issued updates about certification deadlines, procedural steps, and litigation. Georgia moved forward with its hand recount, drawing national coverage. Michigan counties prepared for certification votes. Pennsylvania courts handled challenges involving ballot deadlines and observer access. Each procedural development generated waves of interpretation on social media, where observers attached meaning to every shift, pause, or announcement.

Throughout these days, press conferences from the president’s legal team became regular events. Allegations of fraud were repeated publicly, though the specifics often changed from day to day. Some claims involved misinterpreted video clips; others relied on misunderstandings of routine ballot-handling practices. Many accusations were rejected quickly by judges who noted the absence of evidence. But the legal defeats did not reduce the public belief among many that the election had been compromised. The gap between institutional findings and public perception widened rather than narrowed.

In Georgia, the hand recount dominated attention. Reporters described the process: stacks of ballots spread across tables, workers reading choices aloud, monitors observing from a designated distance. For election officials, the recount was a routine application of state law triggered by a narrow margin. For segments of the public, it became a referendum on the legitimacy of the vote itself. Officials tried to reassure the public about the recount’s transparency, but those reassurances did not land evenly. People interpreted the recount according to their existing beliefs—either as a necessary step toward confirming the result or as a chance to uncover wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers initially refused to certify the results, citing concerns about precinct imbalances common in previous elections. After significant public pressure and several hours of debate, the board voted unanimously to certify. But later that night, the two members issued signed statements seeking to rescind their votes. The reversal introduced further uncertainty and generated national coverage. State officials responded that the certification had already been completed and that attempts to withdraw votes had no legal effect. For many observers, the entire sequence underscored how administrative steps that had long been procedural were now being pulled into a broader political struggle.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the General Services Administration continued to withhold the ascertainment letter needed to begin the formal transition. The lack of ascertainment created logistical challenges for the projected incoming team, which still lacked access to classified briefings, pandemic response coordination, and interagency meetings. Career federal employees reported waiting for guidance, aware that the process they expected was on pause. The absence of the letter became a symbol of the broader standoff: a routine administrative acknowledgment had turned into a political bottleneck.

During these same days, the pandemic worsened dramatically. Daily case counts reached new highs in multiple states, and hospital systems in the Midwest and West faced severe strain. North Dakota and South Dakota reported some of the highest infection rates in the country. Governors issued new advisories, mask mandates, and restrictions. Public-health officials warned of uncontrolled spread. But the political fight over the election absorbed much of the public’s attention, diffusing the urgency of the pandemic messaging. The simultaneous crises compounded each other. People were exhausted, anxious, and uncertain which developments demanded immediate concern.

In some communities, local leaders struggled to communicate the gravity of the pandemic because residents were preoccupied with election disputes. In others, pandemic fatigue overshadowed political developments. The strain of trying to process both crises at once shaped public behavior. Some people sought distraction in daily routines. Others checked election updates constantly. Conversations across the country toggled between vote counts and viral counts without a clear sense of priority.

Late in the week, attention returned to Michigan as state legislative leaders accepted an invitation to visit the White House. The meeting raised questions about whether the president would pressure them to intervene in the certification process. State officials issued statements reaffirming that the electoral process would follow the law, but the meeting itself suggested that the country had entered new territory. The possibility—however unlikely—of state-level interference in the appointment of electors fueled national concern. People debated the legal boundaries of legislatures, the constitutional framework, and the historical rarity of such actions. The fact that the question was being asked at all signaled how far the political conflict had expanded.

On Friday, Georgia completed its hand recount and reaffirmed the projected outcome. State officials emphasized the accuracy and integrity of the process. But the recount, rather than resolving doubts, prompted new claims from those who rejected the result. The cycle of allegation, rebuttal, and reinterpretation continued, with each phase reinforcing the broader pattern of fractured understanding.

By Saturday, November 21, states moved closer to their certification deadlines. Some had already certified their results; others were preparing to do so in the coming days. The procedural machinery of the election advanced, but public confidence did not advance with it. The country remained deeply divided not just over preferences but over interpretations of the same events. The election, the recounts, the lawsuits, the certifications, and the transition delays were all filtered through separate lenses shaped by months of political messaging and information fragmentation.

Throughout the week, people tried to make sense of what the developments meant for the immediate future. Some assumed that the certifications would settle the situation. Others believed that the legal challenges would escalate. Still others expected that the conflict would continue indefinitely. The absence of a shared framework for evaluating evidence made it difficult for conversations to move toward resolution.

This was a week defined by procedural motion and interpretive stagnation. Institutions proceeded with their work. Courts issued rulings. Election officials counted, recounted, explained, and certified. But the public’s response remained fractured, shaped by divergent understandings of legitimacy and authority. Americans were navigating a landscape where familiar processes no longer produced familiar outcomes in terms of national cohesion.

The developments of November 15–21 did not clarify the political moment for most people. Instead, they revealed how far the country had drifted from a shared understanding of reality itself.

