search
Branko Miletic

The New Rosenbergs of the New Right

Unsplash.
The New Right, while a formidable disruptor now, lacks the cohesion and vision to deliver lasting solutions, leaving it vulnerable to the inevitable tide of change.

As the New Right ascends in socio-political influence within the U.S., its rhetoric and actions reveal a troubling alignment with the interests of America’s most formidable adversaries: Russia and China.

While claiming to champion “America First” principles, this emerging faction of the now highly fragmented neoconservative movement, risks undermining U.S. sovereignty and security by amplifying narratives that serve foreign authoritarian regimes.

On Russia, the New Right has consistently echoed Kremlin propaganda, its leaders casting doubt on U.S. support for Ukraine, while at the same time, downplaying Vladimir Putin’s aggression, and parroting isolationist rhetoric designed to fracture Western unity.

By sowing distrust in NATO and dismissing the stakes of the Ukraine war, this chips away at the alliances that underpin global stability—conveniently advancing Moscow’s objectives.

With China, the picture is more subtle but equally concerning. Some New Right figures actively argue against holding Beijing accountable for trade abuses and human rights violations, framing U.S.-China competition as a distraction from domestic priorities. This mirrors China’s long-standing strategy to weaken U.S. resolve on the global stage.

In their disdain for American institutions and bipartisan foreign policy consensus, the New Right veers dangerously close to collusion, if not even collaboration. By aligning themselves with anti-democratic powers, they risk crossing a line where political dissent shades into treasonous advocacy.

The consequences of this could be catastrophic for the U.S. and its global leadership role.

 The Rosenbergs: Spies, Secrets, and the Cold War’s Ultimate Reckoning

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the first American civilians executed for espionage in the United States, their case becoming one of the most controversial of the Cold War era. Convicted in 1951 of passing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, their fate was sealed amid rising tensions between Washington and Moscow. On June 19, 1953, they were executed in the electric chair at Sing Sing prison in New York.

Image: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Source: Wikipedia

The couple, both committed communists, were accused of conspiring with Soviet intelligence to leak classified information about the Manhattan Project, the top-secret U.S. effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Testimony from Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass, a machinist at the Los Alamos lab, implicated Julius as the linchpin of a spy ring and Ethel as his accomplice. Greenglass later admitted he had exaggerated Ethel’s role to protect his own wife, but evidence—including decrypted Soviet cables from the Venona project—has since confirmed that Julius was indeed deeply embedded in Soviet espionage.

Their execution remains a flashpoint in American history, with critics decrying it as excessive and politically motivated. But in the context of the era, the decision was justified.

The Cold War was at its height, and the theft of atomic secrets was not a mere intellectual betrayal but a direct threat to national security. The Soviet Union’s rapid nuclear advancements, culminating in their first atomic bomb in 1949, altered the balance of power, ushering in decades of nuclear brinkmanship.

 Image: https://www.alexautographs.com/auction-lot/julius-and-ethel-rosenberg-are-condemned_0N9HU9GXKP

In the tense atmosphere of the early 1950s, their execution also sent an unambiguous message: espionage i.e. collusion against the United States in a time of existential peril would not be tolerated.

Fast forward 72 years later to 2025, and it seems America has found a nest of potential new ‘Rosenbergs’ that are actively selling out the country to a modern set of ideological supremacists in the Kremlin.

Tucker Carlson’s Rhetoric: Undermining America, Aiding Russia

Tucker Carlson is widely considered a prominent figure within the New Right, though to be fair, his precise alignment within the movement has been, and continues to be, widely debated.

Once Fox News’s most-watched and most controversial host, Carlson has built his brand on provocation, positioning himself as an outsider challenging America’s political establishment.

But his rhetoric, particularly on foreign policy, often, if not almost always aligns with the interests of one of Washington’s chief adversaries: Russia.

Image: Tucker Carlson. Source:  https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/tucker-carlsons-new-media-company-moves-toward-launch-2023-12-07/

From the early days of the war in Ukraine, Carlson has used his platform to cast doubt on U.S. support for Kyiv, framing American aid as reckless interventionism while downplaying Vladimir Putin’s aggression.

His talking points—questioning whether Putin is truly an enemy, suggesting that NATO expansion provoked the war, and mocking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—mirror Kremlin propaganda almost word for word. The result is a narrative that weakens public support for Ukraine, directly benefiting Russia’s strategic objectives.

Carlson’s rhetoric is not just an exercise in contrarianism; it has real geopolitical consequences. His show, widely watched by conservatives and often cited by Republican lawmakers, has helped shape scepticism toward U.S. foreign policy, particularly among the populist right.

His dismissal of American intelligence agencies and his amplification of conspiracy theories—ranging from allegations of secret biolabs in Ukraine to claims that the U.S. orchestrated Russia’s war—have fed into Moscow’s disinformation campaigns.

