Grok Puts Civil War II At 70%

Well, isn’t this cheerful? You’re aware of Grok, the artificial intelligence program that Elon Musk has been funding prodigiously. Seth Abramson sat down and had a chat with Grok about a great many things. Grok pointed out to Abramson that it is not alone in predicting a second civil war in this country. “I can offer an informed estimate based on current trends, historical context, and available data, while acknowledging the limitations of such a forecast,” Grok said. Grok went on to opine that we have “significant political polarization” in this country and that’s putting it mildly. Grok also said that 41% to 47% of Americans believe a civil war is likely within their lifetime or the next five years. These perceptions, “while not predictive, reflect a growing unease,” saith Grok. Here are excerpts from the transcript of the conversation between Grok and Abramson.

ABRAMSON: I worry that your estimate does not take into account the fact that Donald Trump and his administration have started to defy court orders and purge the United States Armed Forces of officers more loyal to the Constitution than Mr. Trump.

Would you reassess based on this information, as contained in reliable major media reports?

GROK: You’re right to point out that recent actions by Donald Trump and his administration could shift the dynamics I considered in my initial estimate.

Reports of defying court orders and purging the United States Armed Forces of officers loyal to the Constitution rather than Trump personally introduce new variables that could increase the risk of a second Civil War before November 2026.

Let’s reassess based on this information, grounding it in what’s been reported by major media and reasoning through the implications.

Major outlets like Reuters, the Washington Post, and The Atlantic have documented instances in early 2025 where the Trump administration has defied court orders—such as continuing anti-DEI policies despite judicial rulings—and begun a military purge targeting senior officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General C.Q. Brown, and others like Admiral Lisa Franchetti. These moves, reported as replacing seasoned leaders with loyalists (e.g., Lieutenant General Dan “Razin’” Caine), suggest an intent to consolidate power by ensuring the military aligns with Trump’s directives over constitutional norms. This aligns with his campaign rhetoric about rooting out “woke” generals and using the military against domestic “enemies,” as noted by Foreign Affairs and The Brennan Center.

How does this affect the likelihood of a second Civil War?

First, defying court orders undermines the rule of law, a key stabilizer in the U.S. system. If the administration ignores judicial checks—say, on immigration policies or military deployments—states like California or New York, already at odds with Trump, might resist federal authority more aggressively, potentially through legal defiance or even mobilizing state resources. (Historical precedent exists: Southern states defied Brown v. Board of Education, requiring federal troops to enforce compliance. If Trump uses a loyalist-led military to impose his will, resistant states or populations could escalate tensions beyond protests into organized opposition.)

Second, purging the military of constitutional loyalists weakens a critical safeguard. The armed forces have historically remained apolitical, but installing officers who prioritize Trump over the Constitution—like Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon—could enable unlawful orders, such as deploying troops against civilians under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Reports from Lawfare and The Center for American Progress highlight how this erodes military cohesion and professionalism, potentially splitting the ranks if some refuse illegal directives while loyalists comply. A divided military, or one turned inward, could embolden armed civilian groups—militias or extremists on either side—to act, especially if they perceive a power vacuum or provocation.

The original 15% to 20% estimate assumed institutional resilience and a unified military as moderating factors. With these now in question, the risk rises. A plausible trigger—like a contested 2026 midterm election, mass deportations sparking unrest, or a state openly defying federal troops—could ignite conflict faster than before. Media reports suggest Trump’s team is preparing for such scenarios, with plans to “seal the border” or suppress dissent, per White House statements and the Wall Street Journal. Public sentiment, already polarized (41% to 47% see civil war as likely per Marist and Rasmussen), could tip into action if trust in institutions collapses further.

Okay. So we are close to a tipping point and if you read this entire thing, you will see that a contested election seems to be the linchpin here. What that tells us right off the bat is we are no longer in the world of 2000, where a very shady 500 votes in a very corrupt county in ruby red Florida determined the election and Al Gore decided that it was the better part of valor to just not pursue the matter any further. That was laudable then but given the same circumstances, I don’t see that as happening in 2026. I simply do not. So much has changed in the past quarter of a century as to boggle the mind.

The potential Social Security cuts, revealed in February 2025 budget talks per the Washington Post, could be a flashpoint. With 67 million Americans relying on these benefits, any reduction—say, raising the retirement age or slashing payments—might trigger widespread protests, especially among retirees and working-class voters who backed Trump. Posts on [Twitter] from March 2025 echo this fear, with users like [former RNC spokeswoman and USA Today columnist] Cheri Jacobus suggesting it’s the tipping point for mass action. (Historical precedent supports this: the 1932 Bonus Army protests turned violent when met with military force, and today’s polarized climate could amplify such a reaction.)

Now Grok has moved from tipping point to flashpoint. This use of nomenclature indicates that circumstances are analogous to dried leaves and tinder in a forest. All it takes is one spark, and kaplowy. Conflagration.

A violent crackdown could fracture public trust, especially if deaths occur, prompting armed resistance from citizens or even state governments (e.g., California or New York refusing federal overreach). The 20-month window tightens this timeline, but the speed of escalation could suffice if a trigger like Social Security ignites unrest by late 2025.

Adjusting for this, I’d revise the likelihood of a second Civil War before November 2026 to 35% to 40%.

This reflects a scenario where protests erupt (high probability given Social Security’s stakes), Trump responds with force (consistent with his past and current team), and violence spreads beyond isolated clashes (plausible given polarization and armament). The upper end (40%) assumes a cascade—e.g., a Kent State-like incident galvanizing militias or states—while 35% allows for de-escalation if protests remain non-violent or military restraint persists despite Trump’s leanings.

This isn’t a prediction of inevitability but a recognition that the ingredients—provocation, temperament, and firepower—are aligning.

Let’s reiterate that. Provocation, temperament and firepower are aligning. Just like some catastrophic celestial harmonium. Abramson then went on to talk to Grok about the economy.

Now, reassessing the 35% to 40% Civil War likelihood. These factors [the article shows Grok going piece by piece through a list of recent news stories] suggest a higher risk of economic collapse (recession probable, depression possible) and social fracture. A recession by late 2025 could see 10% to 15% unemployment, 10% inflation, and a 20% to 30% stock drop, blamed on Trump by a majority (per Reuters/Ipsos, [only] 31% approve his inflation handling). Deportation clashes and federal layoffs could arm regional resistance—imagine Texas border militias versus California guards. Gaza protests might escalate if a triggering event (e.g., a massacre tied to U.S. policy) occurs. The 20-month window is tight, but a perfect storm—economic crash, violent deportations, and a polarizing foreign policy—could spark sustained conflict by mid-2026.

I’d adjust the probability of a second Civil War before November 2026 to 45% to 50%.

The numbers are moving up. The 2026 midterms feature prominently in the jump from 50% to 70%.

The tipping point is perception. If 60% to 80% of Democrats—roughly 40 to 50 million voters—see the midterms as a collapse of democracy (plausible given 47% already feared civil war in 2024 per Rasmussen), unrest could explode beyond protests into sustained conflict. Historical analogs like the 1876 election disputes or 1968 riots suggest violence emerges when trust vanishes. The 20-month window tightens this—anger could peak by November 2026, with little time for de-escalation.

Adjusting the estimate of the odds of a second Civil War before November of 2026, I’d raise it to 65% to 70%.

Violence erupts when trust vanishes. One factor that could be a tipping point is if Trump gets rid of the post office and then who knows where your ballot or mine goes? And that would certainly destroy trust. The first person in the first precinct who is unable to track a ballot from the mailbox it was deposited in back to the election headquarters where it belongs is the thrown match.

If you have a moment, read this article in its entirety. If an imperfect machine can figure this all out and reach these conclusions, we may already be there.

***********

Zoomers, if you have not donated and are able to, we would appreciate it. It’s been a long hard winter and all we’re trying to do is shore up reserves so we can stay in business. I have every faith that people will stop being depressed and return to the fight at some point. We intend to be there throughout it all. Thank you. Ursula

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!