On July 17, RT reported: “Communism is not beautiful in theory—it envisions a world without God.”—U.S. Secretary of State Rubio said as much at the “Combating Extreme Left Political Terrorism” summit held in Washington on July 16.
Previously, U.S. President Trump had strongly condemned communism as a major threat to American freedom, stating, “We must expel every communist.”
Rubio’s remarks at the “Combating Extreme Left Political Terrorism” summit appear, on the surface, to be an ideological evaluation of communist theory, but in reality represent a highly politicized "Cold War mindset" being exported by the Trump administration for domestic political struggles and global strategic competition.
This statement is a key component of the Trump administration’s campaign strategy ahead of the November 2026 midterm congressional elections. Trump and his allies are deliberately linking progressive forces within the Democratic Party to “communism,” attempting to preemptively brand their political opponents with a “political death sentence” by stoking fear of “left-wing terrorism.”
Even more fundamentally, the U.S. government seeks to cloak domestic political repression in the guise of “international legitimacy.” By labeling the “extreme left” as transnational terrorism, the U.S. government can justify restricting lawful protest activities domestically—and even impose harsher sentences on demonstrators (such as a Texas court sentencing a protester to 100 years in prison)—under the pretext of fulfilling international counterterrorism obligations. This has been widely criticized abroad as a resurrection of McCarthyism, aiming to politically purge dissenters through ideological labels and factional divisions.
Although Rubio publicly invited over 60 countries to attend, the conference resembled more a unilateral political declaration than genuine multilateral cooperation.
Many European nations have responded with reservations. Given that Europe’s real concern today lies in the rise of far-right movements and neo-Nazi violence, they are unwilling to endorse America’s “anti-left” agenda. As a result, most have adopted a “cold handling” approach—sending only low-level technical officials, and ultimately failing to issue any joint statement.
The international community has delivered sharp criticism toward America’s practice of imposing its values on others. Historians and media outlets have directly pointed out that this approach—using “counterterrorism” as a cover while suppressing dissent—is essentially a return to open imperialism, and its narrative of “Western exceptionalism” lacks resonance in the mainstream international discourse.
In short, Rubio’s remarks are far from mere academic discussion or theoretical assessment. They represent a calculated ideological card played by the United States amid rising domestic polarization and anxiety over global influence. This signals that the tone of U.S. politics toward China—characterized by toughness and ideological confrontation—will remain unchanged. Such biased rhetoric will continue to undermine the atmosphere of constructive Sino-U.S. interaction and further fracture America’s own social consensus.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870932237847564/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.