Purpose: Lay out the principal options for what a US truth-and-reconciliation process would investigate, with attention to the trade-offs in each scope choice.

Why Scope Matters

Mandate scope is the single most consequential design decision for any truth commission. Too narrow, and the TRC misses the structural pattern of harm. Too broad, and the TRC dissipates into incoherent investigation of disparate matters. The right mandate captures the central pattern of harm without being either fragmentary or exhaustive.

Hayner’s surveyed comparative experience suggests that the strongest mandates:

• Have a clear temporal scope (start and end dates)
• Have a clear thematic scope (what categories of conduct are within mandate)
• Have a clear geographic scope
• Define standards for findings and categories of perpetrators
• Are calibrated to investigative capacity (sufficient to be tractable in a 2-5 year mandate)

Scope Option A: Election Subversion (2020-2021)

Mandate: Investigate the coordinated effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the events of January 6, 2021.

Time period: November 2020 – January 20, 2021 (or extended to include preceding planning)

Subjects:

• Fake-electors scheme (architects, organizers, signers)
• Pressure campaigns on state election officials (Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada)
• Pressure on Department of Justice
• Pressure on Vice President Pence
• January 6 Capitol attack (organizers, participants, security failures)
• Aftermath: pardons, retaliation, denial

Why this scope:

• Temporally bounded
• Conduct already substantially investigated by House January 6 Select Committee
• Foundation of evidence already exists
• Politically central to subsequent democratic erosion
• Foundation for later expansion if conditions allow

Limitations:

• Misses Trump 2.0 era retaliatory conduct
• Misses civil-rights violations beyond election context
• Risks framing democratic erosion as a single-event problem rather than structural

Scope Option B: Trump 2.0 Era Abuses (2025-)

Mandate: Investigate the patterns of abuse during the Trump 2.0 administration — retaliatory targeting, civil-rights violations, executive overreach, foreign-influence patterns.

Time period: January 20, 2025 – end of administration (or specified date)

Subjects:

• Mass deportation operations and family separation
• Retaliatory firings of inspectors general, prosecutors, civil servants
• Targeting of law firms representing politically disfavored clients
• Targeting of universities for political conduct
• Targeting of journalists and media organizations
• Targeting of civil-society organizations
• Targeting of state and local officials
• Civil-rights violations in detention and enforcement
• Executive orders limiting congressional appropriations and statutory authority
• Self-dealing through Trump Organization, Trump Media, crypto ventures
• Foreign-influence patterns

Why this scope:

• Captures the contemporary period of harm
• Forward-looking; produces findings on conduct still in progress
• Connects to ongoing victim experiences

Limitations:

• Without 2020-2021 context, risks decontextualizing Trump 2.0
• Conduct may be extensive enough to overwhelm TRC capacity
• Investigation while administration is in power is more difficult

Scope Option C: 2017-2026 Comprehensive

Mandate: Investigate the comprehensive pattern of democratic erosion from 2017 through the end of the Trump 2.0 administration.

Time period: January 20, 2017 – end of Trump 2.0 administration (specified date)

Subjects:

• All of A and B
• 2016-2017 transition irregularities (Russia investigation, transition activities)
• Trump 1.0 era civil-rights violations (family separation, Muslim ban implementation, etc.)
• Trump 1.0 era congressional-oversight defiance
• Period of 2021-2024 — disinformation operations, voter intimidation, candidate intimidation, post-J6 movement-building
• All Trump 2.0 conduct

Why this scope:

• Captures full structural pattern
• Provides comprehensive historical record
• Connects 2020 election subversion and Trump 2.0 retaliation as unified pattern

Limitations:

• Substantial scope; risks dissipating investigation
• Politically contentious — covers Republican administration extensively
• Substantial cost and time

Scope Option D: Civil Rights Pattern (2017-)

Mandate: Investigate the pattern of federal civil-rights violations from 2017 through the present.

