Gonzo Gaslighting

U.S. immigration policy and NATO commitments have a lot in common. “Gonzo governance” describes a style of political rule that delegitimizes social institutions in favor of leadership promoting the politics of fear that is chaotic, personality-driven, spectacle-oriented, and often indifferent to conventional standards of objectivity or institutional restraint. The term draws loosely from Hunter S. Thompson’s immersive, boundary-blurring reporting style that mixed fact, interpretation, and theatricality. In governance, however, this aesthetic becomes consequential when fueled by social media. It can create a climate in which disruption itself is the governing method. When paired with gaslighting—a psychological tactic in which people are made to doubt their own perceptions of reality—the result is a powerful and destabilizing political dynamic.

Gaslighting in politics does not usually take the form of denying small, private events; instead, it involves reframing public facts, dismissing documented evidence, and insisting that contradictory narratives are the “real” truth. Gonzo governance provides the spectacle and velocity; gaslighting provides the epistemic confusion that shields it from accountability.

One arena where this connection becomes visible is in the public debate around enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigration enforcement has long been controversial, but under gonzo-style governance it can become theatrical—highly publicized raids, dramatic rhetoric about invasions migrants as existential threats, and constant media churn. The spectacle is central. Enforcement actions are framed as moral dramas, often amplified through social media and press conferences that emphasize shock and urgency.

Gaslighting enters when official narratives about these arrests diverge from documented outcomes or legal realities. Consider the recent ICE campaign in Minneapolis. Administration messaging repeatedly asserted that operations exclusively target “the worst of the worst.” Yet, independent reporting, criminal justice records, and court data show that most detainees (77%) had no criminal record, and only 5% were convicted of a violent crime. Indeed, many ICE arrestees were apprehended awaiting court proceedings and amnesty hearings. These data and firsthand accounts are often labeled as fabricated, partisan, or “fake.”

This dynamic does not require that enforcement itself be unlawful; rather, it depends on how enforcement is framed and narrated. Gonzo governance thrives on intensity and binary moral framing—criminals versus good citizens, heroes versus villains, patriots versus traitors. Gaslighting sustains that intensity by blurring factual distinctions. If evidence emerges that complicates the narrative—say, US citizens are detained or family separations drawing widespread condemnation—official statements may insist that the policy is humane, necessary, or even protective, while denying foreseeable harms. Critics are portrayed as hysterical or deceitful or liberal.  Over time, the public sphere becomes saturated with mutually incompatible accounts, and exhaustion sets in. Confusion becomes a governing resource; facts are trumped by opinions.

A parallel pattern can be seen in debates over U.S. policy toward the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO is a long-standing military alliance structured around collective defense. In recent years, U.S. leaders across administrations have debated burden-sharing, defense spending, and strategic priorities. Under gonzo governance, however, alliance management can be reframed as high-stakes theater. During the presidency of Donald Trump, for instance, public statements frequently oscillated between affirming commitment to NATO and suggesting that the United States might not defend allies who failed to meet defense spending targets. The unpredictability was itself a feature, often justified as a negotiating tactic. Traditional diplomatic ambiguity gave way to performative brinkmanship, delivered through rallies and social media in language that blurred policy analysis with personal grievance.

Gaslighting can arise when long-established treaty obligations are alternately described as ironclad and optional, depending on the audience. If critics point out that Article 5 commits members to collective defense, they may be accused of misrepresenting what was “really” said, even when transcripts are clear. When reassurance is later offered to allies, previous threats may be reframed as jokes, leverage, or media distortions. The effect is to destabilize shared understandings of what U.S. commitments mean.  Allies, adversaries, and domestic audiences are left parsing tone as much as text.

Under Joe Biden, the rhetorical style shifted toward reaffirmation of alliances, yet gonzo elements can persist in the broader ecosystem—through partisan media, viral clips, and rapid-response messaging that casts routine diplomatic negotiations as existential tests of loyalty. In such an environment, contradictory claims about NATO’s purpose or costs can circulate widely, with each side accusing the other of deceit. Gaslighting becomes decentralized, embedded in a fragmented information landscape.

The connective tissue between gonzo governance and gaslighting lies in their shared emphasis on destabilizing perception. Gonzo governance accelerates events, dramatizes policy, and centers personality over process, precedent and tradition. Gaslighting then exploits the resulting noise, insisting that visible contradictions are illusions or that critics’ concerns are fantasies. Together, they erode the idea that political disagreements can be adjudicated through shared facts.

This erosion has institutional consequences. When citizens cannot confidently distinguish between verified information and strategic narrative, accountability weakens. Agencies like ICE may face polarized interpretations of the same operation; alliances like NATO may oscillate between being described as indispensable and obsolete within the same news cycle. In both cases, governance becomes less about steady administration and more about narrative dominance.

Ultimately, the connection between gonzo governance and gaslighting is not about ideology alone but about epistemology—how political actors shape what counts as reality. By turning policy into spectacle and contradiction into strategy, leaders can mobilize supporters and disorient critics. The cost, however, is a public sphere in which trust, once fractured, becomes exceedingly difficult to restore.

The post Gonzo Gaslighting appeared first on CounterPunch.org.