Strategic Response to Duterte-Model Authoritarian Escalation

Urgent Recommendations for Movement Defense Against Legalized Violence

Based on September 25, 2025 executive actions and the Philippines precedent

Summary: The Duterte Model in America

The September 25, 2025 executive actions represent a dramatic escalation toward the “Duterte model” of authoritarian control - using terrorism designations to systematically target political opposition while creating legal cover for vigilante violence. The memorandum directs the FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and IRS to investigate “domestic terrorism networks” specifically targeting left-leaning progressive nonprofits, while designating “Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization” despite its decentralized nature.

This mirrors Duterte’s strategy in the Philippines where “police involvement in the killings of drug suspects extends far beyond the officially acknowledged cases” with “planning and coordination by the police and in some cases local civilian officials” while maintaining plausible deniability through vigilante groups that were “likely supported by or under the control of Duterte’s regime, despite their unofficial status”.

The danger is immediate: Stephen Miller’s declaration that “This is the first time in American history that there is an all-of-government effort to dismantle left-wing terrorism” combined with his characterization of “the Democratic Party as ‘not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization’” creates the ideological framework for systematic political violence.

Part I: Understanding the Duterte Model

How the Philippines Model Works

The Duterte drug war demonstrated how authoritarian leaders can orchestrate mass violence while maintaining legal cover:

1. Ideological Dehumanization: Duterte made “repeated calls on the public to kill drug addicts” instructing “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself” while police were told “My order is shoot to kill you. I don’t care about human rights”.

2. Coordinated State-Vigilante Operations: The “simultaneous fall” in both state and vigilante violence when operations were suspended “indicates both the impressive level of control of the government over the War on Drugs as well as suggests coordination between state forces and unofficial agents”.

3. Plausible Deniability Through Outsourcing: Violence was attributed to vigilantes who were “carried out by members of law enforcement in plain clothes who took measures to make the killings appear as having been perpetrated by private actors”.

4. Financial Incentives for Violence: Police received “financial incentives for police who kill people allegedly involved with the drugs trade” with payments “per head.”

5. Legal Impunity: “Not a single police officer has been prosecuted or dismissed from duty in relation to killings during police drug operations” with Duterte promising “police and soldiers will never go to prison, not on my watch”.

Results: 12,000-30,000 Killed

Human rights organizations estimate “12,000 to 30,000 civilians have been killed in the ‘anti-drug operations’ carried out by the Philippine National Police and vigilantes” while “An average of 34 people a day died during the first six months of Duterte’s presidency”.

Part II: The American Adaptation

Current Escalation Indicators

Terrorism Infrastructure Creation: The executive actions establish comprehensive government machinery targeting political opposition through “the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Taskforce” with coordination across “Treasury Department” to “identify and disrupt financial networks that fund domestic terrorism”.

Targeting Opposition Infrastructure: The order “directs the Internal Revenue Service to withdraw tax-exempt status from any organization it identifies as funding political violence” while specifically naming “billionaires George Soros and Reid Hoffman” without evidence.

Ideological Framework for Violence: The designation of a decentralized movement as a “terrorist organization” combined with claims that “Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence” creates justification for broad targeting.

County Sheriff Strategy: Another threat vector is the likely use of county sheriffs as the mechanism for deputizing right-wing groups, replicating how Duterte used local officials to coordinate vigilante violence.

The Deputization Danger

County sheriffs represent the perfect mechanism for implementing the Duterte model because:

• Constitutional sheriffs movement already ideologically aligned

• Local law enforcement harder to monitor than federal agencies

• Existing relationships with militia and vigilante groups

• Can claim local law enforcement authority while enabling violence

• Creates plausible deniability for federal administration

Part III: Immediate Defense Strategies

1. Legal Rapid Response Infrastructure

Pre-positioned Legal Teams:

• Emergency restraining order templates prepared for terrorism designations

• Know Your Rights trainings for all movement organizations

• Rapid response legal hotlines operational 24/7

• Constitutional challenges prepared for filing within hours

Documentation Systems:

