Why the Wilson Center Had To Go—From a Former Employee
The Wilson Center was part of a corrupt apparatus of American power. It may describe itself as nonpartisan or even "objective," but it perpetuates a system, supported by both the Republican and the Democratic establishments, that promotes American interventionism and whitewashes abuses abroad.
The think tank was much like its namesake, former President Woodrow Wilson: paternalistically claiming liberal values while actively engaging in oppression. The Wilson Center has financed figures with terrible human rights records.
Take Guillermo Lasso, the former president of Ecuador. Even as he faced an impeachment process for embezzlement and corruption tied to public contracts and offshore dealings—allegations substantiated by investigative journalism and congressional inquiries—the Wilson Center continued to offer Lasso space to speak and publish, framing him as a reformer. When cornered by growing scandal and plummeting approval, Lasso dissolved the National Assembly and called snap elections, effectively terminating the investigation and preserving his impunity. During his tenure, Lasso oversaw brutal police crackdowns on anti-government protests. I was personally tear-gassed while covering one of those demonstrations, an experience that laid bare his government's violent intolerance for dissent.
Watching the Wilson Center offer Lasso a space to revamp his image was a breaking point for me. I had joined the Wilson Center with the hope of contributing to meaningful dialogue in a respected institution around issues of consequence to the Western Hemisphere, but I could no longer ignore the way it cloaked state violence and elite impunity in the language of liberalism and polite debate. So I resigned.
Another example of the Wilson Center's moral bankruptcy is its embrace of Iván Duque, president of Colombia from 2018 to 2022. During his presidency, Duque oversaw bloody crackdowns on protestors, particularly during the 2021 Paro Nacional, when police and military forces killed, maimed, and disappeared demonstrators with impunity. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented widespread abuses, including extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detentions during his tenure. Duque also gutted the peace process with leftist guerrillas, failed to protect hundreds of assassinated social leaders, and used state power to shield paramilitary allies. Yet Duque was named a Wilson Center chair and distinguished fellow, given a podcast, and had a new Iván Duque Center for Prosperity and Freedom established in his honor.
Another stain on the Wilson Center's credibility is the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, perhaps its most famous bureau. That an institution claiming to advance global peace would enshrine Henry Kissinger, a man responsible for the death, suffering, and displacement of millions around the world, is beyond parody. Kissinger's legacy is not one of realpolitik brilliance—it is one of calculated brutality. He greenlit coups in Chile and Argentina, enabled genocides in East Timor and Bangladesh, prolonged the Vietnam War, and supported the carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos. The directors of the Wilson Center are, of course, fully aware of this.
Yes, there are brilliant minds at the Wilson Center: scholars and staff who genuinely want to make the world better. I am grateful to have worked alongside them. But their presence offers an asterisk, not redemption. The center's boardrooms and panels overflow with figureheads from the military-industrial complex and from institutions central to some of the worst actions Washington has carried out globally. The Wilson Center doesn't just tolerate this ecosystem—it curates it. And U.S. taxpayers help pay for this.
The post Why the Wilson Center Had To Go—From a Former Employee appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
10 minutes ago
- UPI
Abbott threatens to remove 10 Democratic districts from Texas
Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Monday that he will eliminate 10 Democratic districts from his state if California makes good on its threat to remove five. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo Aug. 12 (UPI) -- Gov. Greg Abbott has threatened to remove 10 Democratic districts from Texas if California makes good on its threat to remove five Republican districts from its maps, the latest salvo in the deepening fight between the two states over the Lone Star State's redistricting efforts. "If California tries to gerrymander five more districts; listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state," the Republican governor told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview Monday. "We can play that game more than they can, because they have fewer Republican districts in their state." The threat comes as Texas state Democrats have fled their home state to Democratic strongholds such as Illinois and other states to prevent Republicans from passing controversial redistricting maps that give the GOP five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Critics have accused Abbott and Texas Republicans of conducting a power grab, seeking to redraw districts now as opposed to at the end of the decade, when it is traditionally done, in order to try to give President Donald Trump and the Republican Party an additional five seats in the House ahead of next year's midterms. Texas Democrats fled the state earlier this month in opposition, denying their Republican colleagues a quorum, meaning the minimum number of lawmakers necessary to pass legislation. The GOP's redistricting efforts in Texas have angered Democrats throughout the country, with Gov. Gavin Newsom responding that he will redraw California's maps to produce five more Democratic seats in the House to neutralize Abbott's move. Texas has 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the House of Representatives. California has nine GOP legislators and 43 Democrats.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Parti Québécois wins Arthabaska byelection, beating Quebec Conservatives in tight race
The PQ's Alex Boissonneault inched ahead of the Conservative Party of Quebec, shutting the door on leader Éric Duhaime's hope of winning a seat in the National Assembly. It was also a disappointing night for François Legault and the CAQ, which finished fourth behind the Quebec Liberals.


Business Insider
17 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump May Allow Nvidia (NVDA) to Sell Scaled-Down Blackwell Chips to China
President Donald Trump said on Monday that he might allow Nvidia (NVDA) to sell a scaled-down version of its most advanced AI chip, the Blackwell, to China. Indeed, he told reporters that he would consider approving the sale if the chip's performance was reduced by about 30% to 50%, describing it as a 'somewhat enhanced — in a negative way — Blackwell' processor. Trump's comments came as he confirmed a separate deal that allows Nvidia to sell its less-powerful H20 AI chip to China if the company pays 15% of the revenue from those sales to the U.S. government. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will also pay the same percentage on revenue from its MI308 chip. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. The H20 revenue-sharing deal and the possibility of a similar arrangement for the Blackwell are examples of Trump's strategy to secure financial benefits for the U.S. in exchange for lower trade restrictions. However, experts warn that these kinds of agreements could set a precedent for all American companies selling to China and might weaken the national security argument behind the current export controls. Indeed, it is worth noting that U.S. restrictions currently classify the Blackwell chip as too powerful to be sold in China. As a result, Nvidia and AMD have both seen their China sales drop sharply due to these rules. And while the Trump administration has started issuing permits for some shipments, the approved chips are older models that are no more advanced than those already made in China, thereby limiting their appeal. However, a newer but less powerful Blackwell could help Nvidia win back customers in China if approved. Unsurprisingly, though, Nvidia has said it is working on a new chip for the Chinese market and will look to receive export approval. What Is a Good Price for NVDA? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on NVDA stock based on 35 Buys, three Holds, and one Sell assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average NVDA price target of $187.57 per share implies 3% upside potential.