Peter Schweizer’s new book, "The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon," published by HarperCollins, makes a striking claim about the 2008 presidential election.
It alleges that groups like the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), a Salvadoran political party with roots as a Marxist guerrilla movement, contributed to Barack Obama’s campaign success. The book further asserts that these networks persisted in influencing U.S. politics through unions and nonprofits long after the election.
Critics of progressive policies are raising alarms over Schweizer’s findings, arguing they reveal a troubling overlap between foreign agendas and domestic politics. This issue has sparked debate over the boundaries of political organizing and the potential impact on national sovereignty. How much influence should foreign-linked activists wield in American elections?
As reported by Breitbart News, Schweizer’s research points to early 2000s activism, where thousands of immigrants tied to groups like the FMLN reportedly joined U.S. labor unions and political efforts. His evidence includes a 2013 PhD dissertation by Dr. Arpi Misha Miller from the University of California, detailing FMLN activists working with groups such as AFSCME and SEIU. These individuals, per the dissertation, played roles in Obama’s 2008 campaign, some as paid organizers.
Miller wrote that these activists aided the campaign “as individuals and through their work in unions.” That line suggests a coordinated effort, one that conservatives might see as blurring the lines between grassroots support and foreign interference. It’s hard to ignore the implications of such organizing in a pivotal election.
During a 2008 rally in Los Angeles, an activist told Miller that the city was a key hub for Salvadoran political strategy, with efforts starting years prior. Schweizer interprets this as evidence of long-term planning, not spontaneous support. The question remains: was this merely community engagement or something more orchestrated?
Schweizer also highlights connections between FMLN-linked groups like CASA and the Obama administration. Two CASA board members, Thomas Perez and Cecilia Muñoz, later held high-ranking roles under Obama, with Perez also leading the Democratic National Committee and Muñoz joining Biden’s transition team after 2020. These ties fuel concerns about ideological alignment influencing policy.
In 2013, shortly after Obama’s second term began, his administration waived many terrorism-related immigration restrictions that had previously barred FMLN members from citizenship or residency. Schweizer notes the FMLN’s historical label as a Tier III terrorist group, once backed by Cuba, making this waiver a point of contention. Critics question whether such decisions prioritized political alliances over security.
Beyond individual roles, Schweizer argues these activists pushed broader agendas within the U.S. system. He describes their work as “immigrant political transnationalism,” where foreign nationals engage directly in host country politics. This concept, backed by UN migration officials’ observations, raises flags for those wary of external influence on American democracy.
Schweizer claims the FMLN’s efforts didn’t stop with Obama’s election. By 2016, a meeting in San Salvador during a São Paulo Forum event allegedly included U.S.-based FMLN members and embassy staff discussing strategies to sway American elections. Topics reportedly ranged from migration to opposing Donald Trump’s rising political presence.
The forum itself celebrated figures like Fidel Castro, which Schweizer sees as a signal of persistent ideological goals. For many on the right, this paints a picture of foreign actors meddling in U.S. affairs under the guise of community organizing. It’s a narrative that demands scrutiny, even if motives remain debated.
Schweizer wrote that these activists “staked out important positions in American labor unions and became involved in American political campaigns.” That observation cuts to the heart of conservative unease—why are foreign-linked groups so embedded in domestic power structures? It’s a fair question with no easy answer.
The broader implications of Schweizer’s claims touch on immigration and political organizing, topics requiring careful context.
While the book ties specific Salvadoran activists to U.S. campaigns, it’s critical to note that no evidence suggests all immigrants from the region share these affiliations. The focus here is on targeted political action, not broad generalizations.
Still, for those skeptical of progressive border policies, this story underscores the need for tighter oversight of who participates in electoral processes. Schweizer’s book, available now, offers a detailed case that foreign influence might be closer to home than many realize. It’s a call to action for vigilance without casting blame on entire communities.
