Did President Trump extend an invitation to Vladimir Putin for his inauguration, as he did with Xi Jinping? (IC: Intelligence Community ; FP: Foreign Policy)
The intricate dance of international diplomacy often depends on more than explicit policies and agreements—symbols, gestures, and sometimes, the deliberate lack of them can carry profound meaning. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s refusal to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2025 was no scheduling conflict; it was a calculated decision that underscored U.S.-China tensions. These tensions, deeply embedded in military competition, ideological divides, and the struggle for global dominance, provide a vivid case study of high-stakes diplomacy. I am including my personal analysis at the end of this, including remedies to avoid possible outcomes that may lead to non-peaceful outcomes.
The very act of Trump inviting Xi to the 2025 inauguration is significant. The invitation was not a mere formality but a calculated diplomatic gesture reflecting Trump’s broader strategic and political goals. By extending this olive branch, Trump signaled a mix of intent—from leveraging strategic competition to positioning himself as a pragmatic statesman.
The Intricacies of High-Stakes Diplomacy Between the U.S. and China
International diplomacy often thrives on subtle gestures as much as it does on policies and agreements. The decision by Chinese President Xi Jinping to decline to attend Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration is key here. This choice, far from being an issue of scheduling, was a calculated move. It reflected the multifaceted tensions between the United States and China—a titanic clash shaped by military brinkmanship, ideological rivalries, and shifting global power dynamics.
Geopolitical Tensions and Strategic Signaling
By 2025, U.S.-China relations will intensify into overt strategic competition, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The South China Sea—an economic lifeline for global trade and a strategic military chokepoint—was a theater of relentless provocations. Trump’s administration had ramped up Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) to challenge China’s territorial claims, actions that Beijing interpreted as dangerous provocations.
Military maneuvers underscored the rising stakes. For instance, in 2024, the U.S. Navy conducted carrier strike group operations, prompting China’s massive live-fire drills. These actions were not mere exercises; they were declarations of intent. Xi Jinping, a leader invested in projecting himself as the unyielding guardian of China’s resurgence, could not afford to be seen aligning with a U.S. administration so actively undermining his claims. To attend Trump’s inauguration under these circumstances would have symbolized capitulation, undercutting his domestic image as a nationalist strongman.
Taiwan as the Flashpoint of Tensions
Trump’s administration pushed diplomatic boundaries with Taiwan, significantly challenging Beijing’s”One-China Policy.“High-level U.S. visits to Taiwan and a blockbuster $5 billion arms deal—offering advanced missile systems—fueled Beijing’s ire. For the Chinese Communist Party, these moves were more than antagonistic; they constituted existential threats to territorial sovereignty, an issue central to its legitimacy.
Xi skipping the inaugural ceremony is a symbolic protest against these provocations. If he attends, citizens back home could interpret the gesture as passive acceptance of U.S. actions, making him look weak. This would stoke nationalist backlash in China, a political risk Xi could ill afford given his regime’s carefully constructed narrative of defending China’s sovereignty at all costs.
COVID-19 Narratives and the Battle for Legitimacy
The contentious saga of COVID-19’s origins has continued to overshadow U.S.-China dynamics since 2020 and will continue well into Trump’s second term. Trump’s first administration amplified theories suggesting a Wuhan lab leak as the origin of the pandemic, spurring international calls for independent investigations led by allies like Australia. Today, it is becoming more evident that President Trump’s statements were factual, but so were Xi’s claiming US officials were in Wuhan around that time. Considering many high-level officials and Chinaphiles served at the behest of the CCP, both leaders made factual statements.
China’s state media worked tirelessly to position the U.S. as incompetent in pandemic management while crafting an image of China as a model of resilience and efficiency. Xi’s attendance at Trump’s inauguration could be seen as an implicit concession in this blame game, undermining China’s narrative while bolstering Trump’s rhetoric of holding Beijing accountable.
BRICS and the Pursuit of a Multipolar World Order
Beyond bilateral tensions, Xi’s decision also signaled China’s commitment to building alliances through multilateral platforms like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Under Trump, the U.S. doubled down on a unilateral approach to global affairs, which gave emerging economies a rallying point against Western dominance. Countries within the BRICS framework, particularly Russia and India, portray China as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony.
