As the political landscape shifts following the 2024 election, the Democratic Party is reportedly solidifying a two-part strategy for the 2028 presidential race. According to analysis, the plan involves cultivating uncertainty within the U.S. military's chain of command while simultaneously promoting candidates who embody a centrist, pragmatic image.
The First Prong: A Calculated 'Chaos Strategy'
The initial and more controversial element of the strategy focuses on the armed forces. Prominent Democratic figures, including Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, have been vocal in advising service members to scrutinize the legality of orders that may come from a second Trump administration. They warn that following an "illegal order" could lead to future punishment, yet they have not provided a clear, actionable definition of what constitutes such an order.
This creates a deliberate paradox for military personnel: follow current commands and risk a future Democratic administration retroactively declaring those actions unlawful, potentially leading to court-martial proceedings. Critics argue this ambiguity is not a protective measure but a destabilizing tool, designed to erode confidence in the command structure under a Republican president. This approach has been labeled by some observers as a deliberate "chaos strategy."
The Second Prong: A Return to the Political Centre
Concurrently, the party is working to reposition its public face. In the wake of President Donald Trump's 2024 victory, there was internal debate about whether to embrace its progressive wing or move toward the political middle. Early indicators strongly suggest a pivot to moderation.
Issues that once dominated the Democratic platform—such as expansive transgender policies, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, and certain conceptions of "equity"—have notably receded from the forefront of their national messaging. Even on contentious topics like immigration, the party's rhetoric has softened, distancing itself from earlier progressive calls to disband Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or defund the police.
Some Democrats now concede that Trump is mostly right about the problems at the southern border, while criticizing his methods as overreach, particularly regarding the prosecution of nonviolent migrants.
A Case Study in Narrative Building
This shift is illustrated in the recent controversy involving Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. A Washington Post report from December 2025 alleged the White House, through Hegseth, ordered the killing of incapacitated narco-traffickers, an act that would violate the Geneva Conventions.
The Trump administration responded forcefully. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, "President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war." She confirmed that Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Frank Bradley to conduct the strikes in question on September 2, asserting that Bradley acted within his legal authority to "eliminate" a threat to the United States.
Subsequent reporting, including from The New York Times, appeared to walk back the initial claim, suggesting Hegseth did not issue a blanket order to kill individuals who were hors de combat. To some analysts, this sequence—aggressive allegations followed by clarifying reports—seems engineered to paint the Trump administration as reckless, thereby creating a contrast with a supposedly more measured Democratic alternative.
The overarching implication is that Democratic strategists recognize the electoral limitations of their party's most progressive positions. While these ideas may still be championed in certain circles, the 2028 campaign is likely to be fought on a platform of restored stability and pragmatic governance, with the more contentious policies reserved for potential implementation after regaining power.
