Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Public unease over increasingly militarized responses to dissent in city streets, viral footage of protesters injured or killed, and international condemnation of the United States have converged into a single, unsettled moment. The country that once sold itself as a template of liberal democracy now appears, even to many of its own citizens, as a cautionary example. The dominant explanation is familiar: this is what happens when the wrong leaders win, when norms erode, when emergency powers are abused. If the right people return to office and the courts hold the line, the story suggests, the system can still correct itself.

That story misidentifies the problem and the timeline.

What people are reacting to now is not the arrival of authoritarianism, but its sudden legibility. The system producing these outcomes has been operating for two to three decades, largely outside public attention, through privatization, contracting, and the steady erosion of democratic oversight. Coercive functions that once sat squarely inside public institutions have been distributed across private security firms, data brokers, cyber‑intelligence vendors, and weapons manufacturers that enjoy the powers of the state without its obligations. By the time militarized police and ICE agents rolled into protest zones, the legal and commercial architecture that made those deployments possible was already mature.

The question is no longer whether authoritarianism might arrive, or which election might tip the balance. The question is why a system of outsourced coercion was allowed to entrench itself so deeply, with so little scrutiny, that most people only recognized it once it started spilling into plain view.

Outsourcing Coercion as Governance

Once you stop looking only at elections and speeches and start looking at contracts, a different picture of power comes into view. Private military and security contractors, intelligence consultancies, mercenary spyware vendors, data brokers, and weapons manufacturers now operate as extensions of state power. They design and run surveillance systems, provide intelligence analysis, operate and secure detention facilities, move people in custody, maintain data platforms, and supply the tools that make coercive force possible. Yet they sit outside the core constitutional and administrative frameworks that were built to govern policing, prosecution, and punishment.

What has been delegated is no longer just execution, but governance itself. This includes the authority to shape how threats are defined, how risk is scored, how populations are sorted, and when coercive measures are triggered.

The appeal of this arrangement is not a mystery. Outsourcing allows governments to access capacities that are controversial, legally constrained, or politically costly to build internally. A contractor can ingest and correlate data that a public agency would struggle to collect under existing privacy law. An intelligence or cyber surveillance firm can offer intrusion tools and monitoring services that would be difficult to justify if they were openly branded as government hacking. Private prison and security companies, operating as part of the broader private military and security industry, can staff and run immigration detention centers and provide armed transport of detainees under contract. In doing so, they perform core custodial functions while remaining formally outside the state’s uniformed services.

The regulatory gray zone surrounding these actors is not incidental. It has been cultivated over time because it delivers three advantages: plausible deniability, fragmented accountability, and distance. When a state contracts out surveillance, detention, or intelligence work, it can claim that it is merely purchasing a service in the market. When abuse occurs, officials can point to compliance with procurement rules and contractual terms while insisting that any excesses reflect vendor misconduct. The vendor, in turn, can point back to the contract, the tasking authority, or classified instructions that cannot be publicly discussed. Responsibility becomes a moving target rather than a fixed point.

In practice, this means that some of the most sensitive coercive functions are now mediated through legal instruments such as framework agreements, task orders, and service level guarantees that are shielded from public view. Non disclosure clauses prevent staff from speaking openly. Trade secret claims and security classifications block access to technical documentation. Even basic questions, including who designed this system, who controls the data, and who decides when it is activated, are answered, if at all, inside procurement offices and contract management units rather than in legislatures or open court.

Crucially, this is not just about hardware or isolated projects. It is about the gradual transfer of expertise and decision making authority. Intelligence agencies that once relied on internal analysts now lean on private consultancies for targeting, risk scoring, and strategic assessments. Law enforcement bodies that once built their own databases now license access to commercial platforms run by data brokers who aggregate location, financial, and communications data across jurisdictions. Governments that might once have hesitated to run certain operations directly now rely on intelligence vendors and commercial spyware firms to reach opponents, dissidents, or perceived threats at home and abroad.

Outsourcing does not reduce state responsibility in any meaningful moral sense. It obscures it in a legal and political sense. The state still commissions, funds, and benefits from the work. What changes is the visibility of the chain between decision and effect. When coercive power is exercised through private intermediaries that operate across borders and legal regimes, constitutional constraints weaken, not because the law has formally disappeared, but because it no longer has a clear object to grasp.

This is why accountability fractures and victims struggle to find recourse. When decisions, data, and force are distributed across agencies and vendors, no single institution can be compelled to answer for harm. Those subjected to coercive measures are left without a clear path to investigation, remedy, or redress.

Because this system is embedded in long term contracts, procurement pipelines, and transnational markets, it does not reset with elections or leadership changes. Administrations come and go, but the infrastructure of outsourced coercion persists, ready to be activated by whoever inherits it.