China’s leadership’s discussion of alternatives to the dollar-dominated financial system further complicated matters. Attending Trump’s inauguration could give the impression of endorsing U.S. unilateralism, confusing China’s partners. Xi prioritized fortifying trust within BRICS and the Global South over making conciliatory gestures toward Washington.
Energy Politics and Strategic Autonomy
Energy security remains a key battleground. President Trump’s first administration expanded energy exports while leveraging sanctions to target China’s oil partnerships with countries like Iran and Venezuela. Meanwhile, Beijing deepened its energy ties with Russia, negotiating deals like the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline to reduce dependency on U.S.-influenced markets.
Once again, this is another reason that Xi declined. Because attending President Trump’s inauguration would risk diluting China’s messaging to energy allies. By rejecting the invitation, Xi reaffirmed Beijing’s pursuit of energy diversification and resistance to U.S. sanctions mechanisms.
Managing Domestic Perception and Xi’s Persona
Domestic politics play a significant role in Xi’s strategic calculus. His leadership depends on projecting dominance, both at home and internationally. China’s state media, a tightly controlled propaganda arm, routinely cast the U.S. as a declining power plagued by dysfunction. President Trump’s brash rhetoric about China only strengthened Beijing’s efforts to portray the U.S. as chaotic.
This narrative would have been muddled if Xi had appeared at President Trump’s inauguration, leading to domestic accusations of softness or inconsistency. The stakes are too high for Xi to risk being seen as offering tacit legitimacy to a leader who openly derided his country.
Strategic Protocol and Geopolitical Calculations
Diplomatic protocols also matter. Presidential inaugurations are inherently unpredictable public events, lacking the ceremonial rigor and controlled environments of state visits. Attending Trump’s inauguration posed more risks than benefits for a leader as cautious about security and optics as Xi. Protests, partisan divides, or even a scene-stealing moment orchestrated by Trump could undermine Xi’s carefully scripted image.
Now that we have examined Xi’s decision to decline the invitation to understand Xi’s refusal fully, we must explore why Trump invited him in the first place.
International diplomacy is a delicate chess game where silence can speak louder than words, and what remains unspoken often holds as much power as what is declared.~Tore Maras
Why did President Trump invite Xi Jinping to his inauguration?
Strategic Balancing and the Optics of Diplomacy
President Trump’s invitation to Xi Jinping may have been an attempt to portray himself as a leader willing to engage with global powers, even amid escalating tensions. After years of confrontational rhetoric and policies toward China, inviting Xi allowed Trump to create an image of diplomatic openness and flexibility. This reinforces his position as a dealmaker capable of managing rivalry through dialogue, reminiscent of his earlier overtures to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.
For example, during his first term, President Trump oscillated between confrontation and engagement with China, imposing tariffs on Chinese goods while praising Xi’s leadership. The invitation to the 2025 inauguration could have continued this strategy, aimed at keeping diplomatic channels open while maintaining leverage.
Economic Pragmatism and Trade Negotiations
Economic considerations may have also driven the invitation. Despite the strategic rivalry, the U.S. and China remain deeply intertwined economically. During Trump’s first term, the two nations engaged in a high-stakes trade war, resulting in the 2020 Phase One trade deal, which saw China commit to purchasing $200 billion in U.S. goods over two years.
By inviting Xi, Trump may have signaled his willingness to pursue further trade negotiations or revise existing agreements. The gesture could have reassured American businesses and markets that a second Trump term would not mean total decoupling from China. Decoupling our markets could destabilize the global economy, and both leaders know that.
Geopolitical Leverage in the Indo-Pacific
Trump’s invitation to Xi is likely part of a broader strategy to maintain leverage in the Indo-Pacific. The region remains a hotbed of strategic competition, with the South China Sea and Taiwan as focal points. By inviting Xi, Trump may have attempted to balance military posturing with diplomatic engagement.
This dual-track approach allows President Trump to project strength—through Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and arms sales to Taiwan—while leaving room for negotiation. The invitation also signals to U.S. allies in the region that the administration is pursuing a comprehensive strategy, combining deterrence with dialogue.
