When seismic shifts occur in governance and power, attention typically focuses on elections, policies, and partisan conflicts. Yet behind the scenes, bureaucratic levers and executive orders quietly sculpt the landscape with surgical precision. This is the story of Executive Order 13721 and the Global Engagement Center (GEC) and how they may have reshaped not only public discourse but also the presidency itself.
This isn’t just about why President Donald Trump was removed from office. It’s about confronting a system with entrenched narrative control, a system resistant to disruption, even by the highest office in the land, under the guise of combating disinformation.
The Birth of the Global Engagement Center (GEC)
On March 14, 2016, President Barack Obama established the Global Engagement Center (GEC) within the State Department through Executive Order 13721. The GEC’s mission was to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation, particularly from terrorist organizations and adversarial states.
This initiative appeared to be a proactive response to the rising tide of information warfare. However, it raised a critical question: Who determines what constitutes “propaganda”? More provocatively, how easily could a tool designed to counter external threats be turned inward?
Critics argue that the GEC evolved beyond a defensive instrument. They claim it became a centralized engine for narrative control, capable of shaping public discourse and suppressing dissent under the guise of truth-telling. This transformation suggested more than just counterpropaganda; it represented an infrastructure for curating reality.
The Context and Foundations: EO 13269 and EO 13721
To understand Executive Order (EO) 13721, we must examine EO 13269, signed after 9/11. It established precedents for national security and information coordination, recognizing propaganda as a weapon in modern warfare. By 2016, state actors like Russia and China had refined these strategies, using social media to influence elections and global opinion.
EO 13721 formalized the Global Engagement Center (GEC) to combat this emerging threat. However, the GEC’s timing raises questions about its true purpose. With the 2016 U.S. presidential election approaching and Donald Trump gaining popularity, establishing a centralized disinformation unit sparked suspicion. Was this tool intended solely for foreign adversaries, or was it designed to manage domestic narratives and political outcomes?
Ukraine as the Disinformation Proving Ground
The GEC’s narrative control tactics had a precursor: Ukraine. Since 2012, figures like Alexandra Chalupa and Nina Jankowicz honed strategies to combat “Russian disinformation” in Eastern Europe. The 2014 Maidan Revolution — framed as a pro-democracy uprising — revealed deep U.S. involvement. Leaked calls, like Victoria Nuland’s infamous “F*** the EU” conversation, exposed efforts to install Western-friendly leadership.
This wasn’t just about countering Russian influence and using disinformation frameworks to achieve geopolitical goals. Ukraine became a testing ground for narrative control, setting the stage for the GEC in Washington to institutionalize these tactics.
The Biden-Shokin Controversy: A Case Study in Narrative Control
The Biden-Shokin incident exemplifies narrative manipulation. In 2016, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid unless Ukraine dismissed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings—a company where Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the board.
While Shokin’s alleged corruption was the official justification, critics argue this move shielded Burisma and the Bidens from scrutiny. This action transcended mere foreign policy; it represented narrative management to safeguard vested interests. The Global Engagement Center’s framework facilitated such operations under the pretext of combating disinformation.
Narrative Policing and Color Revolutions
The GEC’s formation coincided with—and arguably evolved from—the so-called “Color Revolutions” that unfolded across former Soviet territories. These uprisings, frequently framed as democratic movements, were often supported by external players advocating for regime change aligned with Western interests.
The 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine is a case in point. Behind the scenes, U.S. involvement cast doubts on the uprising’s autonomy. Leaked communications, such as Victoria Nuland’s infamous “F*** the EU” call, revealed deliberate efforts to shape Ukraine’s post-revolution leadership.
Within this ecosystem of narrative control, initiatives like the GEC institutionalized disinformation campaigns under the guise of combating foreign propaganda. Skeptics rightly ask—if governments can define and disseminate “truth,” can they not also silence dissent abroad and domestically?
Why Didn’t Trump Overturn EO 13721?
Despite railing against the “deep state” and “fake news,” President Trump did not revoke EO 13721 or dismantle the GEC. Possible reasons include:
- Complex Bureaucracy: The GEC’s mission — to fight foreign disinformation — may have seemed beneficial, masking its domestic implications.
- Institutional Inertia: Once entrenched, bureaucratic entities are difficult to dismantle, even for a disruptor like Trump.
- Strategic Miscalculation: Trump may have underestimated the GEC’s capacity for narrative influence, failing to recognize its threat to his presidency.
This disparity between Trump’s rhetoric and actions highlights the challenge of reforming systems deeply embedded within the federal apparatus.
The GEC’s Impact on Public Discourse and Civil Liberties
The GEC’s reach extended beyond government corridors, influencing social media platforms and digital censorship:
- Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn partnered with the GEC to flag “misinformation.”
- Fact-checking initiatives, like those by News Guard and the Atlantic Council, often mirrored state-driven narratives.
- Algorithms increasingly suppressed dissenting voices under labels like “misleading” or “harmful.”
These actions blurred the line between legitimate moderation and state-sponsored censorship, eroding public trust in free speech and fair discourse.
Centralized Disinformation Units: A Global Phenomenon
The GEC is not unique. Similar units have emerged worldwide, ostensibly to combat foreign propaganda. Yet, their potential for domestic overreach is significant. Fact-checking tools and AI-driven content moderation can become gateways for authoritarian control, suppressing inconvenient truths.
What Lies Ahead for the GEC?
The Global Engagement Center’s future remains contentious. On one hand, its mission to mitigate foreign disinformation is undeniably crucial in a digital world rife with manipulation. On the other, the inherent risks of narrative policing call for stringent oversight and accountability.
Policymakers must ensure mechanisms like the GEC serve their intended purpose—not the agendas of specific political actors. Meanwhile, Congress may need to revisit Executive Order 13721 to clarify the scope and boundaries of the GEC’s activities with greater transparency.
Transparency is essential. Citizens and the media must remain vigilant, as investigative reporting and free speech advocacy are now more crucial than ever to safeguard the ideals of a democratic republic in an era dominated by state-controlled narratives.
The Path Forward: Transparency and Oversight
To prevent the GEC and similar units from becoming instruments of oppression, we need:
- Clear Boundaries: Define the scope of disinformation units to focus strictly on foreign threats.
- Congressional Oversight: Regular audits and transparency reports on the GEC’s operations.
- Public Vigilance: Support for investigative journalism and free speech advocacy to hold these mechanisms accountable.
The Real Reason Trump Was Removed
EO 13721 and the GEC symbolize the modern weaponization of information. Trump’s failure to dismantle this system may have contributed to his downfall. The GEC’s ability to influence narratives and a compliant digital ecosystem created a powerful mechanism resistant to disruption.
In the end, this is more than Trump. It’s about confronting the growing tension between state-controlled truth and democratic freedom. If we fail to challenge these systems, we risk sacrificing our liberties on the altar of manufactured realities.
Now you know why he was removed.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me onSubscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
IC: Intelligence Community; FP: Foreign Policy