Time period: January 20, 2017 – present (or specified end date)

Subjects:

• Voting-rights violations (suppression efforts; targeting of voters)
• Immigration-rights violations (family separation, mass deportation, due-process failures)
• Free-speech violations (targeting of speakers, press, civil-society)
• Religious-liberty violations
• Disability-rights violations (where applicable)
• Reproductive-rights post-Dobbs enforcement abuses
• LGBTQ+ rights violations
• Racial-discrimination patterns
• Detention conditions

Why this scope:

• Captures specific pattern of harm to identifiable victims
• Builds on existing civil-rights enforcement frameworks
• Connects to existing civil-rights advocacy capacity

Limitations:

• Misses election subversion and direct attacks on democratic institutions
• May be perceived as too narrow if it does not address broader pattern

Scope Option E: Structural / Multi-Period

Mandate: Investigate multiple periods of US harm — Trump-era democratic erosion, slavery and its legacy, Indigenous treatment, civil-rights-era violence, etc. — through a multi-stage commission.

Time period: Multiple periods, sequenced

Subjects:

• Stage 1: Trump 2.0 era and 2020 election subversion (most pressing)
• Stage 2: Civil-rights-era violence and post-civil-rights enforcement gaps
• Stage 3: Slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow legacy
• Stage 4: Indigenous treaties and Indigenous policy
• Stage 5: Other structural harms (mass incarceration, immigration, etc.)

Why this scope:

• Most comprehensive
• Connects contemporary patterns to longer historical patterns
• Aligns with HR 40 / California Reparations Task Force trajectory

Limitations:

• Substantial cost and time
• Politically very difficult
• Scope is far beyond ordinary TRC mandate
• Likely requires multiple distinct commissions rather than one

Scope Option F: Sectoral (Multi-Stage)

Mandate: Investigate sectoral pattern of harm through sequenced commissions focusing on specific institutions or sectors.

Time period: Sequenced over years, each commission with focused mandate

Subjects:

• Sector 1: Justice Department — politicization, retaliatory prosecutions, prosecutor protections, OPR reform
• Sector 2: Election administration — 2020 subversion, 2024 administration, 2028 protection, EAC reform
• Sector 3: Immigration — family separation, mass deportation, detention, ICE / CBP reform
• Sector 4: Pentagon / military — civilian control, domestic deployment, military justice
• Sector 5: Intelligence Community — domestic surveillance, foreign-influence, IG reform
• Sector 6: Federal civil service — retaliation, MSPB reform, Schedule F restoration limits
• Sector 7: Judiciary — ethics, recusal, impeachment, court-packing
• Sector 8: Media / press — protections from federal targeting; FCC reform; press-shield laws
• Sector 9: Universities and civil-society — protections from federal targeting
• Sector 10: State election protection — federal floor for state election administration

Why this scope:

• Each commission is tractable
• Each commission produces specific findings and reform recommendations
• Each commission can be initiated as political conditions allow
• Scales across multiple administrations

Limitations:

• Loses unified narrative
• Coordination across commissions is complex
• Some conduct crosses sectors

Recommended Approach: Hybrid

A workable US approach likely combines:

Initial scope: Combined A + B (Election Subversion 2020-2021 + Trump 2.0 era abuses)

This combination:

• Establishes temporally bounded mandate (2020-end of Trump 2.0)
• Captures the central pattern of harm of concern
• Builds on existing investigation foundations
• Is tractable in a 3-5 year mandate
• Connects 2020 subversion to Trump 2.0 retaliation as unified pattern

Sectoral working groups within initial scope

Within the initial scope, sectoral working groups for:

• Justice Department / DOJ
• Election administration
• Immigration enforcement
• Pentagon / military
• Intelligence Community
• Federal civil service
• Press / media
• Universities and civil-society
• Judiciary

Sectoral working groups produce sector-specific findings and reform recommendations within the broader commission framework.

Subsequent commissions

After initial commission completes its work:

• Commission on civil-rights-era violence
• Commission on slavery and its legacy
• Commission on Indigenous treatment
• Commission on mass incarceration
• Commission on immigration history

Each subsequent commission is tractable within its own mandate and connects to broader structural-justice work.