Domestic Political Messaging
On the domestic front, Trump’s invitation to Xi serves a political purpose. As a leader known for his “America First” agenda, Trump’s outreach to Xi demonstrates his commitment to American interests because he is a pragmatic statesman willing to engage adversaries to benefit our nation. This gesture also appeals to moderate voters who favor diplomacy over confrontation.
By inviting Xi, President Trump elevates himself in contrast with previous administrations, particularly Barack Obama’s “strategic patience” and Joe Biden’s multilateralism – both oozing Chinaphile energy. For President Trump, the invitation reinforces his leadership, which evidently can create complex diplomatic relationships on his terms. For example: Beth Bechdol is funding China by way of FAO funding that exceeds the budget in place by more than 500% and funding Hamas.
Countering BRICS and Multipolar Challenges
President Trump’s invitation is a strategic move to disrupt China’s growing influence within the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). As BRICS nations increasingly position themselves as alternatives to Western dominance, President Trump’s gesture to Xi may be an attempt to sow doubt or create divisions within the bloc. If done for this reason, it is a genius strategy but may also be a byproduct of his innate statesmanship and dealmaking qualities.
By inviting Xi, President Trump may have tested China’s commitment to BRICS solidarity. If Xi had accepted, it could have been perceived as weakening China’s resolve to lead a multipolar challenge to U.S. hegemony. Conversely, Xi’s refusal reinforced China’s alignment with BRICS’ goals and vision for a multipolar world order.
The Symbolism of Xi’s Refusal
Xi’s refusal to attend President Trump’s 2025 inauguration sent a powerful message to the United States, highlighting Beijing’s unwillingness to give the perception to the world that China bows to external pressure or allow its diplomatic optics to align with Trump’s overtly anti-China policies. This decision reinforces China’s refusal to be coerced into submission or accept a narrative that painted it as subordinate to U.S. interests. This invitation decline underscores China’s determination to chart its course, independent of American influence or intimidation.
On the global stage, Xi’s decision resonates with BRICS and other allies, reaffirming China’s commitment to fostering a multipolar world order. By declining the invitation, Xi demonstrated that China remains resolute in its vision of a balanced international system where emerging powers could challenge Western dominance. This act reassures China’s partners in BRICS and the Global South that Beijing is dedicated to strengthening its collective voice and resisting unilateralism from Washington. After all, they own the UN.
RELATED: Unmasking Treason: The Hidden Hands Behind America’s Pandemic Protocols
Domestically, Xi’s refusal bolsters his image as an unyielding leader in the face of Western challenges. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) narrative relies heavily on the perception of Xi as a protector of national sovereignty and pride. His decision to skip the inauguration reinforces this narrative, signaling to the Chinese public that their leader would not compromise China’s dignity or interests for diplomatic theater. In a political environment where nationalism is a cornerstone of legitimacy, Xi’s calculated decline to attend reaffirms his perceived leadership.
Xi’s Declination as Diplomacy in Action
Ultimately, Xi Jinping’s refusal to attend Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration is a calculated act. It sends a powerful message on multiple fronts. To the United States, it underscores Beijing’s unwillingness to bow to pressure or allow optics to align with Trump’s anti-China policies. To BRICS and other allies, it reaffirms China’s commitment to fostering a multipolar order. Domestically, it reinforces Xi’s image as a leader of the CCP unyielding in the face of Western challenges.
This is not a passive decision; his declination is a bold diplomatic maneuver that matches the complexities of 21st-century geopolitics. It is an act steeped in strategy—designed to signal strength, preserve alliances, and uphold the CCP’s carefully curated global narrative. This exemplifies diplomacy, which is intricate and serves as a reminder of the high-stakes game of international politics that what is unsaid can often matter just as much as what is said.
In the realm of diplomacy, declining an invitation is rarely an act of absence; it is a calculated presence, a statement that asserts strength without uttering a word. ~Tore Maras
My Assessment and Recommendations
Exploring the complex implications surrounding Xi Jinping’s attendance or absence at Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration, mainly through the lens of security, potential blame, and the catastrophic consequences of either scenario, is imperative, as is providing a recommended solution.
When I heard President Trump invited Xi to his inauguration, I was ecstatic because it was a great way to gauge China’s position and the global geopolitical pulse. I observed various articles and news reports from all continents and their assessment of the invitation, most of which advocated for Xi’s decline. This sentiment came from allies and adversaries of the United States, which, for me, positioned many “allies” as adversaries in disguise—New Zealand, India, and Norway, to name a few.