Events of the Week — November 15 to November 21, 2020

U.S. Politics, Law & Governance

• November 15 — President-elect Biden continues announcing key transition advisers despite the GSA still refusing to trigger the formal transition process.
• November 16 — Michigan and other battleground states face pressure as local canvassing boards certify results amid public protests and political scrutiny.
• November 17 — The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings with tech CEOs on misinformation and Section 230.
• November 18 — A growing number of Republican lawmakers begin publicly acknowledging Biden as president-elect.
• November 19 — A widely circulated press conference by Trump’s legal team alleges widespread fraud, offering no verifiable evidence.
• November 20 — Georgia completes a hand recount confirming Biden’s victory in the state.
• November 21 — State and local leaders impose renewed restrictions in response to rapidly rising case counts nationwide.

Global Politics & Geopolitics

• November 15 — Leaders from the Asia-Pacific region sign the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), creating the world’s largest free-trade bloc.
• November 16 — Protests escalate in Peru following the removal of President Martín Vizcarra; interim president Manuel Merino resigns.
• November 17 — Armenia faces internal political turmoil after the ceasefire agreement; protesters demand Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation.
• November 18 — European governments continue tightening lockdowns or extending them as second-wave deaths climb.
• November 19 — China reports small clusters leading to mass testing programs.
• November 20 — Ethiopia’s federal forces advance deeper into the Tigray region.
• November 21 — France reports slowing infection growth following strict lockdown measures.

Economy, Trade & Markets

• November 15 — Retailers brace for a profoundly altered holiday shopping season.
• November 16 — Moderna announces that early data show its vaccine candidate is nearly 95% effective, fueling another major market jump.
• November 17 — Markets continue responding to positive vaccine news but remain cautious about winter shutdowns.
• November 18 — Economic advisers warn that job losses may increase as states re-impose restrictions.
• November 19 — Weekly unemployment claims surpass 71 million since March.
• November 20 — Congress remains deadlocked on new relief legislation despite mounting economic strain.
• November 21 — Analysts note persistently high unemployment and widening inequality.

Science, Technology & Space

• November 15 — Public-health researchers emphasize avoiding large Thanksgiving gatherings.
• November 16 — Moderna’s vaccine announcement draws global scientific attention.
• November 17 — CDC scientists warn that hospitals may face unprecedented winter capacity pressure.
• November 18 — Studies show that mask mandates significantly reduce transmission.
• November 19 — Cybersecurity experts highlight ongoing disinformation campaigns.
• November 20 — SpaceX launches the Crew-1 mission, sending four astronauts to the ISS.
• November 21 — Climate scientists track late-season wildfires in parts of the West.

Environment, Climate & Natural Disasters

• November 15 — Tropical Storm Iota forms in the Caribbean, raising alarm for Central America still devastated by Eta.
• November 16 — Iota rapidly strengthens into a major hurricane.
• November 17 — Iota makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 storm—the strongest Atlantic hurricane of 2020—causing catastrophic flooding.
• November 18 — Mudslides and flooding sweep across Honduras and Nicaragua.
• November 19 — Remnants of Iota continue to produce heavy rain throughout Central America.
• November 20 — Late-season snow falls across parts of the Midwest.
• November 21 — The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season approaches its record-breaking end.

Military, Conflict & Security

• November 15 — Ethiopian forces advance on Tigray’s capital, Mekelle.
• November 16 — Armenia transitions to Russian peacekeeper oversight in Nagorno-Karabakh under the ceasefire agreement.
• November 17 — Taliban attacks increase as negotiations struggle.
• November 18 — NATO aircraft intercept Russian planes near European airspace.
• November 19 — ISIS militants carry out attacks in Iraq’s Diyala province.
• November 20 — Nigerian military operations target Boko Haram strongholds.
• November 21 — Somalia intensifies operations against al-Shabaab.

Courts, Crime & Justice

• November 15 — U.S. courts continue processing an expanding set of election-related lawsuits.
• November 16 — Mexico announces arrests tied to organized crime investigations.
• November 17 — Belarus conducts new raids on opposition activist networks.
• November 18 — Hong Kong police make more national-security arrests.
• November 19 — U.S. prosecutors highlight persistent unemployment-benefits fraud.
• November 20 — European authorities coordinate significant cybercrime enforcement actions.
• November 21 — Brazil expands anti-corruption investigations related to pandemic contracts.

Culture, Media & Society

• November 15 — Celebrations and protests continue across the U.S. in response to the election outcome.
• November 16 — Public attention turns to the stalled transition process.
• November 17 — Media scrutinize claims made during Senate tech hearings.
• November 18 — Rising case counts dominate national conversation.
• November 19 — Giuliani’s press conference becomes the subject of widespread media analysis and late-night commentary.
• November 20 — Discussions intensify around Thanksgiving travel and safety.
• November 21 — Communities prepare for an unusual and restricted holiday season.