As a researcher and consultant specializing in coercive control patterns, this week's exposure of Signal messages regarding Yemen bombing plans presents a textbook case of systemic coercive control tactics. Through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, we can clearly identify three distinct tactics being used in combination: Double Speak, Double Down, and Double Standards. Let's examine how these tactics mirror the same manipulative behaviors we observe in interpersonal coercive control situations.
Double Speak: The Art of Deceptive Communication
The White House's response to The Atlantic's exposure of sensitive military communications exemplifies classic Double Speak - language designed to obscure truth and avoid responsibility.
When confronted with evidence of detailed operational plans shared via Signal, including specific information about F-18 fighter jets, MQ-9 drones, and Tomahawk missiles, officials employed carefully crafted language to minimize and distort the reality of the situation.
The messages shared in the "Houthi PC Small Group" chat contained explicit details about warplane launches and bomb drops.
Yet, the administration's response demonstrated the hallmark manipulation tactic of Double Speak, weaponizing communication to reframe reality - a classic element of coercive control where perpetrators attempt to gaslight their targets by denying obvious truths.
Double Down: Amplifying Denial in the Face of Evidence
When confronted with evidence, both Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump exhibited another classic coercive control tactic: doubling down on denial. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, repeatedly insisted that "NO WAR PLANS" were shared, despite documented evidence to the contrary. President Trump similarly supported this narrative, maintaining that critics were exaggerating the situation.
This pattern of doubling down mirrors what we observe in The Quicksand Model® of coercive control, where perpetrators intensify their denials when confronted with evidence of their actions. The more evidence emerges, the more forcefully they deny, creating a psychological quicksand that pulls victims deeper into confusion, cognitive dissonance, and self-doubt.
Double Standards: The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
Perhaps the most striking parallel to coercive control dynamics is the blatant double standard displayed in this situation. The same Republican figures who led chants of "Lock her up" regarding Hillary Clinton's email server have suddenly adopted a remarkably different stance when their own handling of sensitive information comes under scrutiny.
During the Clinton email controversy, Republicans, including Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, argued that any security professional would face severe consequences for similar conduct. Yet, when confronted with their own sharing of military operational details through a public messaging app, they've dismissed concerns and minimized the potential security implications.
The Quicksand Model® Connection
These three D's - Double Speak, Double Down, and Double Standards - form a powerful triumvirate of coercive control tactics that we've documented extensively in The Quicksand Model®. As outlined in our recent publication "Targeted & Entrapped: Understanding the Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control," these tactics are used to entrap and dominate not just individuals, but entire institutions and public discourse.
The Yemen Signal messages scandal demonstrates how systemic coercive control operates at the highest levels of government, using the same tactics we observe in interpersonal abuse. The administration's response employs Force (through aggressive denial), Fraud (through deceptive language), and Fear (through attempts to intimidate critics) - the three F's, or methods, of coercive control.
Conclusion
This incident serves as a powerful reminder that coercive control tactics don't just operate at in abusive "relationships" - they can be deployed by institutions and power structures to manipulate public perception and avoid accountability. By understanding and identifying these patterns through frameworks like The Quicksand Model®, we can better resist their impact and work toward creating systems of true accountability and transparency.
The parallels between individual coercive control and institutional manipulation are stark and concerning. As we continue our work at End Coercive Control USA, cases like this provide crucial evidence of how coercive control tactics can scale from personal relationships to national security issues, affecting millions of lives in the process.
___________________________________________
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be very dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