My thoughts were focused on the President’s security. Therefore, I decided whether Xi Jinping’s presence at Trump’s 2025 inauguration would mitigate violence and signal global solidarity or whether his absence would fuel chaos and deepen global tensions. This geopolitical conundrum underscores high-stakes diplomacy’s intricate web of relationships and the profound consequences of a single decision.
My Analysis If Xi Jinping Accepted the Invitation from a National Security Perspective
Had Xi accepted the invitation to attend, his presence would have served as a stabilizing anchor amid an otherwise volatile atmosphere—high-profile state visits such as this demand unparalleled security coordination. Xi’s stature would undoubtedly elevate these measures to unprecedented levels, mirroring the extensive operations seen during Pope Francis’s 2015 U.S. visit. Back then, a vast network of federal and local forces collaborated to ensure maximum safety—with advanced surveillance, cyber defenses, and counter-sniper operations deployed.
Xi’s attendance wouldn’t merely bolster physical security. It would project an unmissable image of global solidarity. The joint presence of two of the world’s most powerful leaders would symbolize a shared commitment to peace and order against a backdrop of political division. Such a united front could serve as a psychological deterrent to potential bad actors, sending the message that any attempt at disruption would face resounding international condemnation. Beyond policy, such moments remind the world that even staunch rivals can prioritize stability when it matters most.
Domestically, Xi’s physical presence could compel factions hostile to Trump within the U.S. to reconsider any plans for unrest. It is a symbolic but powerful gesture—suggesting that global consequences outweigh any personal vendetta or ideological leanings. Security would be cooperative, certainty would replace chaos, and diplomacy would triumph—at least for now.
If I am analyzing the invitation from this perspective, so is the CCP. Undoubtedly, security was the primary deciding factor for the decline, which is unspoken but evident. However, they fail to realize that in the future, considering that blaming China for anything that might occur will be embraced globally, unseating them from a position of strength and inviting the worst-case scenario.
Xi’s Absence: A Catalyst for Chaos and Potential Blame
On the other hand, Xi Jinping’s decision to decline the invitation to Trump’s inauguration opens a dangerous pathway for potential blame should any violence or attack occur. The political atmosphere in the U.S. is already fraught with suspicion and division. In the event of an incident targeting President Trump, conspiracy theories and accusations could quickly spiral out of control, with fingers pointing directly at China. That is something Obama’s CIA fine-tuned, inheriting it from Bush Sr., who conned the whole world into Iraq over “yellow cake uranium” claims and Weapons of Mass Destruction that never existed.
Years before, the European pipeline was detonated by “unknown” forces. I spoke about that possibility. We all know Biden did that because I explicitly stated that the pipeline would be a target. It had Obama’s fine-tuned covert fingerprints all over it.
Given the existing U.S.-China tensions, exacerbated by trade wars, military posturing in the Indo-Pacific, and narratives around COVID-19, it would not take much for Beijing to be blamed. Figures within the U.S. government or media could argue that Xi’s refusal to attend was a deliberate snub signaling tacit approval of destabilizing forces. This could lead to accusations that China had foreknowledge or indirect involvement in an attack. This strategy is one that Victoria Nuland knows well, coupled with the execution of Molly Phee’s action, Sudan would emulate her in that capacity.
Victoria Nuland
Ukraine’s Euromaidan Protests (2013-2014) Victoria Nuland, then Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, played a pivotal role in the U.S.’s support for pro-Western factions in Ukraine. She was responsible for protestors and organizing unrest with US taxpayer dollars as well as “ushering” (aka rigging) their elections with State Department staff.
As protests against President Viktor Yanukovych grew, Nuland famously handed out food to demonstrators in Kyiv, symbolically aligning the U.S. with the opposition. In fact, most of the protestors were hired by her team to protest, which is why she did that. When violence escalated, narratives within the U.S. government and media shifted blame toward Russia, portraying it as a destabilizing force. The leaked “F** the EU”* phone call underscored how Nuland and the U.S. sought to shape Ukraine’s leadership and direction. Accusations of Russian interference in Ukraine’s sovereignty mirrored the type of strategic blame-shifting that could be used against China in a hypothetical scenario of destabilization.
