Lesotho’s troubled political journey offers American scholars of coup risk a rich narrative of how democracies are captured through cycles of instability. The mountainous kingdom’s history reveals an interplay between militant ambition, constitutional weakness, and politics that almost guarantees a coup.

Lesotho’s government says it is shocked by US President Donald Trump saying that “nobody has ever heard of” the southern African nation. Trump, addressing the US Congress in his first speech since his return to the Oval Office, made the reference… “Eight million dollars to… the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of,” Trump said, eliciting laughter from some US lawmakers.

Trump’s dismissive comment appears to be a slip of the tongue, an exposure of private backroom deals: Why would the President specifically highlight Lesotho in a congressional address only to immediately diminish its significance? This paradox—making something notable while claiming it’s unnoticed—reveals a lot.

For those familiar with patterns of democratic erosion and military intervention, Lesotho isn’t obscure at all, but rather a canonical case study of white supremacist meddling. For South Africans like Elon Musk, Lesotho carries deep personal and historical significance as a sanctuary for anti-apartheid activists during the regime he was born under and profited directly from.

Since independence in 1966 from British colonial occupation, Lesotho experienced a recurring pattern of constitutional authority being gradually eroded until military intervention occurred.

Tension and imbalance began immediately for the new state, when a King attempted to make monarchial powers great again, beyond the freshly written constitutional-monarchy framework. This fundamental disagreement about where authority in a democracy should ultimately rest – with elected officials or elitist monarchs/oligarchs – has haunted Lesotho ever since, much as America debates legislative versus an unaccountable unitary executive power.

Musk and DOGE try to slash government by cutting out those who answer to voters

The Lesotho watershed was 1970, when a Prime Minister facing electoral defeat simply refused to accept the results. He instead declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, and placed the King under house arrest. This precedent has obvious harms: constitutional processes can be set aside when they became inconvenient to those in power.

Indeed, the refusal to accept electoral defeat created the dangerous template that would be followed repeatedly afterwards, including the 1998 crisis when opposition parties rejected election results despite the LCD winning 79 of 80 seats – claiming fraud without sufficient evidence.

Military intervention for state capture then necessarily became normalized in Lesotho’s political landscape. When a Major General finally overthrew the sixteen-long-years’ Prime Minister government in 1986, it marked how military involvement was the next level of crisis. The relationship between civilian leadership and military command was horribly strained, with the inherent power of military factions becoming sucked into political disputes rather than allowed to remain neutral.

The fragility of democracy was further complicated by geographic encirclement by South Africa. Lesotho is extraordinarily vulnerable to external pressures, such as during South Africa’s extreme violence to keep apartheid going (e.g. the failure of which allegedly prompted Elon Musk to abruptly flee in 1988 to America with big bags of apartheid money).

The 1982 Christmas spirit quickly dissipated. [The capitol city of Lesotho,] Maseru residents were in a state of shock and disbelief. The city centre took on a new shape: bullet holes marked the walls of houses, homes were ransacked, windows broken, frames charred, and smoke emanated from debris comprised of a mixture of built fabric and human remains. During the attack [by South African apartheid forces], some people were wrapped in blankets by SADF officials and set on fire. […] This was the period when South Africa was heavily engaged in an onslaught on the rest of the sub-continent and Lesotho was on the top of South Africa’s hit list.

Even Ronald Reagan “deplored” this “Operation Blanket“, named for how South African troops planned to burn political opponents to death (foreshadowing Elon Musk’s death-trap design of Tesla).

While Lesotho was on the right side of history, as it harbored refugees from an international tyranny of apartheid, the rise of South African democracy didn’t eliminate the power imbalances. South Africa, as well as Botswana, and Zimbabwe, repeatedly continued to intervene in Lesotho’s ongoing affairs, even militarily, on the premise of helping “situations” to stabilize.

Recently, Lesotho has experimented with coalition governments, which has created new vulnerabilities. A Prime Minister who faced a 2014 no-confidence vote, suspended parliament and later fled the country claiming a military coup attempt. The military’s confused leadership response – fractured into competing internal claims of command authority – reflected how appointments had been for political convenience and partisan rather than professional positions of best national interest.

For American scholars of coup risk, Lesotho demonstrates exactly how democratic institutions gradually hollow out from within. This goes beyond academic theory into a practical playbook of methods for democratic erosion, tested and refined by opportunistic elites across multiple countries. Elon Musk thus stands out, for obvious reasons.

The formal structures of democracy – elections, parliaments, courts – on the surface continue to exist, but their effectiveness is undermined by corrupted leaders who bypass them or ignore any outcomes.

What appears superficially to be a functioning democracy becomes increasingly vulnerable to undemocratic interventions when constitutional processes no longer provide legitimate paths to resolve political conflicts.

