Anne Applebaum’s October cover story in The Atlantic exposes a fundamental rupture in how the United States projects power abroad, arguing that American diplomacy has been hijacked by private interests and hardline ideologues. Reporting from Brazil, she demonstrates that the traditional machinery of state-led relationship building is being replaced by informal envoys and online grifters who prioritise personal gain over democratic values. This shift means the international order is no longer being shaped by trained diplomats but by actors who care little for America’s reputation or long-term stability.
The New Architects of American Power
The core of Applebaum’s argument rests on a stark contrast between the old guard of American foreign policy and the new wave of actors reshaping it. Historically, the United States deployed its power through trained diplomats and reliable officials who worked within established state channels. These professionals were tasked with building long-term relationships and promoting democratic ideals, even when it served broader strategic interests. Their work was often slow, bureaucratic, and focused on institutional stability. Today, that model is crumbling. The people who now matter most are informal envoys, private companies, online grifters, and hardened ideologues who operate both inside and outside the government. They do not talk about spreading democracy, nor do they seek to build enduring alliances. Instead, they deploy the tools of American diplomacy for their own purposes, promoting their own business interests and ideological agendas.
This transformation is not merely a change in personnel; it is a change in logic. The new actors are driven by private gain and antidemocratic reaction rather than a commitment to the public good. Applebaum’s reporting from Brazil illustrates this vividly. The United States is no longer the ally Brazilians once knew. The traditional signals of American commitment—consistent messaging, predictable aid, and diplomatic continuity—are being replaced by erratic, self-serving interventions. The result is a foreign policy that feels less like a coherent strategy and more like a collection of opportunistic ventures. This shift has profound implications for how other nations perceive and interact with Washington, as the reliability of American promises becomes increasingly questionable.
The role of private companies and online grifters is particularly significant. These actors often leverage their connections to government officials to secure contracts, influence policy, or promote specific ideological outcomes. They do not need to answer to the public or to established diplomatic norms. Their accountability is to their shareholders, their donors, or their own egos. This creates a system where foreign policy decisions are made in boardrooms and online platforms as much as in the State Department. The result is a fragmentation of American power, where different factions pursue conflicting agendas, undermining the coherence of the US position on the global stage.
Applebaum also highlights the ideological dimension of this shift. The new actors are often hardened ideologues who view foreign policy through a lens of cultural and political warfare. They are less interested in nuanced diplomacy and more interested in winning battles of narrative and influence. This approach can lead to abrupt policy changes and unpredictable behaviour, as seen in the way the US interacts with allies and adversaries alike. The emphasis is on immediate impact and visible wins, rather than long-term relationship building. This short-termism can erode trust and make it harder to sustain cooperation on complex issues like climate change, trade, and security.
The Human Cost of Ideological Diplomacy
The consequences of this shift are not just abstract or geopolitical; they are felt by ordinary people around the world. When foreign policy is driven by private gain and ideological fervour, the needs of local populations often take a back seat. Aid delivery, for example, may be directed towards projects that benefit American companies or promote specific political agendas, rather than addressing the most pressing humanitarian needs. This can lead to inefficiencies and inequities in resource allocation, leaving vulnerable communities without the support they need. The social consequences of this misalignment can be significant, as local populations may feel that American assistance is conditional or self-serving.
Furthermore, the erosion of traditional diplomatic channels can disrupt the flow of information and understanding between cultures. Diplomats often serve as cultural bridges, helping to explain American values and policies to foreign audiences, and vice versa. When these roles are filled by ideologues and grifters, the nuance and empathy required for effective cultural exchange are often lost. This can lead to misunderstandings and resentment, as foreign audiences perceive American actions as hypocritical or inconsistent. The result is a decline in soft power, making it harder for the US to build coalitions and influence global opinion.
The accountability mechanisms that once checked the excesses of foreign policy are also weakening. Traditional oversight by Congress, the media, and civil society is often bypassed or ignored by the new actors, who operate in a more opaque and informal manner. This lack of transparency can lead to scandals and abuses of power, as seen in various diplomatic and aid missions around the world. The public is often left in the dark about who is making decisions and why, leading to a sense of disempowerment and distrust in government institutions.
Key Shifts in Diplomatic Practice
- Informal envoys now hold more influence than career diplomats in key regions.
- Private companies are directly involved in shaping policy to secure business interests.
- Online grifters use social media to bypass traditional media and shape public opinion.
- Ideological loyalty is prioritised over professional expertise in diplomatic appointments.
Why This Matters for Global Stability
The implications of this “empire of grift” extend far beyond the United States. As the US rewrites the rules of international engagement, other nations are forced to adapt to a more unpredictable and self-interested partner. This can lead to a fragmentation of the global order, as countries seek alternative alliances and reduce their dependence on American leadership. The traditional institutions of international cooperation, such as the United Nations and various trade agreements, may lose their relevance if the US no longer adheres to the norms and rules it helped create. This could result in a more chaotic and conflict-prone world, where power is exercised arbitrarily rather than through established legal and diplomatic frameworks.
The shift also affects the way democracy is perceived and promoted abroad. If the US is seen as prioritising private gain and ideological conformity over democratic values, its credibility as a champion of democracy will suffer. This can embolden authoritarian regimes, which can point to American hypocrisy to justify their own repressive policies. It can also make it harder for democratic movements in other countries to gain support, as they may be viewed with suspicion or seen as aligned with American self-interest rather than genuine democratic principles. The result is a weakening of the global democratic project, which has been a cornerstone of international stability since the end of the Cold War.
Moreover, the rise of informal and private actors in foreign policy creates new challenges for accountability and transparency. Traditional mechanisms for oversight, such as congressional hearings and media scrutiny, are less effective in holding these actors to account. This can lead to a situation where powerful individuals and companies can influence policy without public consent or understanding. The result is a democratic deficit in foreign policy, where decisions that affect millions of people are made by a small group of elites with little regard for the public interest. This can fuel populist movements and political instability both in the US and abroad.
The economic implications are also significant. As private companies become more involved in foreign policy, there is a risk that trade and investment decisions will be driven by political considerations rather than market forces. This can lead to inefficiencies and distortions in the global economy, as resources are allocated based on political loyalty rather than economic merit. It can also create conflicts of interest, where companies use their political connections to secure favourable treatment, undermining fair competition. This can have a negative impact on businesses and consumers around the world, as prices rise and quality declines.
The Future of American Diplomacy
Looking ahead, the question is whether this new model of foreign policy will prove sustainable. The current system is highly personalised and dependent on the whims of powerful individuals. This can lead to volatility and inconsistency, as policies change with the political climate or the interests of key players. It may also struggle to address complex, long-term challenges that require sustained effort and cooperation, such as climate change and global health. The traditional diplomatic corps, with its expertise and institutional memory, may be sidelined, leading to a loss of institutional knowledge and effectiveness.
However, there are also opportunities for innovation and adaptation. The new actors may be more agile and responsive to changing circumstances, able to bypass bureaucratic inertia and deliver results quickly. They may also be more creative in their approaches, using new technologies and media to engage with foreign audiences. The key will be to balance this flexibility with accountability and coherence, ensuring that the diverse voices in American foreign policy are aligned with a broader strategic vision. This will require new mechanisms for oversight and coordination, as well as a renewed commitment to democratic values and the public interest.
The role of civil society and the media will be crucial in holding these new actors to account. Independent journalism and robust public debate can help to expose abuses of power and ensure that foreign policy serves the national interest. The public also has a role to play, by demanding transparency and accountability from their government. The rise of social media has made it easier for citizens to engage with foreign policy issues and hold leaders to account, but it has also made it easier for misinformation and propaganda to spread. The challenge will be to navigate this complex information landscape and ensure that decisions are based on facts and evidence.
Ultimately, the “empire of grift” represents a fundamental challenge to the post-war international order. It reflects a shift from a rules-based system to a power-based one, where might makes right and self-interest prevails. This shift has profound implications for global stability, democracy, and human rights. As the US continues to redefine its role in the world, other nations will need to adapt to this new reality, seeking new alliances and strategies to protect their interests. The coming years will be a critical test of the resilience of the international system and the ability of democracies to thrive in a more chaotic and uncertain world.
What to Watch Next
As the US continues to navigate this new era of foreign policy, several key developments will shape the future of international relations. The next few months will see the implementation of new diplomatic strategies and the emergence of new informal envoys who will test the limits of this grift-driven model. Watch for changes in aid allocation, trade agreements, and military deployments that reflect the priorities of private interests and ideological factions. The upcoming diplomatic summits and international conferences will also provide a window into how the US is adapting to this new reality, and whether it can maintain its leadership role in a fragmented world. The actions of these new actors will determine whether the US emerges as a more effective and agile power, or a more erratic and self-serving one, with significant consequences for global stability and democracy.
See Also
- Budapest Pride Returns — Three Years After Orban's Shadow Lifted
- Modi Launches Amrit Bharat Express Trains — Boosting Travel Across India