Molly Phee
Sudan’s Political Crisis (2021-Present)
As the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Molly Phee has been instrumental in handling Sudan’s transitional period following President Omar al-Bashir’s ouster, which Obama helped accomplish. When Sudan’s military staged a coup in October 2021, Phee led U.S. efforts to push for a civilian-led government. She aided in protestors and bribed the Sudanese army to accomplish that.
Her diplomatic engagement underscored a narrative in which external actors—such as Russia or Middle Eastern states—were accused of undermining Sudanese democracy. This framing strategically diverted attention from domestic military interests and mirrored the influence of Obama-Biden policy directives seen in Ukraine from 2004 to the present, now seemingly adapted to fuel Sudan’s instability.
In a hypothetical scenario involving U.S.-China tensions, Phee’s expertise in attributing destabilization to foreign actors could similarly be deployed to implicate China as a covert destabilizer, especially in regions where Beijing has vested economic or strategic interests, like Africa or Southeast Asia.
Nuland and Phee are just two of many such experts who have been involved in misattributing acts of violence and destabilization to the cache of the fourth unelected branch of government.
Notably, such rhetoric could escalate into a severe international crisis. If Trump or his administration were to accuse China of complicity publicly, it might trigger retaliatory measures, ranging from economic sanctions to military posturing. Given the current arms race and heightened military presence in the South China Sea, such an accusation could quickly spiral into a full-scale confrontation. The mutual distrust and rapid response capabilities of both nations could bring the world to the brink of a nuclear conflict.
Domestically, within China, Xi’s refusal to attend could bolster his image as a leader who refuses to engage with an adversarial U.S. administration. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could frame his decision as a moral stance against Western provocation, reinforcing his strongman persona and appealing to nationalist sentiments. However, this domestic approval would come at the cost of global condemnation. If Xi’s absence were linked to an attack, China’s diplomatic credibility would be shattered, isolating Beijing from international partners and potentially destabilizing the fragile alliances within BRICS and the Global South.
The Double-Edged Sword of Diplomacy
Xi Jinping faced a dilemma where both attendance and absence carried immense risks. His presence could have ensured tighter security and symbolized a commitment to international peace, potentially preventing violence. However, attending might have been perceived as a concession to Trump’s policies, undermining Xi’s carefully crafted image at home. Conversely, his refusal to attend might bolster his domestic standing but expose him and China to blame for any potential catastrophe, potentially sparking a chain reaction that leads to global conflict.
This delicate balance highlights the intricate nature of high-stakes diplomacy, where each gesture or lack thereof can tip the scales toward stability or chaos. Ultimately, Xi’s choice was a high-wire act of geopolitical risk, a decision that could reshape the future of international relations for better or worse.
In an age where confusion clouds truth, perception doesn’t just shape reality — it becomes reality. Navigating this landscape requires clarity, wisdom, and the courage to see beyond the illusions. ~Tore Maras
The Blame Game: China’s Strategic Benefit and Russia as a Convenient Scapegoat
If an attack were to occur during Trump’s 2025 inauguration, the immediate reaction would likely be chaotic, with various factions within the U.S. government and media scrambling to assign blame. In such an environment, China could quietly benefit while avoiding direct culpability. The fourth unelected branch would have ample incentive to direct blame toward Russia.
Russia is an ideal scapegoat for several reasons. First, the residual animosity from allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections provides a pre-existing narrative that is easy to revive even though it was proven false. Perception in war is key. Second, Russia’s ambiguous geopolitical posture—leaning east toward China while maintaining transactional relationships with the West—makes it susceptible to being portrayed as a double-dealer. Third, figures like Victoria Nuland and Molly Phee, known for their hawkish stances on Russia, would quickly leverage any opportunity to frame Moscow as the antagonist.
China, by contrast, would benefit strategically from Russia being blamed. Russia is a buffer state between the Western powers and China, absorbing much of the geopolitical heat that might otherwise fall on Beijing. If Russia were blamed for an attack on Trump, it would further strain U.S.-Russia relations, diverting Washington’s attention and resources away from the Indo-Pacific and China. This would allow China to pursue its strategic goals, such as expanding influence in the South China Sea, strengthening ties with BRICS nations, and advancing its Belt and Road Initiative, with reduced interference.
