From the 2009 stimulus to the open-data era, the Obama administration’s continuity-of-government vehicle transformed a policy of democratic visibility into an infrastructure of control—linking government, academia, philanthropy, and global capital into a single lattice of power.
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) inaugurated a new era of governance through data. What began as a stimulus-driven experiment in accountability—embodied in Recovery.gov,Data.gov, and the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06)—laid the groundwork for a transparency infrastructure that now spans public institutions, research universities, philanthropic networks, and multinational investors. Over time, this web of openness—extended by Minerva-funded academic research, donor-led civic initiatives, and global capital flows—has transformed transparency from a democratic safeguard into a self-reinforcing system of informational centralization.
This article is based on a National Security whitepaper I authored that traces how open-data mandates, well-intentioned philanthropic models, and private digital platforms coalesced into what can be described as a governance lattice—a network in which visibility itself functions as a form of control. By examining linkages among ARRA’s data architecture, Minerva’s behavioral datasets, USAID-funded research, and the rise of off-ledger donor ecosystems, it argues that transparency, without reciprocal accountability, has inverted its original purpose. The result is a Gordian knot of governance—transparent in appearance, opaque in operation—demanding urgent audit and policy reform to realign openness with democratic sovereignty.
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) did more than jumpstart a stalled economy — it rewired how the federal government thinks about information itself. Through Recovery.gov and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, ARRA forced agencies and grantees to report every dollar in structured, machine-readable form. What began as stimulus reporting quietly became the prototype for Data.gov and USAspending.gov, embedding transparency into the operating code of government. Early anomalies — the so-called “phantom districts” and overstated job counts — revealed not corruption but the growing pains of an unprecedented data system(GAO, 2010). Subsequent GAO audits in 2010 confirmed that improved reporting, not missing money, was the issue. By December 2009, the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06) made openness the federal default, creating a continuous digital ledger of public spending that survived the stimulus itself. That ledger became the first strand in what we now recognize as the United States’ broader web of visibility — a framework that transformed transparency from principle into infrastructure.
ARRA’s data architecture did more than track stimulus dollars — it reshaped how both government and academia studied society itself. The Act’s machine-readable reporting standards, codified through Data.gov, created the first interoperable foundation for civic analytics. This digital framework allowed agencies and researchers to quantify human behavior at scale, transforming social patterns into datasets that could be measured, modeled, and predicted. Through subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs), the Department of Defense’s Minerva Research Initiative leveraged that infrastructure to fund studies on civil resistance and social dynamics — including Erica Chenoweth’s Major Episodes of Contention project at the University of Denver’s Sié Center (Sié Center, 2014). For the first time, theories of protest were systematically converted into structured data. Dissent became legible — not through suppression, but through codification. In effect, ARRA’s open-data scaffolding made civic life observable, transforming transparency into both a democratic ideal and a national instrument of analysis.
The logic of openness did not end with ARRA; it deepened. As transparency became the default mode of governance, new statutes extended that visibility into policy and information domains once cordoned off by law. The 2013 Smith–Mundt Modernization Act (NDAA, 2013) relaxed long-standing restrictions that had prohibited U.S. government communications intended for foreign audiences from circulating domestically, effectively dissolving the border between international public diplomacy and internal information ecosystems. What had been a firewall became a conduit. This shift, aligned with the same ethos that produced Data.gov and USAspending.gov, allowed information flows to travel both ways—an architecture designed for transparency that also facilitated global reach.
When Erica Chenoweth transitioned from the Sié Center at the University of Denver to Harvard University, her Minerva-supported methodologies followed. The frameworks first tested through Minerva’s Major Episodes of Contention evolved into the Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC), launched in 2017 by Harvard and the University of Connecticut. The CCC operationalized what ARRA had set in motion: civic behavior rendered as data, published through Harvard Dataverse (Harvard, 2018), and made available for public analysis. What had begun as a mechanism for economic accountability now served as a platform for documenting protest, dissent, and participation across the United States.
In this sense, the transparency architecture built under ARRA and extended by OMB’s Open Government Directive (M-10-06) became self-replicating—its design language migrating from fiscal oversight to civic quantification. Datasets originally created to reassure taxpayers of how funds were spent became templates for measuring social energy itself. Visibility, once a safeguard against waste and fraud, evolved into a comprehensive lens for understanding—and in some cases anticipating—collective behavior. This was not the result of conspiracy but of design: a government that learned to see itself more clearly inevitably made its citizens more observable too.