The Accountability Vacuum

Abuses that arise from privatized and militarized enforcement rarely result in consequences, not because they are rare or ambiguous, but because the system that produces them is structured to defeat accountability at every stage. Responsibility is dispersed across agencies, contractors, subcontractors, and classified authorities in ways that make it difficult to identify a single decision maker, a single legal forum, or even a complete factual record.

Several structural mechanisms sustain this vacuum. Indemnification clauses routinely shift financial and legal risk away from contractors and back onto the state, insulating private firms from liability while preserving their incentives. Non disclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration provisions restrict what harmed parties, employees, and even public agencies can reveal, preventing the creation of public records or binding precedent. Operational rules, deployment criteria, and technical capabilities are often classified or treated as trade secrets, placing the most relevant evidence beyond the reach of courts, journalists, and oversight bodies.

Jurisdictional fragmentation compounds the problem. It is frequently unclear whether alleged abuses fall under federal, state, administrative, or international law, or whether any forum has clear authority to compel disclosure. Agencies defer to vendors. Vendors defer to contracts and tasking authorities. Oversight bodies cite limits on jurisdiction or access. Each deferral delays scrutiny, allowing evidence to decay and public attention to move on.

Even when civil rights investigations are opened, they tend to be narrow in scope and slow in execution. They rely heavily on agency cooperation and rarely penetrate the contractual and technical layers where key decisions are made. Procurement processes, contract management offices, and classified guidance remain largely insulated from adversarial review, even though they shape outcomes as decisively as on the ground actions.

The result is a system in which harm can occur without producing an accountable event. There is no mandatory incident reporting comparable to other high risk domains. There is no independent investigative body empowered to examine contractor mediated coercion across agencies. Patterns that would trigger systemic reform in other sectors are instead treated as isolated incidents or unfortunate byproducts of complexity.

This is not an accidental failure of oversight. It is the functional outcome of a governance model that diffuses power while concentrating its effects. When coercive authority is exercised through layered contracts and opaque authorities, accountability becomes optional rather than obligatory. The absence of findings is then misread as the absence of abuse, reinforcing a cycle in which violations persist without consequence.

Victims Without Infrastructure

When coercive power is exercised through privatized and opaque systems, harm does not disappear. What disappears is the pathway for recognizing it. Victims exist, but there is no stable infrastructure to identify them, document what happened to them, or provide remedy. Instead of a system designed to surface violations, there is a system designed to absorb them.

Targets of contractor mediated surveillance, harassment, detention, or force encounter a landscape with no clear entry point. There is no standardized reporting mechanism for individuals who suspect they have been subjected to covert surveillance, coordinated harassment, or data driven targeting. There is no independent forensic body tasked with examining civilian claims involving commercial spyware, data brokerage, or contractor run systems. Individuals are left to infer what has happened to them from fragments, disruptions, and consequences, without access to the underlying systems that produced those effects.

This absence of infrastructure creates a reversal of burden. Rather than institutions being required to justify the use of intrusive power, individuals are forced to prove harm without access to evidence. They are asked to identify perpetrators who operate through layered contracts and classified authorities. They are expected to demonstrate causation in environments where data, logs, and decision criteria are proprietary or secret. The result is not due process, but exhaustion.

For journalists, lawyers, activists, migrants, whistleblowers, and organizers, this produces a familiar pattern. When they seek help, they are redirected between agencies that disclaim responsibility. Civil remedies require naming a defendant and producing evidence that is inaccessible by design. Administrative complaints are filtered through offices that lack jurisdiction over contractors. Criminal thresholds are rarely met, not because harm is absent, but because intent and attribution are structurally obscured.

Families of those harmed or killed face a similar inversion. Instead of automatic, independent investigation into the use of force or coercive measures, scrutiny is often redirected toward the victim. Backgrounds are examined. Associations are questioned. Narratives are reframed around threat, noncompliance, or complexity. In the absence of transparent records, official accounts dominate by default, even when evidence is partial or contested.

The lack of victim infrastructure also prevents pattern recognition. Each incident is treated as isolated. Data is not pooled across agencies or contractors. Lessons are not learned because they are not formally recorded. In other sectors involving high risk and potential harm, recurring incidents would trigger mandatory reviews and systemic reform. Here, recurrence is normalized as noise.

This vacuum has predictable effects. Harm escalates because it is not interrupted. Targets self censor, withdraw, or leave their professions. Communities learn that visibility carries risk without protection. The absence of remedy functions as a signal, reinforcing the power of the system even when force is not actively applied.

Victims without infrastructure are not an unintended byproduct of this model. They are its logical outcome. A system that disperses responsibility while concentrating coercive capacity cannot simultaneously offer meaningful protection to those it harms. The absence of pathways for recognition and relief is not a gap to be filled later. It is a condition that allows the system to continue operating without confrontation.