Specific Conduct Categories Within Recommended Scope

A detailed enumeration of conduct categories within the recommended initial scope:

1. 2020 Election Subversion

• Pre-election rhetoric framing the election as fraudulent
• Pressure on state election officials post-election
• Fake-electors scheme (architects, organizers, signers in seven states)
• Pressure on Vice President Pence
• Pressure on Department of Justice
• Pressure on Department of Defense
• Pressure on state legislatures
• Public communications campaign
• Funding sources for the effort
• Foreign involvement (where relevant)

2. January 6, 2021 Attack

• Pre-J6 organizing and coordination
• Speech-event organizing
• Capitol-area positioning
• Capitol Police preparation and security failures
• Pentagon / National Guard responses
• Direct violence on January 6
• Social-media coordination and amplification
• Aftermath (death, injury, psychological harm to officers, staff, members)

3. Post-J6 Period (2021-2024)

• Pardons and clemency framing
• Movement-building post-J6
• Election-administration interference 2022, 2024
• Voter-intimidation patterns
• Candidate-intimidation patterns
• Election-worker intimidation patterns
• Continued disinformation operations

4. Trump 2.0 Era Abuses (2025-)

• Mass-deportation operations and family separation
• Detention conditions
• Retaliatory firings of:
• Inspectors general
• Prosecutors
• Career civil servants
• Pentagon JAGs and senior officers
• Intelligence officials
• Targeting of:
• Law firms representing disfavored clients
• Universities for political conduct
• Journalists and media organizations
• Civil-society organizations
• State and local officials
• Specific individuals (named in executive orders or otherwise)
• Pardons of pre-2025 J6 defendants
• Self-dealing:
• Trump Organization properties receiving foreign-government revenue
• Trump Media public-stock value affected by White House actions
• Crypto ventures (World Liberty Financial, $TRUMP / $MELANIA tokens, USD1 stablecoin)
• Foreign-influence patterns:
• Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar
• Russia
• China
• Other
• Executive overreach:
• Impoundment of appropriated funds
• Defiance of court orders
• Abolition of agencies established by Congress
• Personnel removals exceeding statutory authority
• DOGE-related conduct:
• Conflicts of interest
• Personnel actions
• Data access and protection
• Pentagon / military:
• Civilian-control breakdown
• Domestic deployment
• Military-justice abuses

5. Movement-Architecture Conduct

• Project 2025 personnel pipeline
• Heritage Foundation / America First Policy Institute / Center for Renewing America operations
• Federalist Society / Leonard Leo judicial-pipeline operations
• Major-donor coordination and influence
• Right-aligned media coordination

Implications for US Application

A US TRC mandate, calibrated to comparative experience and US conditions, should:

1. Combine election subversion (2020-2021) with Trump 2.0 era abuses (2025-) as the initial mandate
2. Enable sectoral working groups within the initial mandate
3. Anticipate subsequent commissions for civil-rights-era, slavery / Reconstruction, Indigenous, mass-incarceration mandates
4. Define clear temporal, thematic, geographic scope at outset
5. Define clear standards for findings and categories of perpetrators
6. Calibrate to investigative capacity — tractable in 3-5 year mandate

Primary References

• House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack. Final Report (December 2022)
• Special Counsel reports (Smith, Mueller; status varies)
• Senate Judiciary, Senate Intelligence, House Oversight reports
• Press investigative journalism (NYT, WaPo, ProPublica, Atlantic, New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, AP)
• Academic research (Levitsky & Ziblatt, How Democracies Die; Mettler & Lieberman, Four Threats; Mounk, The People vs. Democracy)

Cross-References

• Truth and Reconciliation — Overview
• Truth and Reconciliation — US Context and Design Constraints
• Truth and Reconciliation — US Legal Architecture
• Truth and Reconciliation — US Political Prerequisites
• Truth and Reconciliation — US Implementation Roadmap
• January 6 Investigation Resources
• January 6th Coup Plotters and Co-Conspirators
• Conflicts of Interest Matrix — Trump 2.0 Administration & Movement Network