The Lesotho narrative warns that coups rarely emerge from nowhere, and we already know some of the where from. They typically follow democratic norms being eroded in the open, where constitutional processes are subverted, and military leadership is politicized.

Those studying coup risks recognize why a bureaucrat like Trump suddenly referenced Lesotho after his close collaboration with President Musk, whose oppressive role brings perspectives shaped by his South African apartheid upbringing of racist regional interventions and imposed constitutional crises.

It’s past time for Americans to examine these deep patterns of institutional decay that made military intervention highly probable – and sometimes even predictable – seeing them not as distant foreign problems but as warning signs increasingly visible in our own democracy’s stress points caused by a South African-led DOGE coup team.

The US Marshals Service has deputized members of Elon Musk’s private security detail, which means they will now have certain rights and protections of federal law enforcement agents.

Looking at the upside-down flag in a national park through a security lens, what we’re witnessing appears to be the latest chapter in America’s longest-running internal conflict. This signals a struggle that never truly ended with pro-slavery leaders’ unconditional surrender to General Grant at Appomattox.

On March 1, 1872, Grant signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act, which made the area “a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” This landmark legislation created the first National Park and led to the creation of the National Park Service. […] While at West Point, Grant read countless novels about frontier life and painted landscapes in art class. Most likely, he was captivated by the expedition’s paintings and adventures. As a boy, Grant enjoyed “fishing, going to the creek a mile away to swim in summer, … skating on the ice in winter, or taking a horse and sleigh when there was snow on the ground.” – Grant, Memoirs

President Grant’s establishment of Yellowstone as the first national park in 1872 was far more than conservation policy, it was an overt declaration that America’s natural resources belonged to all citizens, not merely for the exploitation of those with the most capital or connections. He had defeated the horrible elitist “monster” of the Confederacy at war, so too he would defeat them in protection of national ecology.

President Grant also had regularly rejected graft and fraud, initiating a measure of merit and performance instead, as evidenced in his many decisive victories on the battlefield against the philandering, plundering and inebriated Confederates. As President he initiated a system to investigate and reduce patronage, which quickly exposed huge amounts of American corruption like never before.

The purposeful and fair democratization of public lands thus was a clear-eyed line that represented the direct repudiation of white supremacist extractive plantation aims, where wealth and resources were concentrated in the hands of a privileged few based on their race and patronage alone.

The Buffalo Soldiers were deployed as early park rangers to extend this vision (Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National Parks, in 1899, 1903 and 1904), embodying the promise of equality and Reconstruction. America’s institutions would protect the common good across racial lines. Their presence in these sacred spaces was itself a statement that the racist, tyrannical order trying to control America had been defeated.

Fun history fact: these Buffalo Soldiers also were issued bicycles by the U.S. Army and thus arguably invented modern mountain biking.

What we’re seeing today is a very-targeted and methodical dismantling of the Reconstruction-era protections, by the kind of people still very angry they lost the war to preserve and expand slavery. The mass firing of park rangers, the planned opening of protected lands to extraction industries, and the consolidation of decision-making power in the hands of unelected wealthy individuals follows a simple criminal’s playbook. It’s essentially an attempt to reverse President Grant’s vision and flip America into a monarchy where public resources serve oppressive private interests of a few bad actors.

The targeting of conservation lands is strategically significant and symbolic of the KKK objectives. These aren’t just parks, they’re the government’s commitment to placing public good over private profits by a tiny elite undermining American values. This targeted attack and very overt weakening signal is a fundamental shift in the relationship between citizens and their government.

Throughout American history, a specific coalition of white men have consistently worked to roll back all protections for public resources and the commons whenever they’ve gained sufficient power. The current assault on national parks represents not just a policy shift but the reassertion of the pro-slavery ideology that was supposedly defeated both militarily and politically 160 years ago.

The upside-down flag at Yosemite is a very appropriate signal as it is indeed a moment of national distress that echoes the worst periods in American history.

From a national security angle the systematic dismantling of federal land management capabilities creates vulnerabilities beyond just environmental concerns. National parks and public lands serve as strategic buffers, ecological security zones, and controlled spaces that reduce domestic instability.

There’s a crucial intelligence dimension here too. Land management professionals often serve as the government’s eyes and ears in remote regions, tracking everything from illegal border crossings to domestic extremist activity. Their removal creates surveillance gaps that adversaries, both foreign and domestic, can exploit.

The resource extraction angle has geopolitical implications. Rushing to extract domestic resources rather than managing them strategically over time weakens America’s long-term energy and resource security posture. Short-term profit-taking creates long-term dependencies and vulnerabilities.

Perhaps most concerning is the attack on institutional knowledge. The mass firing of experienced federal employees erases decades of accumulated expertise in crisis management, land stewardship, and public safety. This institutional knowledge vacuum will take generations to rebuild.