A weakened Russia would create a vacuum China could fill economically and diplomatically. Russia’s alienation from the West would deepen economic reliance on China, giving Beijing more leverage over critical energy supplies and Eurasian trade routes.
Mitigating Risks – Solutions
What can Russia do to mitigate the benefit China would have if something happened?
Russia must adopt a comprehensive strategy focused on transparency, communication, and deterrence to mitigate the risk of being scapegoated. One crucial step is preemptive diplomacy, where Russia engages in high-level discussions with the U.S. and European powers before the inauguration. Russia can set a foundation of goodwill by emphasizing shared security interests and the necessity of preventing destabilizing events. Public declarations reaffirming its commitment to de-escalation and non-interference would further solidify this position.
In addition, Russia could propose joint security initiatives for the inauguration that involve collaborative measures. These might include sharing intelligence on potential threats and coordinating cyber defense operations. Such cooperation would illustrate Russia’s dedication to global stability and complicate any efforts to implicate Moscow in an attack.
Transparency measures also play a pivotal role. Russia can provide verifiable evidence of its non-involvement by inviting international observers to oversee its internal security operations and intelligence activities in the lead-up to the event. This level of openness would help counter any fabricated accusations.
Strategic messaging should accompany these actions. Russia can proactively challenge false flag narratives using diplomatic channels, state media, and international platforms like the United Nations. By highlighting its historical restraint and contributions to global security, Russia can reinforce its legitimacy and commitment to peace.
The potential for Xi Jinping’s absence to spark a blame game that targets Russia reflects the precarious nature of global power dynamics. While China could benefit from deflecting blame onto Russia, the consequences of such an occurrence could lead to catastrophic escalation. By employing proactive diplomacy, transparency, and strategic communication, Russia can mitigate the risk of being unfairly targeted and help stabilize an increasingly volatile international landscape. In the high-stakes arena of global politics, where perception often shapes reality, foresight, and cooperation are essential to averting disaster. Xi should consider doing the same.
SOLUTIONS
WHAT CAN PRESIDENT TRUMP DO WITHOUT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ENSURE A SAFE INAUGURATION
Considering the potential security threats and historical precedents for virtual or pre-recorded events, a virtual or pre-recorded inauguration for Donald Trump would be a strategic and practical approach to ensuring his safety. This method would minimize risk while maintaining the ceremonial and constitutional aspects of the transition of power.
Biden’s Inauguration Sets Precedent
The inauguration of President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, was notably scaled back and held mainly in a virtual format, a historic departure from traditional ceremonies. The decision to limit in-person attendance and replace many elements with virtual participation was because not many people would turn up since the elections of 2020 were stolen with the aid of West Exec and DHS. Though publicly, they claimed this was driven by a combination of public health concerns amid the COVID-19 pandemic and heightened security fears following the January 6 Capitol attack that the fourth unelected branch of government orchestrated itself.
Stringent measures were implemented for the event, including an absence of large crowds, heavy deployment of the National Guard, and online broadcasts that allowed Americans to witness the ceremony from home. Instead of the usual parades and packed gatherings, performances and speeches were pre-recorded or live-streamed, and viewers engaged through digital platforms.
THE EASIEST MITIGATION OPTION
Joe Biden’s virtual approach set a significant precedent by demonstrating that a cornerstone of American democracy—presidential inaugurations—can adapt to extraordinary circumstances without compromising the legitimacy of the transition of power. We can prioritize safety and security by leveraging technology and limiting physical participation while signaling a commitment to stability and continuity. This model underscores the flexibility of institutional traditions and provides a blueprint for future events where public health, security threats, or other emergencies may necessitate similar adaptations. This will mitigate the risk of potential disruptions and project an image of resilience in the face of uncertainty, reinforcing the message that democracy could proceed even under duress.
A virtual or pre-recorded inauguration represents an approach THAT involves precise strategies aimed at safeguarding both the President and the democratic continuity of the nation.
First, the undisclosed location of the inauguration plays a pivotal role in minimizing threat exposure. Utilizing fortified facilities such as military bases or secure government buildings mitigates the risks associated with live events. Enhanced anti-surveillance measures, secure perimeters, and contingency escape routes are integral to ensuring the safety of all involved parties.
