New Undercover Footage Exposes Foreign-Backed ‘Blocking Community’ Poised To Rewrite U.S. Institutions After 2026 Midterms

According to The Post Millennial, the videos were obtained and released by the watchdog group Datarepublican, which has been tracking the activities of Renew American Democracy (RAD) and its international partners. The recordings show progressive strategists in the United States eagerly soliciting advice from foreign operatives on how to manage elections, mobilize street pressure, and prepare for constitutional showdowns that could be used to justify long-sought structural changes.

One of the key recordings comes from a July online session titled “Lessons from the Frontlines,” in which foreign activists briefed American counterparts on tactics honed in their own countries. The meeting was hosted by RAD’s International Solidarity Working Group and a partner initiative called Renew to Thrive, underscoring how deeply embedded these international relationships have become in the American left’s organizing infrastructure.

In her closing remarks on that call, RAD co-coordinator Danielle Reiff made clear that the group sees foreign involvement as essential to its mission. “The research shows that to reverse democratic decline in any one country, international solidarity is key,” she said, adding, “We used to be the ones, you know, with a lot of money and sharing our model and our and our guidance and our support, now we are really grateful for those of you who are stepping up to provide a similar level of guidance and support for us as we traverse a difficult period here in the US.”

Among the foreign speakers was Rast’o Kuzel, a Slovakia-based media and election monitoring specialist who urged American activists to adopt aggressive narrative-shaping strategies. He argued that “prebunking and inoculation” was needed, “anticipating some of these narratives before they actually dominate the information space, explaining the manipulation techniques, and building trusted channels between citizens and politics, and this is clearly something which could be really done within this type of circles.”

From Serbia, CRTA program director Rasa Nedeljkov described a more physical, on-the-ground approach to controlling the electoral environment, one she said was originally borrowed from American activists. She explained that a tool that had proved to be “useful” and was learned “from you guys two decades ago” was that “we need to be present at every polling station. Citizens who are afraid, citizens who do not believe that in the vicinity of the polling stations there are going to be somebody who can help them, who can be the guide for them, who can be some kind of point of contact from them, then it could happen that actually they do not turn out to vote at all.”

Nedeljkov went on to describe how this presence is operationalized, with activists effectively surrounding the voting process under the banner of “assistance.” “So what we provided was presence of activists around the polling stations, but also we provided hotlines, legal hotlines for citizens, so that they can report and call, and we can provide the legal assistance at the spot,” she said, outlining a model that blurs the line between neutral observation and partisan mobilization.

Another foreign participant, Guatemalan constitutional lawyer Edgar Ortiz Romero, emphasized the importance of combining courtroom battles with mass demonstrations to pressure institutions. “Litigation alone was not enough. Mobilization alone is not enough. You need to, you know, fight on different fronts, and in our case, that was the key to success,” he said, adding that judges “are rational people, and they are also looking at the streets and saying, ‘Hey, you know, I cannot ignore this mobilization.’”

Datarepublican, reviewing the footage and recent political developments, concluded that these foreign prescriptions have not remained theoretical. The group noted that “is that all of the foreign actors' recommendations were implemented right here in America,” pointing to recent headlines about election disputes, coordinated protests, and lawfare campaigns that mirror the tactics described on the calls.

The videos also capture a January 2026 RAD forum in which Reiff, a retired USAID democracy officer, laid out a framework for what she called “emergency scenarios” that could be leveraged in the coming midterms. “So the issue that we want to address this month with today's forum is the emergency scenarios in the strategy,” she said, signaling that crisis planning is now a central pillar of the organization’s political playbook.

Reiff told participants that three primary contingencies had been identified as potential triggers for escalated action in 2026. “So the three emergency scenarios that were identified that could affect us in 2026 were, one, militarization. We already have seen, you know, more military and ICE and, you know, National Guard on the streets than we have certainly during my lifetime, and we know there's a potential for that militarization to become a greater challenge for us,” she said.

She then outlined two additional scenarios that would justify a full-scale response from the activist network, both centered on delegitimizing or destabilizing the electoral process. “The second scenario is election meltdown, which could happen in any number of ways. We could have a perfectly clean election, and then half the country or 25% of the country doesn't trust the results. And then the final scenario is around sort of an acute constitutional crisis if we experience a moment where there is an attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power,” she said.

To illustrate what she meant by an “election meltdown,” Reiff described a situation in which the vote itself is not disputed, but the aftermath is weaponized. An example she gave was, “if we hold an election and everybody agrees on the results, and we're trying to move forward. And then, for example, newly elected members of Congress are not seated promptly, and then there’s, you know, delays and questions about how Congress can move forward. So that's just one way that that could manifest in 2026.”

Other participants on the call were even more explicit about the urgency they feel in preparing for confrontation with the political right. Nadine Block, training director of the left-wing group Beautiful Trouble, warned that there was an “immediate crisis” and “we can't wait to actually figure some of this stuff out for the midterms,” arguing that the window for planning was rapidly closing.

Block also acknowledged what many on the left quietly concede: that under current conditions, they do not see a straightforward path to winning and exercising power at the national level without extraordinary disruption. She said “there was kind of an understanding that there's not a clear possible transfer of power at the national level from the right to the left, given current circumstances, unless things change dramatically, that's a big deal.”

A separate online call from August 5, 2026, captured Reiff describing how this planning has evolved into a broad, pre-organized coalition ready to mobilize if they deem a “red line” has been crossed. She said that there’s a “big tent that’s being organized in the blocking community, so that if there is a red line crossed in terms of a constitutional crisis, like everybody’s already pre-organized. They’ve identified the red lines, and everybody on the street, like, across the entire blocking community.”

Datarepublican describes this “blocking community” as a vast ecosystem of progressive non-profits and advocacy groups poised to intervene against President Donald Trump and his supporters. Per the group’s assessment, the so-called “blocker community” is “the umbrella of countless NGOs that are ready to mobilize against Trump, both on the streets and in lawfare (and, as it seems, in involving local officials). Includes Indivisible, Democracy Funders, etc.”

Reiff further revealed that she had been in direct contact with figures from the national security establishment about how to exploit any future crisis to reshape American institutions. She said she had spoken with Mike Smith, a retired rear admiral and founder of National Security Leaders for America, the day prior, recalling, “But in the conversation yesterday, we were talking about the NDC and the broader like conception of turning a breakdown into a breakthrough. And if we do enter into a crisis, how do we pivot that to the kind of institutional reform and structural reform that'll actually get us out of this mess.”

For Reiff and her allies, the endgame is not merely to contest a single election, but to use any perceived emergency as a springboard for permanent changes to the constitutional order. She said the blocking community wasn’t just planning for election day or certification day, and that “the research all shows that you know the blocking community can like rid us of a dictator, and the renewal will not happen if there's not a positive vision and a plan for what to do on the day after.”

Taken together, the recordings portray a left-wing infrastructure that is not only preparing to challenge conservative victories, but is also openly coordinating with foreign operatives and former security officials to script the response. For conservatives who believe in national sovereignty, limited government, and the integrity of America’s constitutional framework, the prospect of an internationally advised “blocking community” poised to turn any contested moment into a pretext for “institutional reform” raises profound questions about who is really trying to safeguard democracy—and who is preparing to rewrite it.