Amgad Bin Shahbain
PHIL 355E – Summer 2025
Matthew Montoya
Ethical Reflections on Foreign Election Interference and U.S. Response Strategies
In “The Covert War for American Minds,” David Shedd and Ivana Stradner examine how Russia, China, and Iran have executed coordinated information operations aimed at influencing U.S. presidential elections and undermining democratic institutions. The authors emphasize events such as the 2024 indictment by the Justice Department of RT employees for secretly funding a media startup that spread divisive narratives. They illustrate Russia’s use of AI-generated disinformation, fake profiles, and targeted smear campaigns against Vice President Kamala Harris. Similarly, China has leveraged social media to malign candidates who are critical of Beijing, while Iran has hacked U.S. political campaigns and promoted boycott narratives that align with their geopolitical objectives.
Shedd and Stradner characterize these influence operations as acts of information warfare, designed to manipulate public opinion, weaken trust in electoral processes, and exacerbate political division. These nations take advantage of the openness of U.S. information systems—especially social media platforms protected by First Amendment rights—to achieve strategic advantages with minimal overt hostility. The authors advocate for a more unified response from the U.S., which should include a whole-of-government strategy, partnerships with social media companies, and potentially offensive countermeasures reminiscent of Cold War-era influence operations.In this Case Analysis, I will argue that by applying Prier’s framework of information warfare and Morkevičius’ perspective on ethical restraint in warfare, the election interference efforts from Russia, China, and Iran represent information warfare and are ethically indefensible. Conversely, if the United States were to employ similar tactics abroad, it would also be considered information warfare and morally questionable under most ethical standards, even if rationalized as retaliation or deterrence. Ultimately, democratic nations must maintain a higher ethical standard in the information realm, even when confronted with malicious autocratic influences.
Applying Prier’s Framework and Ethical Analysis
Brandon Prier’s notion of “political warfare” and the “manipulative information state” offers a valuable perspective for analyzing foreign interference in elections. His examination highlights that contemporary information warfare consists of two primary elements: the distortion of truth (disinformation) and the manipulation of open media systems. Prier points out that adversary nations frequently take advantage of democratic transparency to influence public discourse and accomplish strategic objectives without resorting to conventional military conflict. He characterizes this as “non-kinetic war,” where actors intentionally focus on cognitive mechanisms through customized, persuasive, and often misleading narratives.
This is directly relevant to the strategies discussed by Shedd and Stradner. For instance, Russia employed deepfakes, modified video content, and AI-driven identities to engage American voters on contentious issues such as abortion and gun control. These actions went beyond mere propaganda; they aimed to disrupt consensus-building and undermine the legitimacy of democracy. Prier’s framework clarifies that such actions represent information warfare, as they seek to weaken democratic governance through psychological manipulation.
Iran’s campaign to hack and leak documents from Trump’s campaign, along with China’s use of fabricated American profiles to target down-ballot Republicans, similarly aligns with Prier’s pattern: they navigate around censorship in liberal democracies and foster public skepticism, all while maintaining plausible deniability. These operations do not necessarily intend to propel a specific candidate but aim to destabilize the electoral framework as a whole—a defining trait of cognitive conflict and political warfare.
From an ethical perspective rooted in contractarian moral reasoning, these actions are indefensible. Contractarianism suggests that ethical principles emerge from the agreements rational individuals would establish under equitable circumstances. An unspoken social contract among sovereign nations entails honoring the political independence of others, particularly during their electoral processes. Foreign information initiatives that distort voter perceptions and delegitimize elections breach this contract, contravening the principle of mutual respect and non-interference.
Even when Russia, China, and Iran attempt to justify their actions as retaliation for U.S. activities abroad (such as Voice of America broadcasts in authoritarian regimes), the ethical comparison is flawed. U.S. information dissemination internationally has historically emphasized truthfulness and non-deceptive communication (albeit not without exceptions). The deceptive intent and nature of authoritarian disinformation—crafted to destabilize democratic institutions—differ qualitatively. Therefore, under reciprocal reasoning, their operations lack moral equivalence.
Would it be justifiable for the United States to engage in similar actions in Russia, China, or Iran? Prier’s framework would categorize such undertakings—deepfake campaigns, AI-generated identities, and narratives promoting election boycotts—as information warfare. While some might argue this could function as a deterrent or a “tit-for-tat” approach, ethical dilemmas persist. Contractarianism would advise against utilizing the same manipulative tools, as it would undermine the very democratic principles the U.S. aims to uphold.