Leaders as Products of the System

Public debate often treats authoritarian outcomes as the result of individual leaders. Attention focuses on personalities, rhetoric, and alleged crimes, with the implicit assumption that removing a particular figure restores democratic equilibrium. This framing is inadequate. It misidentifies the source of durability and misunderstands how power now operates.

Leaders who deploy or benefit from coercive systems do not invent those systems. They inherit them. By the time a head of state or senior official enters office, the architecture of surveillance, privatized enforcement, detention, and intelligence contracting is already in place. Legal authorities have been interpreted. Contracts have been signed. Capabilities have been built and normalized. What appears as exceptional conduct is often the routine activation of existing tools.

This is why allegations of serious abuse or illegality do not reliably produce accountability at the leadership level. The same diffusion that shields contractors also shields decision makers. Responsibility is distributed across agencies, legal opinions, classified directives, and private intermediaries. Each layer provides insulation. Actions can be justified as reliance on expert advice, inherited policy, or national security necessity. The system produces plausible deniability at the top as effectively as it does at the operational level.

Privatization plays a central role in this insulation. When coercive capacity is mediated through vendors, leaders can authorize outcomes without authoring methods. They can approve objectives while remaining formally distant from implementation. This distance is not merely political. It is legal. Decisions are filtered through procurement processes and delegated authorities that fragment causation and complicate attribution.

The persistence of leadership impunity across administrations reflects this structure. Changes in party control or electoral outcomes rarely dismantle the underlying machinery. New leaders inherit the same intelligence relationships, the same detention contracts, the same surveillance platforms, and the same legal interpretations. Even when rhetoric shifts, capabilities remain. The system is designed to survive political turnover.

This continuity also explains why focusing on individual prosecutions or removals feels unsatisfying. Even when leaders are sanctioned, censured, or voted out, the architecture that enabled abuse remains available to their successors. The problem is not a shortage of norms or ethics at the personal level. It is a governance model that converts exceptional power into standard operating procedure.

Understanding leaders as products of the system does not absolve them of responsibility. It clarifies the scale of the problem. Accountability that stops at individuals without dismantling the structures they command will always be partial. The question is not only who authorized harm, but what kind of system makes authorization routine, survivable, and repeatable.

Until that system is confronted directly, leadership change will function as rotation, not reform. Faces will change. The machinery will not.

Naming the Failure

What this essay describes is not a temporary deviation from democratic governance, nor the excesses of particular leaders, nor a crisis that can be resolved through electoral correction alone. It is a sustained governance failure that unfolded gradually, through outsourcing, secrecy, and market logic, and was normalized long before it became visible to the broader public.

Authoritarianism did not arrive suddenly. It was operationalized. Coercive power was disaggregated into contracts, platforms, and services. Surveillance, detention, targeting, and force were treated as capabilities to be purchased and managed rather than as extraordinary authorities requiring constant democratic justification. Legal ambiguity was not an oversight. It was a feature that allowed power to be exercised without clear ownership or consequence.

Three assumptions made this possible. The first was that privatization reduces state responsibility. In practice, it redistributed responsibility in ways that made it harder to trace and enforce. The second was that secrecy enhances security. In practice, secrecy shielded routine governance decisions from scrutiny and insulated abuse. The third was that individual bad actors are the primary risk. In practice, systems built to survive leadership change ensured continuity regardless of who occupied office.

The result is a security state that can harm without recognition, operate without accountability, and persist without reform. Victims are rendered administratively invisible. Sanctions and scandals absorb pressure without altering structure. Leadership change rotates personnel without dismantling machinery. Each component reinforces the others.

Naming this failure matters because it clarifies what meaningful response would require. It would require treating contractor mediated surveillance, detention, and harassment as civil rights issues with standing, discovery, and enforceable remedies. It would require regulating private military and security companies, intelligence vendors, and spyware firms as hazardous industries, subject to licensing, mandatory incident reporting, independent audits, and strict liability for misuse. It would require creating independent investigative bodies with authority that crosses agencies and contractors, and establishing real infrastructure for victims to be heard, protected, and compensated.

None of this is radical. Comparable regimes exist for aviation, nuclear energy, pharmaceuticals, and other domains where harm is foreseeable and unacceptable. What is exceptional is the continued exemption of coercive power from comparable governance simply because it is labeled security.

International efforts to regulate private military and security companies and commercial surveillance remain partial and delayed. That delay itself confirms the argument of this essay. Normalization preceded regulation. The system was allowed to embed before democratic controls were seriously contemplated.

The question, then, is not whether authoritarianism threatens the future. The question is whether democratic societies are willing to confront the architecture that has already taken hold. Without that reckoning, outrage will recur, scandals will cycle, and victims will remain without infrastructure. With it, the line between security and coercion can be redrawn where it belongs, inside law, accountability, and public control.

This is the failure to be named. And it is the failure that must be addressed if democracy is to mean more than rhetoric after the fact.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit drtamaradixon.substack.com