The ceremony is meticulously pre-recorded, encompassing vital moments such as the Oath of Office, the inaugural speech, and symbolic traditions like flag-raising or a military salute. High production standards ensure these recordings not only preserve the gravitas of the event but also mirror the traditional setting often associated with inaugurations. The backdrop, designed to emulate the Capitol steps or other iconic imagery, reinforces the sense of continuity while adopting modern defensive measures.
We saw this production at Joe Biden’s inauguration, and it would be ideal, considering the threats made to President Trump’s life over the past eight years.
Strategic coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement ensures the deployment of National Guard units and federal officers across Washington, D.C., and urban centers nationwide to preempt any potential unrest. This measure, combined with a National Security Emergency declaration, secures vital locations and deters threats that may arise during this sensitive transition of power.
The virtual approach has distinct advantages. Operational flexibility allows the fine-tuning of every recorded detail, ensuring clarity and composure throughout. By de-emphasizing live events, security personnel can redirect their focus to addressing potential threats rather than managing a sprawling live venue. Most critically, this approach guarantees governmental continuity despite emerging dangers, signaling resilience to both domestic and international audiences.
However, maintaining authenticity is a key challenge. Critics may argue that a virtual inauguration lacks transparency and the solemnity of a live event, necessitating efforts to replicate key symbolic elements. Legally and constitutionally, the Oath of Office must adhere to stringent requirements—a concern that is carefully addressed by ensuring proper witnesses and adherence to protocol. Clear communication with the public is also paramount, emphasizing the necessity of these adaptations to mitigate backlash and maintain trust.
It is crucial to highlight that Joe Biden’s inauguration was largely pre-recorded and virtual. The media, both legacy and alternative, should be discussing it publicly. This can effectively counter propagandist narratives such as “President Trump can’t draw crowds” or claims that “Trump is a dictator who stole the 2024 election, which is why the ceremony is virtual.” We can provide a clear rationale for this approach and deflect misleading arguments by emphasizing these facts.
President Trump’s life faces constant threats, making a virtual inauguration a prudent and reasonable option for ensuring his safety. Regardless of the format—virtual or physical—I will be in Washington, D.C., to witness this momentous event. This inauguration is among the most significant in our nation’s history, especially as we are nearing our 250th anniversary. Our country is still young; we can correct past mistakes by returning to the principles laid out by our Founding Fathers.
Ultimately, a virtual or pre-recorded inauguration is not just a defensive measure but a bold assertion of strategic foresight in an unpredictable era. Drawing lessons from adaptive precedents, such as Biden’s 2021 inauguration and leveraging cutting-edge technology, this approach crafts a ceremony that resonates with tradition while aligning with contemporary security imperatives. It showcases a commitment to democratic continuity, resilience, and innovation in the face of modern threats. This is not a retreat but a reimagining of how leadership is symbolized while safeguarding the future of governance.
In conclusion, a virtual or pre-recorded inauguration for President Trump’s second term would mitigate the risk of China, Iran, or Russia, to name a few, being scapegoated for potential disruptions, ensuring a neutral and blame-free beginning to his presidency. This approach de-escalates tensions by avoiding provocations or misinterpretations that could catalyze conflict. Such a decision would be seen as a diplomatic gesture, prioritizing caution and stability and preventing his inauguration from being framed as the trigger for global hostilities. It sets a measured tone, reinforcing the focus on national unity and historical significance rather than international confrontation.
BONUS
Did President Trump extend an invitation to Vladimir Putin for his inauguration, as he did with Xi Jinping? In the intricate chessboard of global power, this question carries profound implications. If he did, it might signal a willingness to engage Russia strategically, acknowledging that China has emerged as the more formidable adversary. If he didn’t, it could reveal a calculated distinction, one that recognizes Russia’s reduced threat compared to China’s economic and military ascendance, which risks Russia taking that as an insult too. Either scenario speaks volumes — as a silent commentary on alliances, rivalries, and the nuanced priorities that are shaping America’s path forward.
In the theater of power, what is left unsaid often carries more weight than what is declared. Invitations extended — or withheld — reveal the true measure of alliances and adversaries; Enjoy the Show! ~Tore Maras
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar ! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X . I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