A more ethical and effective approach would involve enhancing defensive resilience: fostering media literacy, safeguarding platforms, and transparently exposing foreign manipulation. This strategy aligns with both Prier’s suggestion of counter-narratives and the ethical principle of contractarianism, which emphasizes establishing norms that all rational actors would support for a stable international environment.
Shedd and Stradner propose a more assertive response, including the revival of psychological operations reminiscent of the Cold War. However, even these historical examples—such as Radio Free Europe—generally adhered to a commitment to truth and transparency. Any U.S. strategy that emulates deceitful methods risks moral degradation and a cycle of informational escalation. As Prier states, the distortion of truth erodes both foreign targets and domestic institutions. Overall, based on Prier’s notion of information warfare and contractarian ethics, the foreign influence operations by Russia, China, and Iran represent unjustifiable information warfare. Even retaliatory interference by the U.S. would pose ethical concerns and strategic dangers. The appropriate direction is to enhance democratic resilience rather than replicate authoritarian strategies.
Applying Morkevičius’ Concepts and Ethical Analysis
In her examination of the ethics of warfare and the responsibilities of democracies, Valerie Morkevičius highlights that liberal democracies must follow principles such as just cause, right intention, and proportionality—even in asymmetric or unconventional conflicts like cyber and information warfare. She dismisses the notion that democracies can forsake moral principles solely because they are contending with authoritarian opponents. Instead, she posits that ethical limitations are crucial for preserving both moral integrity and institutional stability.
Morkevičius’ framework is particularly relevant to the disinformation strategies described by Shedd and Stradner. The actions of Russia, China, and Iran do not fulfill the just cause requirement; they are not protecting their sovereignty but are instead aiming to destabilize a geopolitical rival. For example, Russia’s deployment of deepfakes to undermine Kamala Harris and China’s extensive use of spam campaigns to create distrust in both major U.S. political parties are not justifiable responses to any real threat. Rather, they are intentional efforts to diminish public trust in democratic systems.
These strategies also violate the discrimination principle from the just war theory, which Morkevičius applies to the field of information warfare. In conventional warfare, discrimination mandates a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants. In the digital sphere, this implies steering clear of civilian political discourse and focusing on state actors directly engaged in policy or conflict. However, the foreign operations outlined in the case directly target the U.S. electorate—average voters—making them ethically unacceptable under this principle.
According to Morkevičius, democracies must exercise extreme caution when contemplating retaliation. Even if the United States possesses the technical capability to launch similar operations against countries like Russia or Iran, it risks undermining its own ethical principles by doing so. She contends that democracies should serve as moral examples not just for idealistic reasons, but also because this consistency enhances both domestic trust and international standing.
If the United States were to engage in comparable tactics—utilizing deepfakes, impersonating foreign voters, or disseminating false narratives in adversarial media environments—it would not meet the criteria for right intention or proportionality. Even if framed as deterrent measures, such tactics could escalate conflict and blur the ethical divide between democracies and autocracies.
A more suitable course of action—aligned with Morkevičius’ perspective—would involve bolstering defensive measures. This would encompass enhancing transparency regarding foreign threats, boosting public digital literacy, and establishing international norms against information manipulation. These approaches resonate with Shedd and Stradner’s call for coordinated governmental action, although they diverge from the authors’ more aggressive, offensive viewpoint. Morkevičius would caution that adopting authoritarian tactics would normalize unethical conduct, weakening the distinct moral authority that liberal democracies hold.
Moreover, Morkevičius critiques the notion that retaliating against disinformation is a necessary measure. Democracies might be inclined to loosen standards in response to unconventional threats, but such actions can lead to a long-term decline in democratic values. If the U.S. were to manipulate political narratives in other countries, it could create perilous precedents that ultimately jeopardize its own political culture.
In conclusion, both the foreign influence operations aimed at the U.S. and any corresponding American disinformation efforts would be indefensible under Morkevičius’ ethical guidelines. The democratic response must be founded on restraint, transparency, and a principled opposition to psychological manipulation.
Conclusion
Foreign meddling by Russia, China, and Iran represents unacceptable information warfare aimed at undermining trust in democracy. According to Brandon Prier’s framework and Valerie Morkevičius’ ethical analysis, these actions breach the norms of restraint, intent, and proportionality. A U.S. response utilizing similar disinformation strategies would also be unethical, potentially leading to escalation and compromising democratic values. Instead, defensive approaches—such as improving transparency and fostering public resilience—better align with democratic principles. Historical examples show that honest, principled communication, like that of Radio Free Europe, can prove more effective than manipulation. The U.S. should lead by example, establishing ethical standards in the information domain to maintain both domestic and international democratic legitimacy.