Joseph Massad
Among the most important institutions Trump has dismantled is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which he described as a “criminal organization.” Established in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy—beloved by American liberals—USAID became one of the arms of US imperial policy aimed at controlling the economies of Third World countries, combating the welfare state, and fighting what the US saw as communism and socialism, whether Soviet or not. It was designed to indoctrinate emerging middle classes and intellectuals into anti-communism and pro-US capitalism.
USAID replaced the International Cooperation Administration, founded under President Dwight Eisenhower, which also sought to eliminate communist influence globally. USAID’s programs covered “social and economic development” (i.e., promoting classical capitalist economics, later neoliberalism, and spreading white American liberal ideology), “environmental protection” (according to neoliberal market logic), and “democratic governance and education.” The agency handled the largest share of US foreign aid distribution.
The International Cooperation Administration pioneered US ideological indoctrination as early as 1953 in Chile, sending dozens of Chilean students to study economics at the neoliberal economics department at the University of Chicago, where neoliberal capitalism principles were laid down. These principles were later imposed after the US-backed 1973 coup against the democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende.
While liberal US imperialists expressed concern over dismantling USAID, claiming it “helps combat hunger and poverty abroad”, anti-imperialists always saw it as a tool for spreading hunger and poverty. Noam Chomsky demonstrated this in his study of USAID’s role in Haiti, which became one of the world’s poorest countries due to US policies and USAID’s actions. Others exposed how USAID contributed to the destruction of Egyptian agriculture since the 1980s, deepening poverty there.
Elsewhere, USAID helped overthrow governments and provided lists of alleged communists who were later killed, such as in Indonesia in 1965. “CIA agents working under USAID cover... provided information on villagers' political affiliations, while USAID’s Office of Public Safety helped modernize record-keeping through police training programs, facilitating the creation of blacklists.” That year, more than half a million people accused of communism were killed. Trump may have been right to call the agency “criminal.”
Nevertheless, the liberal press remains fixated solely on the potential famine risks resulting from dismantling USAID, ignoring the ideological indoctrination programs it runs worldwide.
Supporters fear that dismantling this arm of US imperialism could “open a window for China and Russia,” warning it would lead to a “decline in US influence in Africa, South America, and Asia, where the agency meets diverse needs, from healthcare to clean water to aid distribution to NGOs, relief agencies, and nonprofit organizations—not to mention millions in military aid to “Israel” and Ukraine.”
While their assessment of the agency’s role in advancing US imperial interests is accurate, their emphasis on its alleged “humanitarian” aid deliberately omits its broader role in dismantling welfare states in Third World countries. This often comes hand in hand with distributing weapons, fueling wars, engaging in ideological indoctrination through educational and media programs, and paying high salaries to local elites to assist in running these programs.
The Trump administration realized that it could distribute weapons and “humanitarian” imperial aid without relying on an agency that heavily invests in ideological indoctrination, especially indoctrination promoting values opposed by the Trump administration and the conservative wing of US imperialism. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt cited examples of USAID’s ideological priorities, calling them “crazy priorities” and “nonsense”: spending “$1.5 million to promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in Serbian workplaces, $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, and $32,000 for a transgender photo book in Peru.” The Trump administration proposed creating a new agency solely for “humanitarian” aid distribution.
Simultaneously, the administration moved to shut down other arms of US imperial ideological propaganda, most notably the US Agency for Global Media, which oversees “Voice of America,” “Radio Free Asia,” “Radio Free Europe,” and funds “Alhurra TV.” These outlets were founded to promote US imperial propaganda during the Cold War and the expansion of neoliberal capitalism.
“Alhurra TV” in particular has focused on supporting “Israel” and whitewashing Arab dictatorships allied with Washington. Today, without exception, all remaining Arab autocrats are mere US proxies serving its project and reflecting its hegemony in the region.
These propaganda outlets are legally banned from broadcasting inside the US. The Trump administration described their propaganda as “radical,” referring to “Voice of America” as “Radical Voice of America.” Yet even Republican imperialists worry that shutting these outlets down could mean losing the “information war.”
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, USAID has successfully transformed large segments of Third World elites, middle classes, and intellectuals into mouthpieces for US liberal ideology through funding NGOs, educational initiatives, and media projects. Without a political or intellectual alternative after the Soviet collapse, US liberal economic and political doctrine faced little competition.
However, over the past three decades, this doctrine began absorbing “white liberal” ideas concerning multiculturalism, gender rights, and sexual rights—ideas rejected by white US conservatives, prompting the Trump administration to terminate the entire program.
Trump realized that indoctrinating Third World elites with pro-capitalist, anti-welfare ideas was no longer necessary—these groups had already internalized such views since the end of the Cold War. The administration concluded—rightly—that the US today requires hard power to impose its will globally, without investing heavily in “soft power.”
Indeed, Trump’s campaign against ideological brainwashing abroad extended to plans to close dozens of US embassies worldwide, including eliminating “offices working on climate change, refugee support, democracy, and human rights.”
Contrasting this dismantling abroad, the Trump administration is doubling down on promoting ideological indoctrination domestically. This explains its escalating war on US universities. While Trump can use military force and economic sanctions abroad, constitutional protections limit similar repression at home, at least partly.
This does not mean the militarized US police, deployed since 9/11, have not been mobilized for repression. Their extensive record under Bush, Obama, and Biden proves otherwise. Yet, economic pressure is now seen as more effective. This is the method Trump’s administration recently adopted to push universities into becoming centers of conservative propaganda and abandoning their alleged liberal commitments.
The administration rightly understood that while the US can bomb countries into submission, it cannot bomb US public opinion. It is therefore cheaper and more necessary to abandon ideological indoctrination abroad while reinforcing it at home. From this perspective, universities calling the police last year to dismantle pro-Gaza student encampments—protesting the Israeli genocide in Gaza and US complicity—was good, in Trump’s view, but insufficient. The administration seeks to help universities accelerate down the path they were already on before Trump took office. Columbia University even acknowledged this trajectory in its response to the administration.
Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci long understood the pivotal role of educational institutions in securing ideological hegemony in capitalist societies to suppress rebellion. After the collapse of that hegemony since October 2023, especially regarding blind US support for “Israel” during its genocidal war, steps are now necessary to reimpose it.
Universities' use of police was the first step. The government now aims to persuade universities to continue “necessary reforms,” or pressure those resisting into compliance. Harvard and Columbia are key examples. Both acknowledge the need for reforms to discipline students and faculty and restore ideological hegemony, though Harvard prefers to implement them without appearing coerced, unlike Columbia, which capitulated meekly.
This dual policy reflects the Trump administration’s recognition that the real threat to US elite hegemony comes from within, not abroad. As I have argued since 2005 and reiterated recently, the issue of “Israel” and Palestine is merely the easiest entry point to attack academic freedom. Given the US political culture’s near-unanimous blind support for “Israel” across mainstream, right-wing, and even left-wing media, the suppression of critical academic work on “Israel” will encounter little public resistance.
Suppressing Palestinian-focused studies would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door to broader and more popular forms of opposition, such as defending welfare programs, racial minority rights, immigrant rights, and women's rights. Mainstream ideologies now include claims of “white male discrimination” and “replacement theory,” which portrays white demographic decline as an existential threat to white supremacy.
Women’s rights, particularly abortion rights, have been curtailed as part of this demographic panic. Similarly, racial minorities and immigrants are scapegoated for economic inequality, particularly among poor whites, masking the reality that the white wealthy elite’s economic policies are the true cause of growing class disparities since the 1980s.
Trump’s moves internationally and domestically are aimed at strengthening US-led capitalist imperialism and ideological hegemony, not weakening them. His focus on eliminating local threats to elite domination is logical, as is his confidence that countries under US influence will continue obeying Washington’s orders. Trump’s push to lower the costs of this domination is simply a bonus. Although some liberal imperial elites—and even some conservatives—worry that this path may not be optimal, Trump sees no alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment