WE GOT THE RECORDING. WE LISTENED. NOW PRITZKER HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO.

Governors assuming federal functions. Election “red lines.” A claim that Democratic-led Illinois was interested. The public deserves the records behind the answer.

By Staff Writer | October 24, 2026

Illinois was interested, provided another state went first.

That is the answer a participant attributed to this state during a discussion about governors assuming federal responsibilities after Washington was deemed illegitimate.

The claim is specific. The Illinois official behind it is not identified.

FactsFirstus.com obtained and carefully listened to the recording. Its authenticity and completeness remain unverified, and it does not establish whether Gov. J.B. Pritzker authorized a response.

But it contains an allegation his administration can address with records: Someone represented Illinois as receptive to considering an extraordinary exercise of governmental authority.

For residents, the stakes begin with their ballot.

Elections grant officials defined powers. They do not give those officials unrestricted authority to decide when another government stops counting.

The discussion concerns preparations for a federal legitimacy crisis: constitutional thresholds, monitoring around upcoming elections, coordination among states, and an options memo for governors.

Accounts of the recording describe governors assuming federal functions and preparing outreach to foreign governments after federal authority was judged illegitimate.

Before such a response could begin, someone would have to make that judgment.

The publicly described proposal does not clearly establish a binding process identifying who would decide, what evidence would be required, or what review would constrain the decision.

That gap is the central concern.

Republican challenger Darren Bailey says he asked Pritzker and the governor’s office to address the allegations and received no response. Daily Beltway separately states that the governor’s office declined to respond to inquiries about his involvement.

“Leaked tapes name JB as one of two governors ready to declare the federal government ‘illegitimate.’”

Darren Bailey, X post supplied for this report.

Published accounts identify the recording as an August 13 discussion associated with Renew to Thrive and Renew American Democracy, activist initiatives promoting structural changes to American government.

A speaker identified in those accounts as Paul Zeitz describes the United Democracy Alliance as a coalition connecting organizations engaged in litigation, civil resistance, and noncooperation.

Organizers describe refining warning signs into indicators, preparing monitoring efforts around the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election, and circulating the governors’ memo.

Zeitz’s public writing gives those preparations a concrete form.

An attorney general would have legal arguments ready before a disputed federal directive arrived. State officials would review election infrastructure and certification procedures. Governors and legislators would coordinate responses across state lines. State resources could be withheld from federal actions exceeding lawful authority.

Zeitz presents those measures as constitutional defense.

In a May 18 appeal to governors, he identifies threats to free and fair elections, violations of presidential term limits, an unlawfully seated Congress, and military force directed against peaceful Americans.

His instruction is to prepare before those boundaries are crossed.

“And both must be documented, authorized, and pre-coordinated before the redlines are crossed, not after.”

Paul Zeitz, May 18, 2026 appeal to governors.

Those are Zeitz’s stated standards and his assessment of the danger. They do not establish that the federal government has crossed those boundaries.

The published thresholds do not make a Democratic election defeat, by itself, a trigger for declaring the government illegitimate.

The danger would arise if officials treated their own disputed interpretation of an election as sufficient grounds to claim additional power.

An allegation that an election was subverted is not proof that it was. A movement’s conviction that an outcome threatens democracy does not permit it to set aside a lawful result.

Established procedures exist to examine evidence and resolve legal disputes. Officials remain responsible for carrying out their lawful duties while those disputes proceed.

A declaration that the institutions themselves have failed raises a different problem. The people making that judgment could also be the people seeking authority to act on it.

The memo’s instructions would show how its authors addressed that boundary.

Preserving essential services during institutional collapse would raise different questions from displacing federal institutions still exercising lawful authority. The document’s legal reasoning and limits matter as much as its objectives.

Then comes the alleged response from three Democratic governors’ offices.

According to published accounts, a speaker identified as John Mongan, described as a former State Department official, said Massachusetts declined to engage.

California, led by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Illinois, led by Pritzker, were characterized as interested if another state took the lead.

Accounts also describe attempted outreach elsewhere, including Republican-led Utah. The effort was not confined to blue states, although Illinois and California were specifically portrayed as receptive.

That alleged interest is where the Illinois records trail begins.

The memo and correspondence could establish what reached state officials, what they said in return, and whether anyone acted with the governor’s authorization.

Bailey is demanding an explanation. His accusation is explicit.

“Riots in the street. A takeover plan on his desk. It’s seditious, plain and simple.”

Darren Bailey, X post supplied for this report.

Bailey has put the accusation before the public. Pritzker’s administration should put the records before them.

Pritzker has a documented leadership role in an organization named in connection with the memo.

He co-chairs Governors Safeguarding Democracy with Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, another Democrat. The alliance describes its mission as protecting democratic institutions and coordinating governors’ responses to emerging threats.

A speaker describes the alliance as reviewing the proposal.

Its November 2024 launch announcement included a commitment to:

“Develop playbooks to enable Governors and their teams to anticipate and swiftly respond to emerging threats.”

Governors Safeguarding Democracy, launch announcement.

That mission does not establish acceptance of this memo. It identifies another potential source of evidence: distribution lists, staff assessments, correspondence, and communications forwarded to Illinois.

Those records could establish what the governor’s administration actually considered.

The broader organizational landscape also includes a documented funding connection.

Published accounts place Indivisible within the coalition described by the researcher who released the material. Indivisible is a national activist organization that organizes local groups and political pressure campaigns.

It has received funding from the Open Society network founded by George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist.

Open Society Action Fund’s 2023 federal tax return lists a $3 million grant to Indivisible Project for social welfare activities. The fund’s board includes Alex Soros and Andrea Soros Colombel.

That filing documents financial support for Indivisible. It does not identify the governors’ memo as a funded project.

The distinction between organizational support and authorization of particular actions matters throughout this investigation.

Other public material connected to the controversy illustrates why the documents must be examined individually.

National Security Leaders for America, an organization of former military, intelligence, diplomatic, and other national security professionals, publishes election guidance and endorses candidates.

Its guidance on possible military intervention around the midterms emphasizes coordination, legal remedies, and avoiding confrontation. In the foreign-attack scenario it discusses, it recommends treating a deployment as lawful unless a court determines otherwise.

“The priority at polling places is to keep voters voting and keep the situation calm.”

National Security Leaders for America, public election-intervention guidance.

That instruction cannot fairly be presented as proof of a takeover plan. Each proposal must be judged by its actual terms.

For residents, a serious conflict over governmental authority would eventually reach people responsible for ordinary public work.

An election administrator would need lawful instructions for certification. A police commander would need a clear chain of command. State employees and local officials would need to know which directives carried legal force.

Residents would depend on those officials following established law while political leaders contested its meaning.

These are potential consequences, not disruptions established here. They explain why any proposal involving the assumption of federal functions requires explicit limits.

States can challenge federal actions in court and, in certain circumstances, decline to administer federal regulatory programs. Declaring federal leadership illegitimate does not automatically transfer federal powers to governors.

The Constitution and constitutionally valid federal laws remain supreme over conflicting state law.

The pursuit of political authority also deserves scrutiny closer to home.

FactsFirstus.com has examined socialist campaign organizing and its implications for local government in “Socialism at City Hall’s Door. Springfield’s Next Vote Could Let It In.”

Local victories are building blocks for broader political power. Council seats provide authority over police budgets, housing rules, and public spending. They also help movements build organizing networks, governing experience, and a pipeline to higher office.

The Democratic Socialists of America explicitly describes electoral work as part of building socialist political power, including an independent mass socialist party. Its national program calls for constitutional transformation.

“draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.”

Democratic Socialists of America, published national program.

Its local campaigns should therefore be examined alongside its national objectives. Candidates receiving organizational assistance should explain which goals they endorse.

That documented strategy does not, by itself, establish coordination with the governors’ memo. The immediate Illinois allegation stands on its own.

The recording contains a claim that Illinois was interested. The records can establish whether that claim was true.

Pritzker’s administration should release the memo, disclose the correspondence, and identify anyone who answered for this state.

A plan to defend democracy must withstand public scrutiny. A governor’s authority must withstand constitutional scrutiny. And an answer offered in Illinois’ name must be accounted for to the people who live here.

Illinois was allegedly interested. Illinois deserves to know in what.

Official and primary sources

• Recording obtained by FactsFirstus.com by text and carefully listened to by its editor. Its authenticity, completeness, and participants’ identities have not been independently established.

• Darren Bailey, X statements supplied for this report, including his account that requests for a response had gone unanswered.

• Paul Zeitz, “Dear Governors: What Your Oath to Uphold the U.S. Constitution Means Now,” May 18, 2026.drpaulzeitz.substack.com

• Governors Action Alliance, “Governors Launch Initiative to Protect American Democracy,” November 13, 2024.govactalliance.org

• Open Society Action Fund, 2023 Form 990, Schedule I, printed page 30, recipient entry 85. Lists a $3 million grant to Indivisible Project for social welfare activities.pdf.guidestar.org

• Open Society Foundations, official biography of founder George Soros; Open Society Action Fund, official board listing.www.opensocietyfoundations.org

• Indivisible, official organizational website.indivisible.org

• National Security Leaders for America, public election-intervention toolkit guidance and frequently asked questions.www.nsl4a.org

• Library of Congress, Constitution Annotated, Supremacy Clause discussion and “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.”constitution.congress.gov

• Democratic Socialists of America, published national program and National Electoral Commission materials.program.dsausa.org

Secondary sources

• Tom McCullagh, Daily Beltway, “Pritzker Named in Secret Memo to Declare Federal Gov Illegitimate,” October 23, 2026.dailybeltway.com

• Daily Beltway, Facebook post supplied for this report, stating that Pritzker’s office declined to respond to inquiries about his involvement.

• Midpoint News, “Who Decides When the Government Is ‘Illegitimate’?” Source for published participant identifications, descriptions of the discussion, and alleged state responses.midpointnews.com

• RVIVR, “The Democracy Files, Part 2,” October 20, 2026. Reproduces the releasing researcher’s account connecting Indivisible to the broader coalition.rvivr.com

• WECU News, “Governors Would Lead If Washington Is Illegitimate.”wecunews.com

• FactsFirstus.com, “Socialism at City Hall’s Door. Springfield’s Next Vote Could Let It In.” Separate local political reporting.