Debunking Misconceptions and Misinformation from an Emergency Management Perspective on the Devolution Theory

Introduction

The Devolution theory, “developed” by Jon Herold (aka Patel Patriot), claims that former President Donald Trump enacted a secret plan to retain control of the U.S. government after losing the 2020 election. But one must examine the fundamental claims of such and focus on how it diverges from established emergency management doctrines such as the National Response Framework (NRF), Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), National Incident Management System (NIMS), and military continuity of operations. Let’s analyze this and demonstrate how many inaccuracies and misinterpretations are inherent in the theory.

The concept of Devolution, as presented by Herold, suggests that Trump anticipated losing the 2020 presidential election due to election fraud and foreign interference and thus established an EO and a secret mechanism to maintain control of the government by sidestepping the Constitution and laws established in protecting it. That should be a red flag from the get-go. One must critically analyze these claims made within Jon’s theory and highlight its inconsistencies, misinterpretations, and the broader implications of such misinformation.

Essential Claims of the Devolution Theory

1. Secret Continuity of Government Plans: Herold asserts that Trump activated a secret Continuity of Government (COG) plan to retain power.

2. Military Involvement: The theory suggests that the military covertly supports Trump’s ongoing control.

3. Election Fraud and Foreign Interference: It claims that significant fraud and foreign interference necessitated these unprecedented actions.

4. Presidential Directives and Orders: Herold interprets various presidential directives and orders as evidence of this secret plan.

Rebuttal: Emergency Management Perspective

Devolution fundamentally misinterprets the established doctrines of emergency management, particularly those encapsulated in the National Response Framework (NRF), Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), and the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

National Response Framework (NRF)

The NRF outlines a structured approach for how the nation responds to all types of disasters and emergencies, emphasizing a coordinated effort among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial entities, the private sector, and NGOs. The fundamental principles of the NRF include:

1. Engaged Partnerships: The NRF emphasizes transparent and cooperative efforts across all levels of government and sectors. The Devolution theory’s concept of a secretive, unilateral continuity plan directly contradicts the NRF’s principle of open, inclusive collaboration. Emergency management relies on shared responsibilities and joint decision-making, not clandestine operations.

2. Tiered Response: According to the NRF, responses begin at the local level and escalate as needed, involving broader resources and support from higher levels of government when necessary. Herold’s theory suggests a top-down, preemptive plan, which bypasses the structured, tiered response method central to the NRF.

3. Scalable, Flexible, and Adaptable Capabilities: The NRF is designed to be adaptable to the specific circumstances of each incident, ensuring that the response can be scaled up or down as required. The Devolution theory’s depiction of a rigid, predetermined plan does not align with the NRF’s requirement for flexibility and scalability in response operations.

4. Unity of Effort Through Unified Command: The NRF mandates a unified command structure to ensure effective, coordinated response efforts. The idea of a secret devolution plan, known only to a select few, undermines this unity by excluding key stakeholders and disrupting coordinated efforts.

5. Readiness to Act: Continuous preparedness through training and exercises is a cornerstone of the NRF. The Devolution theory implies a static, hidden plan rather than an ongoing, dynamic preparedness strategy, essential for effective emergency management.

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)

HSEEP provides standardized principles for managing emergency preparedness exercises, ensuring a consistent design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning approach. Critical aspects of HSEEP include:

1. Standardization and Documentation: HSEEP promotes standardized exercises and thorough documentation to ensure transparency and accountability. The Devolution theory’s secretive nature lacks this transparency and accountability, as it does not provide documented evidence or standardized procedures required by HSEEP.

2. Evaluation and Improvement: HSEEP emphasizes the importance of evaluating exercises and implementing improvements based on these evaluations. As suggested by the Devolution theory, a covert plan cannot undergo the necessary open evaluation and iterative improvement processes essential to HSEEP.

National Incident Management System (NIMS)

NIMS provides a consistent nationwide approach to incident management, integrating existing best practices into a comprehensive framework. Fundamental principles of NIMS include:

1. Unified Command Structure: NIMS mandates a unified command structure to facilitate coordinated decision-making and resource allocation. The Devolution theory’s suggestion of a separate, undisclosed command contradicts NIMS’s unified approach, which requires cooperation and shared leadership.

2. Standardized Communication and Information Management: NIMS requires clear, standardized communication channels and information sharing among all parties involved in incident management. The secretive nature of the Devolution theory directly conflicts with NIMS’s principle of open and standardized communication.

3. Interoperability and Integration: NIMS emphasizes the need for interoperability and integration of capabilities and resources across jurisdictions and agencies. The concept of a hidden devolution plan needs to support the integrated and interoperable response framework that NIMS establishes.

Rebuttal: Military Perspective on Continuity of Operations

Devolution violates the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military, as the theory suggests transferring all authority to the military, which is unconstitutional for several reasons:

1. Civilian Control of the Military: The U.S. Constitution establishes civilian control over the military, a fundamental principle of American democracy. The President, as the civilian Commander-in-Chief, exercises authority over the military. The Devolution theory’s proposition of military control over the government violates this principle.

2. Separation of Powers: The Constitution delineates the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The devolution theory disrupts this balance of power by suggesting that military authority supersedes civilian government control.

3. Community Lifelines: The NRF and other emergency management frameworks emphasize maintaining community lifelines—essential services that support communities’ health, safety, and economic security. Transferring control to the military undermines the framework designed to be civilian-led and community-focused.