As academia quantified civic behavior, global capital began to operate within the same transparency framework. The infrastructure of openness that ARRA introduced—and that the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06) normalized—did not stay confined to government. It extended outward, shaping how private and foreign investors understood access to American information systems. Tencent Holdings Ltd., a Chinese firm bound by the People’s Republic of China’s cybersecurity and censorship laws, provides a striking case. Between 2017 and 2021, Tencent lawfully acquired minority stakes in major U.S. platforms central to civic discourse and cultural production: a 12% position in Snap Inc. (2017), $150 million of Reddit’s $300 million Series D round (2019, valuing the company at $3 billion), and additional investments in Epic Games and Universal Music Group (SEC, 2019–2021). Each transaction was properly disclosed through SEC filings, consistent with U.S. law. Yet these positions, taken together, placed a PRC-regulated entity within the content-moderation and data-analysis ecosystems of the United States’ most influential digital platforms.
While no public evidence indicates wrongdoing or policy violation, the structural reality carries strategic weight. In an era when data flows are power flows, minority equity becomes a soft lever—access not to classified information, but to the architecture of visibility itself. Reuters (2019) and other outlets documented these investments in real time; none violated American securities law, but each expanded the perimeter of foreign proximity to U.S. civic data. The national-security question, then, is not one of espionage but of exposure: what happens when the infrastructure of transparency intersects with corporate systems governed by foreign data-retention and censorship requirements?
“They called it infrastructure, but it was never about roads or bridges — it was about building the digital scaffolding of the Obama Administration’s continuity itself. Obama poured the concrete; Congress just signed the blueprint.” — Tore Maras
ARRA’s open-data legacy created the conditions for this intersection. The same machine-readable, interoperable datasets that fueled innovation also made the United States’ information economy uniquely legible to foreign capital. In the process, transparency itself became a tradable commodity. Visibility—once a democratic virtue—acquired market value, and the actors most capable of monetizing it were not necessarily domestic. This convergence of public openness, private capital, and global regulation defined the next phase of the transparency lattice: one in which lawful participation by foreign investors nonetheless reshaped the informational sovereignty of democratic systems.
The Chenoweth–Stephan research track, built atop ARRA’s data-sharing infrastructure, bridged academic theory and operational policy. Their landmark work, Why Civil Resistance Works, did more than catalog protest dynamics—it formalized a grammar of nonviolent resistance that found its way into U.S. development and diplomacy frameworks. By the mid-2010s, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had incorporated the book’s findings into training programs for democracy promotion and conflict prevention. Under Dr. Maria J. Stephan’s leadership at USIP, and with continued collaboration from Chenoweth, the institutions began producing toolkits that translated academic models into field practice (USIP, 2016). The Carnegie Corporation of New York, whose historical mission blends research and policy, underwrote dissemination grants that circulated these frameworks across both governmental and NGO ecosystems (Carnegie, 2016).
Below is on of many such discussions we have taken part of in over 10 yrs of following Obama’s Continuity of Government directives :
This evolution was made possible by ARRA’s digital infrastructure and by the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06), which institutionalized data publication as a federal norm. The government’s insistence on standardized, open reporting created a feedback loop between transparency and policymaking: datasets informed research, research informed strategy, and strategy generated more data. In effect, what began as fiscal accountability matured into a behavioral analytics infrastructure that shaped how the United States—and its partners—approached civic engagement globally. By 2023, USAID was commissioning comparative studies of protest behavior, some of which drew on U.S. domestic data for methodological insights (USIP, 2023). The formal boundary between foreign-assistance research and domestic social analysis had begun to blur—not illicitly, but structurally. When the same open-data systems support both, compartmentalization becomes nearly impossible.
Through this network—federal funding mandates, philanthropic grants, and academic research centers—a coherent architecture emerged: a data lattice where civic life could be observed, categorized, and modeled at scale. Its intention was accountability; its byproduct, visibility. From ARRA’s fiscal ledgers to Minerva’s protest datasets and USAID’s democracy programming, the transparency ideal had become a cross-sector operating system. Yet as each institution refined its ability to analyze society, fewer safeguards remained to ensure that citizens themselves retained agency over the data that defined them. The policy question confronting Washington now is not whether transparency works—it clearly does—but who transparency ultimately serves.