The historical record is unequivocal: civilizations that sacrifice long-term resource stewardship for short-term extraction invariably collapse. The Romans deforested their heartlands for immediate profit; the Maya depleted their soil and water systems. Both empires disintegrated as environmental degradation triggered social breakdown and conflict. Today’s dismantling of conservation systems follows this familiar pattern, with a critical difference – modern elites possess unprecedented mobility. Unlike ancient rulers who fell with their realms, today’s architects of extraction can deploy their wealth globally, insulating themselves from the consequences of their policies. They create extractive systems they never intend to inhabit long-term – building structures of profit and control while preparing their own exits when the inevitable resource conflicts begin… like we saw with Assad in 2024 Syria, or Siad Barre led by Paul Manafort (Trump advisor) in 1992 Somalia.

The targeted dismantling of specific agencies reveals calculated strategy, not just ideological zeal. The systematic weakening of resource protections follows a pattern familiar since the Jacksonian era – first dismantle the guardrails, then transfer public wealth to private hands. Throughout American history, control over land and resources has been the foundation of political power. Today’s dismantling of conservation systems echoes Jackson’s approach to public lands – identify what has value, remove the protections, then enable extraction by the well-connected. The playbook hasn’t changed in two centuries; only the resources in question have.

[In the] days of 1854, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society called for a rally on July 4 amid the bucolic oaks of Framingham’s Grove. […] Above, hung an inverted U.S. flag…

The upside-down flag at Yosemite serves as both warning and reminder. It alerts us to immediate dangers facing democracy while reminding us that the struggle to preserve America’s natural heritage for all citizens has deep historical roots. From President Grant’s vision of public access to natural resources to his Soldiers and Rangers who protect these spaces, our national parks represent more than scenic beauty—they embody a national commitment to shared prosperity over concentrated power.

Today’s hostile elite threats to these lands aren’t merely policy disagreements but echo a recurring attack pattern in American history: the tension between long-term public good and destructive short-term extraction. As we witness an immediate danger, we would do well to remember that protected lands represent not just conservation but a fundamental American principle that a nation’s greatest treasures belong to the public, not merely a few white men seizing control for selfish-exploitation.

The correct and necessary distress signal has been raised; how we respond will determine whether Grant’s gift – the greatest General and President in history – endures for generations to come.

The White House is apparently reporting directly to Moscow.

A staffer from TASS, a Russian outlet that often promotes glorified coverage of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, was briefly in the room for President Donald Trump’s bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. American media mainstays Reuters and the Associated Press were not granted access.

For a reporter from TASS (a Russian state media outlet known to have close ties to the Kremlin) to gain access to the Oval Office during a sensitive meeting with the Ukrainian president suggests a serious security lapse was deliberate.

Trump recently has taken direct control over which journalists are granted access the Oval Office. His centralization of media access, under strict Goebbels-like control, creates a system where honest news outlets can be excluded while dangerous ones (in this case, foreign state media) are sold entry.

In related news, Russia now is an insider threat:

…analysts at [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] were verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency. “People are saying Russia is winning. Putin is on the inside now.”

A very cynical twist to this great replacement strategy, moving Russian assets inside the federal government to replace citizens that Trump tries to outrage, is the trap being set.

…mass firings could offer a rich recruitment opportunity for foreign intelligence services that might seek to exploit financially vulnerable or resentful former employees.

Here’s the story: restrict American information flow, remove American focus on Russian threats, and create the most toxic environment possible to push disgruntled former employees into Russian recruitment.

Taken together, these systematic changes compromise national security interests in ways that benefit Russia, as well as other adversaries. This pattern isn’t novel, as it parallels several historical precedents where governments became compromised by foreign influence:

• The Vichy regime in France during WWII represents one of the most stark examples. After France fell to Nazi Germany, the Vichy government under Marshal Pétain actively collaborated with German authorities, restricting press freedom, purging civil servants deemed disloyal, and essentially functioning as a proxy administration that served foreign interests while maintaining a façade of independence.
• The situation in Czechoslovakia before and during the 1948 Communist coup offers another parallel. Soviet-aligned officials gradually gained control of key ministries, particularly interior and information ministries, allowing them to control security forces and media access. This culminated in the complete communist takeover, with opposition voices silenced and government functions increasingly serving Soviet rather than Czech interests.
• In more recent history, Viktor Yanukovych’s administration in Ukraine (2010-2014) showed similar patterns. His government increasingly aligned with Russian interests, restricted press freedom, and made policy decisions that benefited Moscow while undermining Ukraine’s relationship with Western democracies – ultimately leading to the Euromaidan protests and his ousting.

Is Trump the new Yanukovych?

What makes these historical examples particularly troubling is how they began with seemingly isolated incidents such as changes to press access, selective enforcement of security protocols, and personnel changes in key positions, before evolving into comprehensive systems of foreign compromise and control.