Its assertion of military involvement in a secret plan to retain Trump’s control also misrepresents the military’s role in the continuity of operations (COOP) as follows:

Military COOP Plans

The military maintains its own Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP), which are distinct from those of civilian government agencies and their established plans. Military COOP ensures that the military can continue to perform its essential functions under all circumstances, independent of any political administration. The Department of Defense (DoD) has well-established protocols for COOP, emphasizing operational readiness and the ability to respond to various contingencies. These protocols do not support or involve secret political maneuvers but focus on maintaining defense and national security capabilities.

Continuity planning is a critical aspect of military preparedness, aimed at ensuring that the armed forces can sustain their mission-critical functions in the face of various threats, including natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or other emergencies. These plans are designed to maintain command and control, preserve essential capabilities, and protect personnel, infrastructure, and assets.

The DoD has developed comprehensive Continuity protocols that encompass a wide range of scenarios and potential disruptions that affect every branch of the military. These protocols include measures such as redundant communication systems, secure facilities, emergency response procedures, and contingency plans for the continuity of command and decision-making.

Military COOP plans are apolitical and do not involve secret political maneuvers. Their sole purpose is to ensure the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation and support civilian authorities in times of crisis.

While there may be coordination between military and civilian agencies in certain aspects of emergency preparedness and response, military COOP plans remain distinct and are primarily focused on defense and national security objectives. Any suggestion of the military engaging in covert political activities through its Continuity planning would be unfounded and contrary to the principles of civilian control and constitutional governance.

Adherence to the Chain of Command

The U.S. military operates under a strict chain of command, with clear civilian oversight mandated by the Constitution. Any deviation from the chain of command by engaging in covert political activities would be illegal and undermine the foundational principles of U.S. governance. The notion that the military is covertly supporting a plan to subvert the current operating government lacks any basis in reality. It contradicts the military’s adherence to lawful civilian authority.

The chain of command in the U.S. military ensures that orders flow from the President, as Commander-in-Chief, through the Secretary of Defense, and down through the various branches and levels of the armed forces. This structure is designed to maintain clear, legal, and orderly control over military operations and to prevent any misuse of military power.

Civilian oversight of the military is a cornerstone of America. This is enshrined in the Constitution to safeguard against the concentration of power and to ensure that the military remains under the control of elected civilian leaders. This principle is fundamental to preventing any form of military dictatorship or undue military influence over political processes.

The Founding Fathers of the United States were acutely aware of the dangers posed by a powerful military without civilian control. To mitigate this risk, they established a system where the President, an elected official, serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. This ensures that military leaders are accountable to the people through their elected representatives.

Additionally, the separation of powers within the government provides additional checks and balances. Congress, another elected body, has the authority to declare war, allocate military funding, and oversee military conduct through various committees. This further reinforces civilian control and prevents any single branch of government, including the military, from gaining disproportionate power.

Adherence to civilian oversight is not just a legal requirement but a cultural norm within the U.S. military. Service members are trained to respect and follow the directives of civilian leaders, understanding that their ultimate duty is to the Constitution and the democratic principles it embodies. This respect for civilian authority helps maintain the integrity and trust essential for a functioning government and a constitutional republic.

Any actions by military personnel that bypass the established chain of command or engage in unauthorized political activities would be not only illegal but is contrary to the oath that service members take to uphold the Constitution. Such actions would erode the trust between the military and the civilian populace, which is essential for the functioning of a democratic society.

Broader Implications of the Devolution Theory

The proliferation of Jon's theory carries detrimental consequences. It chips away at public trust in government institutions, and by fostering division and perpetuating misinformation. By endorsing unfounded claims, the theory sidetracks meaningful political discussions and undermines efforts to tackle real societal issues.

Trust in government institutions is crucial for a functioning society. When conspiracy theories like Jon's gain traction, they sow doubt in the integrity of elected officials and governmental bodies. This skepticism can lead to disengagement from civic duties and weaken the foundation of constitutional governance.

Jon's theory exacerbates societal divisions by promoting suspicion and discord among citizens. Rather than facilitating constructive dialogue, baseless conspiracies breed mistrust and hinder efforts to find common ground on important issues.

The devolution theory undermines the fabric of the country by eroding trust, fueling division, and diverting focus from meaningful societal progress. Combatting such misinformation demands concerted efforts from various sectors of society to promote critical thinking, fact-checking, and responsible discourse. 

Conclusion

The Devolution theory fails under critical scrutiny due to its lack of credible evidence, as it misapplies established emergency management doctrines and federal directives. It promotes a secretive, unilateral approach that contradicts the principles of transparency, coordination, and inclusivity central to the NRF, HSEEP, NIMS, PPD-8, PPD-40, HSPD-5, HSPD-20, and federal continuity directives. Adhering to these established frameworks and directives is essential for effective emergency management and public trust. Jon also misinterprets established emergency management and military continuity protocols, promoting a factually inaccurate narrative. Addressing and debunking such misinformation is essential to protect the government’s integrity and public trust.

- Devolution by Patel Patriot(https://devolution.link)

- Who Is Patel Patriot, the Man Behind Devolution? (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/patel-patriot-devolution-theory/)

- National Response Framework (https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/frameworks/response)

- Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises/hseep)

- National Incident Management System (https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims)