Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Trump Appointee Claimed China Might Cancel July 4

Trump's deputy national security advisor Kathleen McFarland has a history of making wildly conspiratorial claims about China leveraging its holdings of U.S. debt to demand the elimination of Fourth of July celebrations and casually joking about nuclear winter as a solution to global warming.

Print Friendly


The Trump transition team’s announcement that Kathleen Troia “KT” McFarland will serve as deputy national security advisor has received far less attention than the appointment of her boss, Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, as national security advisor. Both Flynn and McFarland have histories of pandering to the anti-Muslim and hawkish wings of the Republican Party. But videos reviewed by LobeLog show McFarland making wildly conspiratorial claims about China leveraging its holdings of U.S. debt to demand the elimination of Fourth of July celebrations and casually joking about nuclear winter as a solution to global warming.

Since serving in the Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan administrations, McFarland fashioned herself as a national security expert and worked as a Fox news analyst. There she delivered analysis like “war is the default position” in the Middle East and urged U.S. diplomats to treat Iranian nuclear negotiators like children, as Derek Davison detailed on Friday.

McFarland seems most at home when talking to friendly audiences, eager to earn their applause or laughter at her jokes.

In a July 2015, appearance on Red Eye, Fox News’ late night satirical talk show, McFarland ridiculed a video produced by the nuclear nonproliferation group, Global Zero, featuring celebrities endorsing the Iran nuclear deal. McFarland concluded her criticisms of the White House’s efforts to promote the nuclear agreement with a bizarre attack on climate change advocates, saying:

You know, in some cases you could make the argument that if we had to worry about global warming, maybe nuclear winter has some advantages.

Watch it:

To be fair, McFarland’s crack about using nuclear winter to counter global warming is probably less than serious. But her animosity toward Global Zero and the White House’s efforts to negotiate constraints on Iran’s nuclear program raises serious questions about what advice she might deliver in the Trump White House.

Perhaps even more worrisome, McFarland embraced xenophobic fear-mongering while appearing at a Manhattan Tea Party rally in 2009, where she delivered a disjointed warning about the threat posed by China’s investment in U.S. debt. She said (my emphasis):

[China has] two trillion dollars. They have a big bag of money and they’re going lend it to us. And they’re going to want something for that. You know the independence that most of you who are here tonight fought for, […] independence from tyranny? That means we get to choose who our allies are. We get to choose who we sell things to. We get to choose who we buy stuff from. We get to choose where our navy goes. Well, if China owns us then we’re not going to get to choose those things anymore. It’s not that the Chinese are bad, they’re just going to be practical. They’re going to want something for their money. They’re not our sugar-daddy. So, ten years from now, you might not have American Independence Day. You know, the Fourth of July might just end up being another day on the calendar.

Watch it:

After warning her Times Square audience that China might cancel the Fourth of July holiday, McFarland concluded her remarks by teaching some rudimentary Chinese that will come in handy if the audience fails to vote out incumbent members of Congress from Democratic-Party-dominated states like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and California.

McFarland recommended learning useful phrases like: “How can I help you?” “What do you want from me?” and “Thank you.”

McFarland appears to enjoy her role as a provocateur and playing to the bigotry of Tea Party crowds and late-night talk-show audiences. But it’s an open question how her eagerness to spread baseless conspiracy theories about the biggest U.S. trading partner or heap scorn on efforts at nuclear nonproliferation will carry over to the Trump administration’s foreign policy. Given Trump’s campaign statements questioning the utility of NATO and nonchalance toward nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula, McFarland will probably find a receptive ear in the Oval Office.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.