In recent weeks, there has been a surge of allegations that Moscow has long orchestrated an illegal campaign to influence U.S. public opinion. On September 4, 2024, the Justice Department charged two Russian media executives with an alleged scheme that authorities say illegally funneled millions of dollars to a Tennessee-based company [Tenet] to create and publish propaganda videos that racked up millions of views on U.S. social media. In a separate legal action, prosecutors seized 32 Russian-controlled internet domains that were used in a state-controlled effort called “Doppelganger” to undermine international support for Ukraine. As an aside to such legal maneuvers, U.S. officials contended that 1800 Westerners, including 21 Americans, were guilty of acting as “influencers” on behalf of Russia.
The Justice Department filed an even more high-profile case the next day. It accused Dimitri Simes, and his wife Anastasia, of illegally accepting more than $1 million in salary and other benefits from the state-owned Channel One Russia television station and trying to conceal the payments. Simes is founder of the Center for the National Interest.
The Biden administration is shamelessly hyping the prosecutions to smear anyone who seems to criticize or even question U.S. policy towards Russia. Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins notes that Russian propaganda efforts in the United States have been spectacularly ineffective over the years. Nevertheless, Attorney General Merrick Garland, in announcing the latest prosecutions, asserted that “Russian disinformation is ‘a bigger threat’ than ever.” Garland’s smears were often stunningly vague, though. For example, he conceded that “the Kremlin-influenced U.S. influencers were unaware they were benefiting from Russian money.” That statement comes alarmingly close to contending that pro-Russian “influencers” were unintentional criminals. Garland stated, for example, “subject matter and content of many of the videos published by the company [Tenet] were often consistent with Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions.” Such a vague standard also gives an administration virtually a blank check to harass its ideological or political opponents.
There were several suspicious aspects about the Justice Department’s moves. One was the timing. The indictments took place just days before the scheduled debate between Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris. The inflammatory tone in articles from the Washington Post and other establishment publications dealing with the new prosecutions even more strongly suggests that partisanship was at play. For example, the Post’s headline read: “Trump-aligned Russian TV host charged in alleged sanctions scheme.”
However, there also seemed to be more than petty partisanship involved. Dimitri Simes, in particular, has long been an irritant to hawks in America’s national security state. His efforts to improve relations between Washington and Moscow were deeply resented by Russia haters in the powerful pro-war lobby. That hostility was magnified because of the prominence that the publication National Interest had achieved under Simes’ leadership.
The Biden administration’s ongoing campaign to squelch dissent about Russia policy is profoundly menacing and worrisome. I have published several articles in the National Interest over the years and have been a contributing editor to that publication. Given my interactions with Dimitri Simes, I strongly doubt whether he is guilty of the charges against him.
But even in the unlikely event that the charges are accurate, other more fundamental issues should concern all Americans. The statutes that he is accused of violating are sufficiently vague as to pose a threat to freedom of speech and to badly needed debates on numerous international issues, especially the tense relations between Russia and the United States. Could, for example, publishing an article in the National Interest or participating in a discussion sponsored by the Center inadvertently violate pertinent statutes? What about a paid interview? How could an author or participant be confident one way or the other? The mere existence of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and various sanctions laws directed against specific countries pose an intolerable threat to the 1st Amendment.
The overall rationale for prosecuting alleged “influencers” should offend every American who believes in freedom of expression. Preventing American citizens from accessing pro-Russian viewpoints is inappropriate in what purports to be a free, democratic society. That is true even if the Russian government is funding and directing such propaganda.
Moreover, Washington’s hypocrisy on the issue is truly breathtaking. The U.S. government directly and through front groups spends billions of dollars each year propagandizing foreign audiences with material that, not accidentally, also frequently ends up affecting domestic opinion. There is credible evidence that the CIA has paid U.S. and foreign journalists to disseminate Washington’s propaganda. Evidence has even emerged that (primarily in Middle Eastern countries) the United States government established bogus “independent” media outlets to serve the same purpose.
Beyond such mundane measures, the U.S. propaganda apparatus has developed an especially close and unhealthy relationship with its Ukrainian counterpart. Washington has even funded and promoted Ukrainian government agencies that target and harass American critics who dare seek an end to NATO’s proxy war against Russia. The latest Justice Department actions suggest that Washington’s ugly campaign remains intact.
It is especially ironic (as well as infuriating) for U.S. officials such as Attorney General Merrick Garland to grouse about Russia’s efforts to reduce U.S. and international support for Ukraine. The Biden administration has waged a massive effort to echo and amplify Kyiv’s propaganda in the United States as well as around the world. Most galling of all, the administration has worked with the Ukrainian government to suppress dissent in the United States about U.S. policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. In a truly free society, citizens must not be threatened by their own government for failing to support a particular foreign policy. The latest Justice Department prosecutions violate the most fundamental features of a democratic system.
Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com.
