Democratic Insiders Are Sharing A Warning About Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk & Neoreactionaries

DNC employees and think tank workers are spreading a document about the Neoreactionary threat to democracy

Since February 5^th, 2025, a document warning about Curtis Yarvin and the Silicon Valley led coup attempt has been circulating among think tank experts and DNC employees. The document is titled “The Imminent Neoreactionary Threat to the American Republic”. It opens with a statement that the brief was, “iteratively and collectively compiled by a broad, bipartisan, and decentralized network of experts who wish to remain anonymous due to concerns about being targeted.”

The full document is here. You can see the table of contents below:

The title of the actual file when I received it was “Evidence_Brief_for_Journalists”, and the introduction describes its aim as “explaining the nature of the current political crisis to journalists who are attempting to inform the public.” This would lead one to think the document was largely written for the benefit of the press.

However I spoke with two sources who are members of these groups and received the document. They told me that to their knowledge the document mostly spreading among people you might broadly refer to as “policy wonks”. One source I interviewed explained: “It is a thing for think tanks to frame overviews for laypeople as briefs for journalists or congress, see the IPCC reports. Part of me thinks the framing ‘for journalists’ is just a shortcut for ‘this is somewhat specialized knowledge broken down’”.

The paper opens by acknowledging the scope of the executive power grab being perpetrated under President Trump, and the destabilization wrought by Elon Musk and his DOGE team. It then notes, “the threat is an order of magnitude beyond” just a presidential power grab. Musk, it argues, is tied to a “broader group” of Silicon Valley tech elites, including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, who seek to end Democracy. Curtis Yarvin is labeled a “thought leader” in this group, “called the Neoreactionaries”.

I will stop here to note that this summary is accurate enough for mass consumption. But I have some issues with it. Musk probably would not label himself a Neoreactionary and does not have much of a history with Yarvin. Peter Thiel does, but it’s more a relationship of patronage than mutual influence. It would be more accurate to say that Thiel and Andreessen find Yarvin useful, because of his success in spreading to a lot of young techie kids the idea that CEOs should run the world.

Musk, I feel, has largely jumped on this bandwagon because those kids are useful foot soldiers. Yarvin’s ideas about “retiring” all government employees and destroying the independent media and academia are convenient for his own ambitions. This context may be unnecessary for explaining the danger to regular people, but I think it is a mistake to credit Yarvin with more power than he holds.

The document refers to him as the “leader” of the Neoreactionary Movement. I would not advise ignoring his influence and centrality here, but Yarvin is not dangerous because of his leadership abilities.

That all said the document sums up the threat quite well: “The Neoreactionaries have openly stated their aims: to destroy the nation-state and the Constitutional order and replace them with a new privately owned corporate state, to be run by a CEO-dictator. Citizens become subjects owned by the state – ‘state slaves’ - because ‘everything rots when it has no owner—human beings included’.”

Those quoted lines are, of course, Yarvin’s. From here, the document argues that Musk and his team are attempting to bring about this dystopia by taking over the “nervous system of the state”. These would be the data and communications systems DOGE is trying to centralize in its unaccountable hands. Next, the authors of this document make a call to action:

“The most dramatic reversals of democratic breakdown (1977 India; 2022 Brazil; 2023 Poland) have been accomplished by radically large-tent, cross-ideological coalitions with little in common except a desire for the continuation of a Constitutional order. Evidence suggests that the present threat to American democracy is dire enough that such a broad-tent approach focused on Musk and his associates may be required.”

This is the most interesting and hopeful part of the whole document for me. For one thing I think it accurately states what is needed in the present moment: a popular front against autocracy and dictatorship. (I would add to their list of relevant examples France from 1934-38.) It is heartening to see evidence that this understanding has started to grow within the DNC policy set.

The source who sent me this document in the first place described themselves as a member of “a few unofficial networks of climate activists who are high ranking in the government and policy / think tank circles”. They noted that these are normally “very milquetoast lib spaces” but “they’re being radicalized” rapidly.

Both sources I interviewed for this requested anonymity. The second person I talked with gave an explicit reason: “…I’ve suspected for a while a lot more things in DNC stuff was compromised than people were comfortable with”. In other words, they believe the Republican Party has spies within the DNC. My sources worried these “GOP moles” might retaliate against them, but moreso they worried the document itself might contain false information, meant to provoke a reaction that would be useful to Republicans.

While I think this caveat is worthwhile, I should also note that I have spent more time than most studying Curtis Yarvin and the Neoreactionaries. Nothing in this document struck me as obviously false or incorrect, nor did the tone seem hysteric or unreasonable.

I asked my sources if over the past month they’d seen more people talking about Yarvin in their daily lives, which involve communicating and working with DNC staffers and politicians. One said, “No” and “That’s kind of one of the odd things to be frank. This guy is being brought to big events in D.C. He’s been referenced by Bannon and Vance. I have heard his talking points come from Republican mouths but he’s largely not tracked.”

It is noteworthy, then, that influential individuals in the policy space, with connections to Democratic politicians and the DNC as an organization, have started a grassroots effort to spread the word about Yarvin as a threat. It is even more noteworthy that this document is unsparing about the danger, and the fact that a clock is currently ticking over all our heads:

“If non-governmental actors (by which we mean unelected, unratified, unvetted, untrained, unconstrained, and/or unaccountable actors) gain access to key digital infrastructure, they can seize control of critical functions of government in ways that will be difficult or impossible to reverse.”

In a section titled “National Security”, the focus shifts to Elon Musk, who it claims “poses a uniquely significant security risk”. This is because Musk and DOGE espouse “anti-Constitutional ideologies” and “are under the influence of America’s principal foreign adversaries (China and Russia)”. It goes on at some length about Musk’s foreign business interests and how they might compromise him.

I don’t disagree that he is compromised, but I see his actions as very much consistent with those of a man seizing power for himself. I think it would be a strategic mistake to focus popular messaging around this in terms of how it empowers “America’s principal foreign adversaries”. The primary adversary Musk has empowered is himself, and he is now a greater danger to every citizen of the United States than any foreign government.

The next section of the paper days out the definition of a coup:

“In essence, a coup is a 1) rapid seizure of state power by unelected actors, who acquire that power by 2) seizing critical government infrastructure and 3) weaponizing it to neutralize legitimate government actors' efforts to stop them. The unelected actors then use this power to 4) remake the rules of the political game in a way that cannot easily be checked or undone through democratic processes.”

It argues convincingly that all four of these steps are underway now. One thing I found compelling is the way it recognized the threat cryptocurrency represents right now, and how it can and will be used by the new regime to cement their power in ways that sidestep the present legal system:

“Without canceling elections, for example, cryptocurrency can be used to create informal but powerful new levers of political influence: politicians can sell personal coins to unknown buyers who "vote" on public policy on the basis of their shareholder power, shielded from public view.”

Next we have a summary of the Neoreactionary Agenda, which lists some additional names among the Silicon Valley elite currently championing an overthrow of democracy. These include David Sacks, Balaji Srinivasan and JD Vance. Also name-dropped is political theorist Nick Land, who is referenced twice in the paper.

The authors next lay out Yarvin’s concept of the “Butterfly Revolution”, based on an essay he wrote in 2022 laying out how a “full reboot” of the U.S. government could be accomplished.

Subsequent pages summarize the first days of the Trump administration and DOGE activity and show how they comport with the “Butterfly Revolution” blueprint.

We’ve all lived that in real time, so I won’t summarize their arguments here. The document does end this segment with a section on “Actions and Rhetoric to Watch”. First are government contracts, which fund many of Musk’s companies at present. Next is “Greenland and Mars”:

“A core tenet of neoreactionary ideology is the replacement of nation-states with "network states." But states require territory. Technocracy Inc., a predecessor to the Neoreactionary movement whose one-time director was Elon Musk's grandfather, proposed a North American Technate where the entire continent of North America would be united under one Technocratic Super State. There is currently a Peter Thiel-backed "network state" project called Praxis in Greenland. Musk's public statements about colonizing Mars also can be read as part of a territorial project.”

Lastly it lists Crypto, which the authors primarily seem to fear as a method of deniably bribing Trump.

Overall, the document is thorough in its layout of the Neoreactionary ecosystem, and the actual plan currently being enacted to end U.S. democracy. It includes a section that lists several of the earliest known DOGE employees, and quotes extensively from Yarvin and less extensively from Land.

The paper’s ultimate conclusion is that Musk is using this moment to turn himself into the kind of unitary all-powerful executive Yarvin longs for, one who rules alongside a largely “ceremonial” President. Congress and the courts would also be “ceremonial” at best in this new order.

Again, I do not believe Musk is particularly well read on Curtis Yarvin’s work. But Yarvin’s dream of a CEO-King ruling next to a puppet president gels with what some of Elon’s confidants have described as his ambition. A recent Vanity Fair article quoted a “close associate” of Musk’s from Silicon Valley. He told them:

“Elon believes he should be emperor of the world, and this is his way of showing people what he’s capable of as emperor. He truly believes his way of handling the world is the best possible outcome for everyone in it.”

The last few weeks provide more than enough proof that the authors of this document accurately understand the danger we are in. Unfortunately, aside from the suggestion of a popular front against dictatorship, the document is short on solutions. There is one line that promises: “Section III articulates what Congress and other actors can do” to stop Musk. However, the document in its present form does not include a Section 3 or any comprehensive suggestions.

If the situation weren’t so dire, I might find that funny.

The full text of this document can be found at this hyperlink.