• Independent monitoring of all law enforcement activities

• Civilian oversight networks tracking sheriff department activities

• Real-time documentation of vigilante group coordination

• International human rights monitoring integration

2. Organizational Security Overhaul

Immediate Organizational Protections:

• Digital security upgrades for all progressive organizations

• Financial diversification away from traditional banking systems

• Leadership security protocols and safe house networks

• Communications security and encrypted coordination systems

Coalition Protection Networks:

• Mutual defense agreements between organizations

• Shared security infrastructure and threat assessment

• Coordinated rapid response to targeting attempts

• International solidarity and protection networks

3. Community Defense Infrastructure

Neighborhood Protection Networks:

• Community self-defense training programs

• Civilian safety escort systems for targeted individuals

• Emergency response protocols for vigilante attacks

• Safe house networks for people under threat

Information Warfare Defense:

• Counter-narrative campaigns exposing vigilante coordination

• Real-time documentation and broadcast of attacks

• International media coordination for global exposure

• Social media rapid response to disinformation

Part IV: Strategic Counter-Offensive

1. Expose the Coordination

Target the Sheriff-Vigilante Nexus:

• Investigate and expose coordination between sheriff departments and right-wing groups

• Document financial flows and communications between law enforcement and militias

• Create crisis moments around sheriff accountability through public exposure

• Force elected officials to choose sides on law enforcement politicization

International Exposure Strategy:

• Frame as “American Duterte model” in international media

• Engage international human rights organizations for monitoring

• Create diplomatic pressure through allied governments

• Document for future war crimes prosecutions

2. Corporate Accountability Campaigns

Target Enabling Infrastructure:

• Identify corporations providing services to sheriff departments engaging in political targeting

• Create crisis moments around corporate complicity in political violence

• Force corporate boards to choose between authoritarian enabling and business relationships

• Target insurance companies covering departments engaged in political violence

Financial System Pressure:

• International banking pressure around human rights violations

• Shareholder actions against companies enabling political violence

• Consumer pressure campaigns against regime-enabling corporations

• International investment community engagement on ESG concerns

3. Political Isolation Strategy

Electoral Consequences:

• Target sheriff elections with massive voter protection efforts

• Decrease the “profit” among elected officials supporting vigilante coordination

• Force state officials to choose between federal pressure and constituent safety

• Build electoral coalitions specifically around opposing political violence

Legislative Countermeasures:

• State-level legislation prohibiting coordination with vigilante groups

• Sanctuary policies protecting targeted organizations and individuals

• State attorney general investigations of federal overreach

• Interstate compacts for mutual protection against political targeting

Part V: Mass Mobilization for Ungovernable Response

1. Economic Disruption Strategy

Corporate Pressure Points:

• Mass boycotts of corporations in states with complicit sheriff departments

• Workplace actions in companies that service law enforcement

• Financial district disruptions targeting banks financing authoritarian infrastructure

• Supply chain disruptions affecting regime-enabling corporations

Economic Sanctuary Creation:

• Alternative economic networks independent of traditional banking

• Mutual aid systems supporting targeted organizations and individuals

• Community self-defense funding through alternative financial systems

• International solidarity funding for threatened organizations

2. Mass Civil Disobedience

Governmental Ungovernability:

• Mass non-cooperation with terrorism investigation requests

• Sanctuary actions protecting targeted individuals and organizations

• Civil disobedience at sheriff departments engaging in political targeting

• Mass resistance to vigilante violence through community defense

Crisis Moment Creation:

• Force public officials to choose sides through strategic confrontations

• Create unavoidable moral dilemmas around political violence

• Generate international attention through sustained resistance campaigns

• Make political violence more costly than tolerating opposition

3. International Solidarity

Global Democratic Alliance:

• Coordinate with international pro-democracy movements facing similar threats

• Engage international legal systems for accountability measures

• Create diplomatic pressure through allied government engagement

• Build global resistance networks sharing tactical knowledge

Information Warfare:

• International media campaigns exposing the American Duterte model

• Cultural and artistic interventions creating global awareness

• Academic and intellectual community engagement for legitimacy

• International monitoring and documentation systems

Part VI: Long-term Strategic Vision

1. Democratic Institution Building

Alternative Governance Structures:

• Community self-governance models independent of captured local government

• Democratic decision-making processes for movement coordination

• Participatory budgeting for community defense resources

• Restorative justice alternatives to traditional law enforcement

Independent Monitoring Systems:

• Civilian oversight of all law enforcement activities

• Independent media and documentation networks

• Community-controlled information and communication systems

• Democratic accountability mechanisms for movement leadership

2. Cultural and Narrative Transformation

Counter-Hegemonic Messaging:

• Reframe political violence as unAmerican and anti-democratic

• Create cultural narratives celebrating democratic resistance

• Build moral authority through consistent non-violent resistance

• Generate broad-based solidarity across traditional political divides

Historical Memory Projects:

• Document current resistance for future generations

• Connect current struggle to historical freedom movements

• Create educational resources about authoritarian tactics

• Build cultural institutions preserving democratic values

Part VII: Tactical Recommendations by Sector

For Progressive Organizations

Immediate Actions:

• Conduct comprehensive security audits and implement upgrades

• Diversify funding sources away from traditional foundations

• Establish secure communications with allied organizations

• Create emergency response protocols for targeting scenarios

Medium-term (30-90 Days):

• Build coalitions with moderate organizations concerned about political violence

• Engage legal teams for constitutional challenges to terrorism designations

• Develop alternative funding mechanisms independent of traditional banking

• Create international solidarity relationships for protection and support

For Community Groups

Immediate Actions:

• Establish neighborhood watch networks monitoring for vigilante activity

• Create emergency response systems for threatened community members

• Build relationships with sympathetic local officials and law enforcement

• Develop communication networks independent of social media platforms

Medium-term:

• Organize community self-defense training and mutual aid networks

• Build electoral coalitions to replace authoritarian-aligned local officials

• Create economic alternatives supporting community self-sufficiency

• Establish sanctuary spaces for threatened individuals and families

For Legal and Professional Networks

Immediate Actions:

• Prepare constitutional challenges to terrorism designations and surveillance

• Create rapid response legal networks for emergency interventions

• Document all instances of political targeting for future accountability

• Engage international legal systems for monitoring and potential prosecution

Medium-term:

• Build broad professional coalitions condemning political violence

• Create alternative professional networks independent of captured institutions

• Engage international professional organizations for pressure and solidarity

• Develop legal strategies for long-term democratic restoration

Takeaway: Preventing the American Duterte

The September 25 executive actions represent a clear escalation, likely toward the Duterte model of authoritarian control through legalized vigilante violence. The Philippines experience shows that once this system becomes operational, it can kill thousands while maintaining legal cover through plausible deniability.

The window for prevention is rapidly closing. The pro-democracy movement must immediately implement comprehensive defense strategies while building capacity for sustained resistance. This requires understanding that we are no longer facing normal political opposition but a systematic attempt to eliminate democratic opposition through state-sanctioned violence.

The choice is stark: build the infrastructure for effective resistance now, or face the Philippines scenario where “More than 6,000 people have been killed” by “vigilantes, hired guns and likely cops too” with victims who “do not enjoy due process” and are “always killed at night, sometimes inside their own homes.”

The Duterte model succeeded in the Philippines because civil society was unprepared for systematic state-vigilante coordination. American democracy’s survival depends on learning from that tragedy and building the defensive infrastructure necessary to make political violence ungovernable rather than inevitable.

The infrastructure, relationships, and capacity building outlined here must begin immediately. The crisis moments that will determine whether America follows the Philippines path are not distant possibilities—they are emerging now. The movement that acts strategically and at scale can still prevent the American Duterte. The movement that waits for institutions to provide protection will face the same fate as Philippines civil society: systematic elimination under legal cover.

Democracy’s survival requires treating this threat with the urgency it demands and the strategic sophistication it requires. The time for half-measures and institutional faith is over. The time for comprehensive resistance infrastructure is now.

This analysis draws on Human Rights Watch documentation of the Philippines drug war and contemporary reporting on the September 25, 2025 executive actions.