Musk and the Right Co-Opt the Left’s Critique of U.S. Power
Musk and the Right Co-Opt the Left’s Critique of U.S. Power
Suspicion about covert operations and soft power used to be mostly the purview of the left. No more.
For decades, influential thinkers on the left have criticized American soft-power programs, covert operations and military presence abroad as parts of a particularly American form of imperialism: one that subverts the popular will of other countries’ citizens to serve the interests of the U.S. government and multinational corporations while also producing dangerous consequences — unfettered presidential power, diminished civil liberties — at home.
Mr. Trump’s allies have borrowed liberally from this argument while turning it on its head. They have been using it to justify new frontiers of executive power and the extraordinary empowerment of Mr. Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual.
As the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Mr. Musk has accused U.S.A.I.D. of “money laundering” and has reposted claims that the agency’s government-backed, democracy-promotion programs are “a C.I.A. front.” During her confirmation hearings, Tulsi Gabbard, the new director of national intelligence, criticized covert operations to arm proxies in Syria and “regime change wars” across the Middle East.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary, has blamed the war in Ukraine on the foreign policy establishment’s “strategic grand plan to destroy any country such as Russia that resists American imperial expansion.”
The Center for Renewing America, a think tank that was until recently led by Russ Vought, Mr. Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director, has joined in, too. A paper the group published this month accused the National Endowment for Democracy, a government-funded organization created during the Reagan presidency to support democracy and civil society abroad, of being a “tool for neoconservative nation-building.”
None of this is without precedent in the politics of Mr. Trump, who has revived a long dormant strain of Republican skepticism of foreign interventions. Mr. Trump criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a candidate in 2016, and he considered rolling U.S.A.I.D. into the State Department early in his first presidency. He also inveighed against the country’s intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. after he came under investigation late in that election for his campaign’s contacts with Russian officials.
But Mr. Trump’s second administration has gone further, embracing specific narratives about nefarious motives behind humanitarian aid and covert operations that were long the province of the left, even as his advisers denounce the same programs as hotbeds of “far left activists.”
Mr. Trump has put the left in the awkward position of defending institutions and policies it once criticized.
“USAID is/was a radical-left political psy op,” Mr. Musk wrote in a Feb. 3 post on X citing Mr. Benz.
To make this case, Mr. Benz has marshaled the decades-old work of left-wing journalists and scholars, such as the historian Alfred McCoy, whose research on the C.I.A. and U.S.A.I.D.’s role in heroin trafficking in Southeast Asia earned the ire of the C.I.A. in the early 1970s.
Mr. McCoy, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was not familiar with Mr. Benz’s work, but said he had noticed a modest uptick in sales of his book “In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power,” since Mr. Benz cited him this month.
Mr. McCoy, who was shot at by U.S.-backed guerrillas while investigating U.S.A.I.D. in Laos in 1971, said that applying his work from that era to the agency now was a mistake. In the post-Cold War period, “I would venture that U.S.A.I.D. is as good if not better than any of the others that are out there,” he said, and cutting it would be “a tragedy for the people affected.”