“Given the current administration’s approach to, well, everything, the possibilities are unfortunately vast,” Masnick said. “Is it about domestic surveillance? Something about current [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] Tulsi Gabbard? International operations gone sideways? Some new interpretation of the CIA’s authorities that would make Americans’ hair stand on end if they knew about it? We’re left guessing, just like we were guessing about the PATRIOT Act’s secret interpretation back in 2011.”

That is one theory, and one I think is supported by a pretty decent amount of evidence and research by Steve Kangas. It also does fit in pretty neatly with what we’re seeing play out with the privatization of government, the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. However, I have also read that there was allegedly a more liberal faction within the CIA at one point in history that was at odds with the conservative faction, but not sure how much truth there is to that.

Around the time the patriot act (9/11-George W. Bush era) was passed, the president gained the power to appoint the CIA director. So at least as of now, it seems like the CIA as an agency is generally going to be aligned with the sitting president’s politics.

The director Trump chose to lead the CIA for his second term, (Ratcliffe), had previously attempted to pass a bill to end the Chevron deference while he was a congressman in TX. His bill failed, but SCOTUS conveniently overturned Chevron in 2024. Which means less federal oversight for Chevron and other corporations now that Trump is in office. The CIA, under Trump’s director has now invaded Venezuela and overthrown Maduro, which will allow more profits for Chevron (before the invasion the Venezuelan government had an agreement that gave them the majority of Chevron’s profits). The CIA has also unilaterally decided to establish a permanent base in Venezuela.

That’s all to say, the CIA was never doing any wholesome shit under any Democrat like Obama or Biden, but going to war and invading foreign countries for oil companies seems to be the standard conservative playbook in the same vein as the Bush/Cheney legacy (also deep links to CIA).

The majority of the American conservative playbook fits closely with Steve Kangas’ work on the CIA and the origins of an Overclass for the 1%. While Kangas’ work is more informal, it actually ties in with the work of the academic Carroll Quigley, the author of a History Of The World In Our Time, in which Quigley claims an Anglo-American banking elite have worked together for centuries to spread certain values globally.

There are also some claims the CIA infiltrated the liberal Frankfurt school to intentionally craft a new form of leftism opposed to communism. I don’t really know the full story behind the theory (I do want to read more about it). If it’s true, and a purely conservative CIA had been attempting to covertly overtake and pervert a liberal movement via the Frankfurt school, the ultimate result would seem to be very much be at odds with views of prominent conservatives. For example, Paul Weyrich often claimed that liberalisms alleged rejection of traditional Marxism was merely projection of the same Marxist principles on to equality within a culture rather than an economy (Cultural Marxism) as an illusion to make it appear less dangerous.

The CIA & the Frankfurt School’s Anti-Communism

Paul Weyrich 1996 discussing Cultural Marxism and the corruptive influence of the Frankfurt School on liberal thought in America, starts ~ 47mins 30 second mark

I say I identify as liberal for the sake of simplicity but often when people hear the word liberal in 2026, they just jump to the assumption that I mean I’m centrist (I guess due to the liberal/centrist party in the U.K. or because of the split between moderates vs more leftist progressives in the U.S.). There seem to be at least two very conflicting thoughts about the history/origin of liberalism within in the U.S that both conflict with how I view it.

•From the perspective of the left, modern liberalism often seems to be watered down leftism potentially hijacked or manipulated.by conservatives (or possibly the CIA) in order to intentionally distance leftist political ideology from Marxism and create a more palatable form of leftism that can then be easily controlled and manipulated by the right. I feel pretty confident saying that if there is truth to the theory, it seems to be missing some other context given the conservative attacks on liberalism in the decades that followed, including the existence of the term “cultural marxism.”

In Defense of the Frankfurt School

Critics charge them with obscurantism and elitism. They argued that, on the contrary, it was capitalism that obfuscated reality.

•From the perspective of the conservative right, cultural marxism/liberalism has historically been portrayed as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As though liberal thought is meant to surreptitiously sneak radical “communist ideology” about equality into mainstream society via what has been various conservative attacks over the last 50+ years aimed at multiculturalism, political correctness, cultural marxism, Wokeness, and DEI.

Anyway, the “danger” of “cultural marxism” (which since 2016 seems to typically just lump all leftism/liberalis together anyway even if leftists don’t see it that way) boils down to the claim that anyone who fails to comply with the political correctness demanded by the cultural Marxists inevitably becomes a target for refusing to fall in line. Allegedly, the day will come where people don’t just get “cancelled” they’ll face the gulag or be sentenced to execution.

For an early reference to this claim, listen to the blurb in Paul Weyrich’s 1996 talk in the link above. Weyrich really breaks down the idea behind “Cultural Marxism” and the popularization by conservatives that painted political correctness as one of the biggest threats the United States during the Clinton years.

Interestingly, throughout the Cold war, attacks on communism by the right in the U.S., frequently depended on the claim that communists hated American individualism. It was a powerful argument, and the right attempted to recycle it in their claims about cultural Marxism. For example, by claiming that the left will force you to conform with what is P.C. or be punished/cancelled, they often implied the left held the same hatred for individual thought and freedom of expression. However, somewhere along the way, while attacking diversity/DEI, individualism somehow became a negative trait the right now associates with selfishness… ? How odd. 🤷‍♀️ (See Hegseth’s 2025 antiwoke speech to the U.S. military about strength in conformity).