I've been digging on this and the corresponding Truth.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1844869841087258770

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113292078461228157

I think it's also worth reading some of the discussion of the "Occupation Chapter" and how it's interpreted by various military analysts.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3011827

I wonder if there is a sort of covert discussion/negotiation going on as to what kind of occupation we are under, what is permitted (notice that changes to the constitution are specifically mentioned).

"conservationist principle" vs "transformation project(s)"

The occupation chapter in the 2015 Manual is not an original publication. It builds on the corresponding chapter in the 1956 Manual (as amended in 1976) and its antecedents. Thus, the present analysis pertains to a long standing view of the US and is not limited to the 2015 Manual. Nevertheless, the recent update informs the analysis through a number of innovative features. First, it contains a much more elaborate doctrinal exposition with regard to the two questions, reflecting the engagement of practitioners and scholars with these issues through the years.

This engagement, in turn, stems both from developments in international relations, such as military interventions that are not motivated by territorial aspirations and a growing participation of non-state actors who wield territorial control; and from developments in international law, such as the emergence of the law of non-international armed conflict, international human rights law and the law of self determination. Furthermore, its treatment of issues is not in all cases identical to that in the 1956 Manual, indicating a change in the view at least of the DoD on those matters. In addition, the 2015 Manual, unlike its antecedent, makes extensive use of references, especially in the sections on the framework of the law of occupation, citing judicial rulings, government action and military manuals, as well as academic writing (albeit almost exclusively of the US, a matter discussed below).

"a growing participation of non-state actors who wield territorial control" -- what shadowy group does that sound like to you?

"law of non-international armed conflict" -- i.e. civil war

"law of self determination" -- do we have it under our current system of pedo politicians controlled, blackmailed, and murdered by the CIA/FBI/Mossad?

I might make a post highlighting this paper as analysis from military workers on interpreting the Manual & its history seems to be of high value.