While Carlson insists he is merely “questioning establishment narratives” – whatever that really means, his commentary serves a clear purpose for the Kremlin: sowing division, eroding trust in democratic institutions, and weakening U.S. alliances.

In an era where information warfare is as consequential as military action, Carlson’s influence extends beyond ratings. Whether intentional or not, his words help a foreign adversary while undermining the nation whose freedoms allow him to speak so freely.

According to the UK Independent, Tucker Carlson has recently come under fire for platforming a guest who claimed Winston Churchill “was the villain of Second World War” and that millions of people “ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.

When he’s not pushing that conspiracy theory, he actively denigrates the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 to prevent further Serb-led mass killings of Albanians and Bosnians.

This is classic, as well as common, KGB/FSB-inspired Soviet agitprop.

Candace Owens and the Politics of Disinformation

 Candace Owens is undeniably a part of the New Right, blending populist rhetoric with cultural conservatism and nationalist politics, in the process building her media career on provocation, positioning herself as a so-called ‘fearless truth-teller’ in America’s culture wars.

Yet her rhetoric often aligns less with the interests of the United States and more with those of its geopolitical adversaries—chief among them, Russia.

Owens has repeatedly cast doubt on American support for Ukraine, dismissing the war as a manufactured crisis and parroting Kremlin-backed narratives about NATO’s role in provoking the conflict.

Her social media posts and public statements suggest that the U.S. has no business aiding Ukraine, mirroring the isolationist rhetoric that Russia hopes will take hold in the West. By amplifying skepticism over America’s foreign commitments, she helps fuel domestic division and erode bipartisan consensus on national security.

But her rhetoric extends beyond Ukraine. Owens has consistently undermined trust in U.S. institutions, from the legitimacy of elections to the credibility of intelligence agencies, feeding the kind of cynicism that foreign adversaries seek to exploit.

Her flirtation with conspiracy theories—whether about COVID-19, global elites, or the supposed decline of Western civilization—reinforces a worldview that is deeply useful to Russian propaganda efforts: one in which America is failing, corrupt, and undeserving of global a leadership role.

 

 Image: Candace Owens. Source: Wikipedia

While Owens may frame her rhetoric as mere scepticism or ideological defiance, the net effect is clear: In an era where disinformation is a strategic weapon, figures like Owens provide fertile ground for adversaries looking to weaken the U.S. from within.

And by promoting narratives that diminish American credibility and sow distrust, she ultimately aids those who wish to see democracy falter—not just at home, but on the global stage.

At the time of writing, Owens has been busy promoting a range of anti-Semitic tropes along with endorsing her film based on a discredited conspiracy theory about Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, that claimed Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned to female, a baseless assertion that has been widely debunked worldwide.

 By Copying the Woke Left, the New Right Will Ultimately Fail

Much like the Woke Left, the New Right, with its populist rhetoric, cultural grievances, and rejection of traditional political norms, has surged in public influence, but its trajectory is unlikely to sustain itself in the long term.

Its failure will stem from internal contradictions, public fatigue, and an inability to offer a coherent, forward-looking vision.

The New Right is a loose coalition of libertarians, nationalists, and traditional conservatives united more by what they oppose than what they support. While they share disdain for “woke culture” and globalist policies, sharp divisions exist over economic policy, foreign engagement, and even the role of democracy itself. These fractures will deepen as the movement grapples with governing responsibilities or navigating electoral realities.

While the New Right thrives on fighting the ‘culture wars’, its aggressive stances on social issues—ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to education—risk alienating moderate voters and younger generations. Public opinion in key demographics is moving toward inclusivity, and these relentless culture war tactics may lead to diminishing returns.

The movement’s rhetoric promotes and even thrives on grievances instead of providing actionable solutions. Attacking institutions or railing against globalization does little to address real challenges like healthcare, climate change, or income inequality.

Without substantive policy achievements, the New Right risks being seen as being ‘all talk and no action’.

At the end of the day, the New Right’s flirtation with authoritarian figures and rejection of democratic norms will backfire.

Public backlash against perceived threats to democracy, has historically been a powerful corrective force, both in the US and in other parts of the Anglosphere.

Ultimately, movements that thrive on division and nostalgia struggle to build a sustainable future for themselves.

The New Right, while a formidable disruptor now, lacks the cohesion and vision to deliver lasting solutions, leaving it vulnerable to the inevitable tide of change.

Let’s hope that this tide also washes away and ultimately drowns these modern-day inheritors of the selfishness and treachery of the likes of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

About the Author
Journalist and editor with 25 years experience, including reporting from Bosnia, Japan and all over Australia--- focus includes IT, ethics and geopolitics.
Related Topics
Related Posts