ARRA’s data mandates, the NDAA’s legal shifts, Minerva’s academic datasets, and Tencent’s platform stakes now intersect to form what can only be described as a Gordian knot of transparency—a self-reinforcing system where openness creates both insight and exposure. Designed to illuminate, it simultaneously centralizes control in the hands of those who command the analytical infrastructure: governments, universities, and global corporations. Each layer—stimulus-era reporting, defense-sponsored research, philanthropic grant-making, and foreign investment—was conceived independently, yet together they compose an integrated lattice of visibility that governs twenty-first-century civic life. Accountability and influence now share the same circuitry.
This lattice functions as both a technological and institutional network. OMB’s Open Government Directive (2009) established the data standards. The Minerva Research Initiative (2014) operationalized those standards for behavioral analysis. The Smith–Mundt Modernization Act (2013) normalized cross-border information flow. The SEC’s disclosure regime (2019–2021) made platform ownership public but not necessarily secure. Philanthropic organizations—from the Russell Sage Foundation’s social-inequality research (2018) to Solidaire Network’s funding of civic-mobilization groups (2020)—amplified the same logic of open coordination that ARRA had championed. Even off-ledger collaborations, such as the Horizons Project (2023) led by Maria Stephan, which aims to mobilize nonviolent action across multiple sectors, reflect how the transparency ethos extends beyond government into the realm of strategic social engineering. Each node justifies itself as democratic engagement; together, they constitute a soft architecture of influence.
This Gordian knot cannot be untangled through secrecy or restriction—those would only reinforce public distrust. It must instead be audited and rebalanced. Policymakers must confront the paradox at its core: transparency, when unbounded, does not automatically democratize power—it can consolidate it. The infrastructure designed to make spending visible now makes society itself measurable; the systems intended to empower oversight have rendered citizens legible. To sustain democratic legitimacy, visibility must be coupled with reciprocity—citizens must see the observers, not only be seen by them. The next generation of governance must treat provenance and accountability not as constraints but as instruments of national security and civic trust.
ARRA’s data mandates, NDAA’s legal shifts, Minerva’s academic datasets, and Tencent’s platform stakes form a Gordian knot: a system where transparency enables control. While promising accountability, this infrastructure exposes civic life to those—governments, universities, corporations—who wield data most effectively. The challenge now is balancing openness with safeguards to ensure visibility serves democracy, not just its architects.
While the transparency lattice now operates globally, its origins remain traceable to the early audit culture that followed ARRA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a series of reviews between 2010 and 2014, diagnosed the initial problems not as fraud or waste, but as infrastructure gaps. The widely cited anomalies—“phantom” congressional districts, double-counted jobs, inconsistent agency reporting—were the growing pains of a government learning to translate governance into data. The GAO’s audits (GAO-10-478) forced the creation of standardized reporting protocols and gave rise to Data.gov and USAspending.gov, the digital backbones of federal transparency. What began as a corrective measure for fiscal accountability evolved into a permanent architecture for information governance.
That architecture has since proven remarkably adaptive. The same interoperability that reconciled agency ledgers now underwrites research and investment ecosystems that reach far beyond their original intent. Minerva’s protest datasets at the University of Denver and Harvard, Tencent’s SEC-disclosed equity stakes in major U.S. platforms (SEC, 2019), and even philanthropic open-data initiatives all trace their lineage to those early reporting reforms. The lesson, confirmed over fifteen years of experimentation, is that transparency, once embedded in code and policy, cannot remain confined to budget oversight—it propagates. The question facing policymakers today is whether that propagation still serves its democratic purpose, or whether the infrastructure of openness now requires its own oversight.
Philanthropy extended ARRA’s transparency framework, transforming what began as a federal compliance tool into a culture of measurable social reform. The Russell Sage Foundation, founded in the Progressive Era and long aligned with data-driven approaches to inequality, reemerged after 2017 as a critical node in this ecosystem. Its grants funded sociological and political research that paralleled federal open-data systems, supporting large-scale studies of protest, polarization, and civic participation (Russell Sage, 2018). By structuring its research in interoperable, open formats, Russell Sage effectively mirrored ARRA’s machine-readable ethos—demonstrating how private philanthropy could adopt public-sector transparency as a method of influence.
