Over the last few years, a troubling pattern has begun to surface in American political life. We are witnessing the early beginnings of what political scientists call an autogolpe—a “selfcoup”—whose planning and operational blueprint are now sufficiently visible to be no longer dismissed or ignored by the American public.
Defining an Autogolpe
An autogolpe, or “selfcoup,” occurs when a leader who gains office through legal or constitutional means then uses those same institutions to overthrow or hollow out their own system of government, consolidating power and eliminating checks and balances. Unlike a traditional military coup, which relies on open violence and extralegal force, an autogolpe proceeds under a veneer of legality: the leader dissolves or bypasses the legislature, manipulates the judiciary, suspends constitutional provisions, or assumes quasidictatorial powers while maintaining the appearance of democracy.
This dynamic enables what scholars call “stealth authoritarianism”—using constitutional amendments, legal reforms, and procedural changes to erode democratic safeguards incrementally rather than through a single dramatic seizure of power. In many cases, the initial steps are technically consistent with the country’s constitution, even as they fundamentally alter the balance of power and undermine representative government.
Why This Matters in the United States
While the United States is not currently experiencing an autogolpe, there should be a concern about the current trajectory, which could lead to one—an emerging mindset and strategy that treats democratic institutions as tools to be manipulated to secure permanent partisan advantage rather than as guardrails to be preserved, all under the guise of saving democracy.
In this context, recent remarks by former Vice President Kamala Harris deserve serious scrutiny. While she presents herself as a defender of democracy, she has also articulated proposals that, in practice, would concentrate power in ways that parallel the early stages of historical selfcoups. While she might be only publicly sharing her plans, the blueprint is being used by many in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to run for office in the upcoming November elections.
Kamala Harris’s “No Bad Ideas” Brainstorm
On May 13, 2026, Kamala Harris participated in a livestream conversation on the “Win With Black Women” podcast and has since doubled down as she nears an announcement of another run for the Presidency. During the original interview and as recently as last week, she called for a “no bad ideas brainstorm” to reform the American government structurally. In that discussion, she explicitly invited listeners to contemplate aggressive institutional changes whenever they (her political party) next control both Congress and the White House.
News coverage highlighted her remarks: this is a time when we should “invite all ideas,” describing a “no bad ideas brainstorm” focused on reshaping core constitutional and electoral structures.
Core Proposals from the Brainstorm
Across that podcast appearance and subsequent speeches, Harris raised or endorsed a range of structural changes that would fundamentally reshape American governance. Her remarks are a good example of the planning of an autogolpe—it proceeds under a veneer of legality, in which the leader dissolves or bypasses the legislature, manipulates the judiciary, suspends constitutional provisions, or assumes quasidictatorial powers while maintaining the appearance of democracy.
Electoral College reform
She urged individuals to “brainstorm” what they “need to do and think about doing around the Electoral College,” and later suggested that the United States should “revisit the Electoral College.” This would give significance political power to the state of California, which is overwhelming supportive or her political party.
Supreme Court expansion
She called for “Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Court,” and, more recently, endorsed expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices. Placing four additional justices with her political views on the court would effectively give her control over the court.
Multimember districts and structural House changes, which would weaken democracy, not strengthen it
Commentators sympathetic to her ideas have connected this “no bad ideas” framework to proposals for multimember congressional districts and other representational redesigns that would significantly change the composition of the House in favor of her party.
Ethics and enforcement rules for justices—slanted to the opinions of her party
She has advocated for stronger ethics rules and potential penalties for nominees or justices perceived to have misled the Senate during confirmation, thereby vesting new disciplinary power in political bodies. These new leaders can very easily be used to prevent those with opposing views from being confirmed.
Statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico
Harris has explicitly called for statehood for both Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and tied this to a broader package of “democracy reforms.” This would give her party four additional Senators and control of the legislative body.
Gerrymandering as “fighting fire with fire”
Although, her party has done this for years. Neither party should be involved in this type of political subterfuge.
In defending these proposals, she characterized her opponents as “cheating” through redistricting and argued that her party must “neutralize these…states from cheating” because, and this is troubling, “we need to play to win.”
Taken together, these proposals would not merely adjust policy outcomes within the current system; they would restructure key elements of the constitutional order in ways that help lock in partisan advantage.
Structural Change or SelfCoup Logic?
Institutional reform is not inherently antidemocratic; indeed, American history includes several major constitutional amendments and structural reforms that expanded rights and participation. The concern arises when reforms are framed and pursued not as neutral safeguards for all citizens, but as mechanisms designed to ensure a particular faction’s longterm dominance.
The combination of Supreme Court expansion, elimination or weakening of the Electoral College, statehood for two jurisdictions that would expand her party’s control over Congress, and new ethics or enforcement tools aimed at ideological opponents resembles a strategic attempt to change the structure of the United States Government significantly.
The “no bad ideas” tour signals a willingness to consider any structural change that secures not only an advantage, but a political dominance for her party.
Kingdom Perspective
There is no regard for US history, and there is no concern about longterm consequences. This is an attempt to utilize legal mechanisms and democratic procedures to weaken checks and balances and marginalize opposition. Once again, all under a banner of protecting democracy and her goal of winning.
In many ways, it threatens the stability this country has enjoyed for over 200 years, and this process is cloaked in the pretense of protecting democracy.
The Democratic Nomination of 2024
All Americans should be concerned about how Harris became the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential nominee. It was President Joe Biden who secured delegates through the primary process and was certainly going to be the nominee; however, after a disastrous debate in which he appeared confused and cognitively struggling, he was urged and forced to withdraw from the race. He promptly endorsed Harris, who then gained the required delegate commitments within roughly 32 hours, without real opposition or debate.
Voters did not have the opportunity to evaluate or choose among alternative candidates in open primaries once Biden withdrew. Instead, party leaders determined the nominee through an opaque process — transparency, accountability, and voter participation did not appear to be of any concern.
What is most troubling is that Vice President Harris was not elected through a democratic process. Isn’t it ironic that she is the champion of radical structural reforms in the name of protecting democracy?
This cannot be taken lightly. The former Vice-President and others are calling for sweeping structural changes in both casual and formal settings. It is the ambition, and the ambition of the Democratic Socialist Party, to radically and fundamentally change the American form of government.
We believe that doing so will significantly limit free speech.
The question before us is simply this: Will Americans—especially people of faith and those committed to limited government—recognize these warning signs and stand firm?
If not, our democracy can very easily transform into totalitarianism with changes such as those being proposed.