The same logic operated within the Sié Center at the University of Denver, whose endowment from global philanthropists John and Anna Sie underscored how cross-border capital now underwrites domestic civic research (Sié Center, 2014). Their funding supported Erica Chenoweth’s empirical work on mass movements and political contention—projects that directly benefited from the standardized data architecture ARRA had institutionalized. The combination of public funding through Minerva and private endowment through Sie blurred the line between domestic academic inquiry and global philanthropic participation. The infrastructure of transparency, first engineered for government accountability, had become a shared lingua franca for influence: a method of seeing, measuring, and steering public life across institutional boundaries.
In this sense, philanthropy did not merely fund transparency—it normalized it. Each foundation, grantmaker, and endowed research center adopted the same open-data logic that once served auditors. Their systems now feed back into government portals, academic datasets, and multilateral democracy initiatives, producing an ecosystem where data circulates faster than oversight. This is the paradox of modern openness: the more transparent the system becomes, the harder it is to see who ultimately directs it.
Federal grants, academic datasets, and philanthropic endowments have now converged into a single ecosystem cloaked in transparency but increasingly designed for control. What began as a stimulus-era experiment in accountability has evolved into a self-reinforcing lattice where data, funding, and policy flow through the same interconnected circuits. Each node—federal initiative, research institution, philanthropic foundation, or corporate stakeholder—operates in the name of openness, yet together they form a governance architecture that centralizes informational authority. The same datasets that empower oversight also enable surveillance; the same transparency that fosters participation can be used to model, predict, and steer civic behavior. From ARRA’s data portals to Minerva’s protest studies, visibility itself has become both the method and the medium of governance.
The pattern is not accidental—it is systemic. The transparency regime, reinforced by OMB’s Open Government Directive (2009), NDAA’s legal expansions (2012–2014), and the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act (2013), created an enduring feedback loop between information collection and institutional control. Universities translate human action into metrics; foundations fund its analysis; agencies apply those models to anticipate unrest or channel dissent. Even corporations—foreign and domestic—capitalize on the same flows of behavioral data to refine algorithms that shape opinion and consumption. The result is a hybrid data state: one sustained by overlapping layers of visibility, each claiming transparency while concealing the depth of its integration.
The imperative for policymakers, then, is not to dismantle transparency but to reclaim its purpose. The lattice that once served accountability must now be recalibrated toward sovereignty—ensuring that open data empowers citizens rather than rendering them legible to distant institutions. Without structural safeguards, the tools built to expose corruption risk becoming instruments of social management. The modern challenge is not whether data should be open, but who openness ultimately serves—and who audits the auditors.
Private donor networks and transnational financial flows now extend the transparency lattice into an era of dark philanthropy—an economy of influence that operates inside legal boundaries yet outside meaningful public scrutiny. The Solidaire Network, founded in 2013, embodies this evolution. Originally positioned as a progressive donor collective to support “movement infrastructure,” Solidaire soon became a meta-philanthropic platform—a network that funds networks. Its grants, distributed through fiscal intermediaries and donor-advised funds, sustain hundreds of U.S. social-justice organizations whose activities are also monitored in the open datasets of academic centers such as Harvard’s Crowd Counting Consortium (Solidaire, 2020). This circularity—where activism is both financed and measured by the same ecosystem—blurs the line between democratic participation and data-driven coordination.
Major legacy foundations reinforce this pattern. The Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund all shifted in the 2010s toward grant models that emphasize measurable civic engagement outcomes, mirroring the open-data ethos first introduced under ARRA. Meanwhile, Russell Sage Foundation funding supported protest-behavior and inequality research (Russell Sage, 2018), while the Sié Center’s endowment, with its cross-border capital from philanthropists John and Anna Sie, tied domestic social-science research to global donor circuits (Sié Center, 2014). Each foundation publicly discloses its giving, yet their grant portfolios increasingly overlap—co-funding the same clusters of scholars, policy advocates, and digital-activist organizations. When mapped together, these overlapping networks resemble a distributed policy consortium operating parallel to formal government structures.
The problem intensifies with the advent of cryptocurrency-based philanthropy and decentralized finance (DeFi). Since 2021, several donor collectives—including Endaoment, Gitcoin Grants, and issue-based crypto DAOs—have channeled millions of dollars in crypto donations to civic-tech and social-justice groups. These transfers, often routed through wallets rather than banks, evade the financial-disclosure standards that traditional foundations and 501(c)(3)s must meet. Blockchain transactions are visible in theory but practically opaque in governance: addresses can be anonymized, intermediaries distributed, and donor intent concealed. What emerges is an off-ledger economy of influence—traceable in data yet detached from accountability. As a result, philanthropic ecosystems once anchored in IRS filings now include unregulated digital treasuries whose total value remains uncertain but exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars globally (Chainalysis, 2024).
The 2023 USAID-commissioned research by Erica Chenoweth, which drew upon domestic protest data for “comparative resilience studies,” highlights another boundary-crossing trend (USIP, 2023). USAID’s statutory mandate limits its funding to foreign assistance, yet the use of domestic data in grant-supported research underscores how the transparency architecture blurs jurisdictional lines. In practice, publicly accessible protest datasets have become a shared resource for both domestic advocacy and international program design. Combined with philanthropic and crypto-based funding streams, these channels create a feedback loop where money, data, and activism circulate faster than regulatory oversight.
This evolving ecosystem poses significant policy and national-security questions. The convergence of open data, donor networks, and decentralized finance creates fertile ground for foreign influence operations, data exfiltration, and coordinated civic manipulation—all while appearing lawful. Philanthropic capital, once a tool of public good, can now act as an amplifier for algorithmic politics. Transparency, stripped of reciprocity, becomes asymmetry: citizens are visible, while financiers remain unseen. To preserve democratic integrity, federal oversight of cross-border and crypto-enabled philanthropy must match the sophistication of the systems it seeks to govern. Otherwise, the same openness that once guaranteed accountability risks becoming the infrastructure of invisibility itself.
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was intended to rebuild an economy; instead, it rebuilt governance itself. It inaugurated an economy of exposure—a permanent architecture where money, data, and power circulate through the same open channels. What began as a temporary transparency measure under the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board evolved into a global visibility regime sustained by the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06), codified through Data.gov and USAspending.gov , and extended through successive National Defense Authorization Acts and Smith–Mundt Modernization (2013). Within this framework, academic research, philanthropic networks, and corporate capital fused into a single lattice that maps, funds, and manages civic behavior in real time. It is no longer possible to separate transparency from influence; the two have become structurally intertwined.
Today, that lattice is maintained by a constellation of powerful institutions. The Russell Sage Foundation funds protest-data and inequality studies that underpin behavioral models used by government and advocacy groups alike (Russell Sage, 2018). The Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Ford Foundation channel grants through university partnerships and NGO intermediaries that merge academic research with field activism (Carnegie, 2016; Ford, 2019). The Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Skoll Foundation finance “resilience” and “democracy protection” initiatives, many of which share personnel and data sources with federally funded projects. Donor collaboratives such as Solidaire Network, Democracy Alliance, and Threshold Foundation amplify this system through pooled giving—deploying capital rapidly to activist coalitions, research centers, and digital-mobilization platforms. These flows are technically transparent through IRS filings, yet functionally opaque when filtered through fiscal sponsors and donor-advised funds. Oversight can track dollars, but not intent.
New instruments of finance further complicate accountability. Cryptocurrency philanthropy, administered through entities like Endaoment, Gitcoin Grants, and issue-specific DAOs, now moves tens of millions in unregulated funding to nonprofits, research institutes, and online activism campaigns (Chainalysis, 2024). Blockchain ledgers record transactions but not governance structures; anonymity replaces provenance. When paired with academic datasets—such as Harvard’s Crowd Counting Consortium or the University of Denver’s Sié Center archives—these digital treasuries can underwrite coordinated influence operations that remain invisible to traditional auditors. Foreign actors can participate indirectly by contributing to crypto-based donor pools, exploiting the same openness designed for civic innovation. The risk is systemic: transparency without traceability becomes the perfect veil.
This diffuse infrastructure is not hypothetical—it is operating. The 2023 USAID-commissioned study by Erica Chenoweth, which incorporated U.S. protest data into international democracy-promotion research (USIP, 2023), exemplifies how jurisdictional boundaries have eroded. USAID’s statutory foreign-aid mandate has blurred with domestic research through the shared data environment built since 2009. Parallel efforts by the United States Institute of Peace under Dr. Maria J. Stephan, including the Horizons Project, extend these models into coordinated “non-violent mobilization” training for civic groups. Though lawful and often well-intentioned, these programs operate within an open lattice that foreign governments, private investors, and digital intermediaries can observe—and, in some cases, replicate.
The policy implications are profound. The transparency framework that once guaranteed accountability now constitutes a national-security surface. Authoritarian regimes can mine open U.S. protest data; adversarial investors can leverage corporate access to moderation pipelines; decentralized donors can shape discourse anonymously. The United States has effectively exported its civic operating system without installing the firewalls required to protect it.
For policymakers, the path forward requires re-engineering openness itself. Congress and the Executive Branch must modernize transparency law to include:
- Comprehensive provenance standards for all philanthropic and crypto-based funding that intersects with civic or academic activity;
- Unified cross-agency auditing authority to track how federal open-data infrastructure is used in research and private enterprise;
- Foreign-investment review mechanisms for equity positions in media and social-data platforms, paralleling CFIUS standards for critical technology;
- Secure-data partnerships that preserve academic freedom while protecting domestic datasets from exploitation by external actors.
Transparency must once again serve the public, not its curators. The economy of exposure built in 2009 can no longer run on faith in benevolence—it requires verifiable governance. Until the nation couples openness with sovereignty, accountability with security, and philanthropy with traceability, the same architecture that once rebuilt trust will continue to erode it. The task before policymakers is not to retreat from transparency, but to reclaim it as a matter of national defense and democratic legitimacy.
The funding lattice forged since 2009—anchored in ARRA’s data portals (Data.gov, USAspending.gov), expanded through the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06), codified in the NDAA’s legal shifts, and reinforced by Minerva’s behavioral datasets—has created a transparency regime that is both luminous and opaque. It shines outward as openness, yet conceals within it the quiet consolidation of informational power. From Tencent’s platform stakes (SEC, 2019–2021) to the philanthropic scaffolding built by the Russell Sage Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Ford, and Solidaire Network, the architecture of visibility has become self-sustaining. Even informal coordination—off-ledger calls, transnational training sessions, and donor-to-research feedback loops, such as those observed under Maria Stephan’s Horizons Project (2023)—illustrates how the transparency lattice now extends beyond policy and into operational practice. It is a system where observation and influence merge under the banner of accountability.
The 2009 stimulus did more than rebuild a shattered economy; it rewired the circuits of governance. Its data infrastructure, replicated across universities, NGOs, and global markets, turned transparency into a form of control. The same platforms that democratized information now serve as the plumbing of digital governance—a system where data does not simply describe behavior; it predicts and shapes it. Universities such as Harvard and the University of Denver, donors like Russell Sage and Solidaire, and corporations like Reddit, backed by Tencent, all operate within this shared visibility regime. Across successive administrations, the apparatus has endured, adapting to each political climate while maintaining the same logic: that measurement ensures legitimacy. Yet as the ability to measure society has grown, the capacity of citizens to see who holds the instruments has diminished.
This Gordian knot of transparency cannot be cut by rhetoric alone. Its complexity demands deliberate audit, not reaction. Policymakers must move beyond symbolic calls for openness toward the structural question of ownership—who controls the ledgers, the datasets, the algorithms, and the funds that sustain them. Without such scrutiny, the architecture built to ensure trust risks becoming the very mechanism that erodes it. The United States now faces a choice: allow the lattice to continue as an unelected infrastructure of governance, or reclaim it as a tool of democratic sovereignty. Auditing its flows—financial, digital, and institutional—is no longer optional; it is the necessary condition for preserving accountability in an era where visibility itself has become the currency of power.
“Visibility is OVERT operations’ kiss of life—because what hides in plain sight never fears discovery, only misunderstanding.” — Tore Maras 2019
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the vehicle, but the Obama administration’s governance philosophy was the engine. Through ARRA’s open-data mandates, the Open Government Directive (OMB M-10-06), and related transparency initiatives, the administration institutionalized a new model of governance built on data visibility. What began as an effort to restore trust after economic collapse evolved into a lasting infrastructure for digital control — a system where information itself became a tool of power. In effect, Obama’s team did not merely manage a stimulus; they engineered the architecture through which modern governance sees, measures, and governs society.
They called it “infrastructure,” but it was never about asphalt or steel. Beneath the language of renewal, the 2009 stimulus and every bill that followed built the invisible framework of continuity—a digital architecture through which government could see, predict, and persist. Roads and bridges were symbols; the real construction was systemic. The data platforms, transparency mandates, and interoperability standards that grew from those laws were poured like concrete across the nation’s informational bedrock. Obama poured the concrete; Congress just signed the blueprint. What remains today is not the infrastructure of recovery, but the operating system of governance—a structure so embedded in the machinery of policy that undoing it would mean dismantling the state itself.
President Trump should just DO IT. IMPEACH 44.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. 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
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
