Why Leaders Lie

1. Lying in international politics is distinct from other forms of deception and often deemed strategically necessary.

Although lying is widely viewed as reprehensible behavior in ordinary life, it is acceptable conduct in international politics because there are sometimes good strategic reasons for leaders to lie to other countries and even to their own people.

Defining deception. Deception is a deliberate act to prevent others from knowing the full truth, encompassing lying, spinning, and concealment. Lying specifically involves making a statement known or suspected to be false, hoping others believe it. Spinning emphasizes favorable facts while downplaying inconvenient ones, distorting the story without outright falsehoods. Concealment, on the other hand, is simply withholding information that might weaken one's position.

Utilitarian perspective. Unlike the absolutist view that lying is always wrong, international politics often adopts a utilitarian perspective. Leaders may lie not for personal gain, but for what they perceive as the national interest, especially in an anarchic international system where states must ensure their own survival. This practical logic often overrides moral strictures against lying, with leaders sometimes believing they have a moral duty to lie to protect their country.

Domestic vs. international norms. In domestic politics, lying is generally condemned due to its corrupting effect on society and the existence of a higher authority (the state) to enforce rules. However, in the international realm, the absence of a common sovereign means states operate in a self-help world. This fundamental difference leads to a perception that "international politics, in other words, tends to be a realm where rules are often broken with little consequence."

2. Leaders lie less frequently to other states than commonly believed, but more often to their own citizens.

I find that leaders do not lie very often to other countries, but instead seem more inclined to lie to their own people.

Surprising infrequency. Despite the cynical view that inter-state lying is business as usual, evidence suggests it is not commonplace. The author initially expected to find abundant examples but struggled to identify clear-cut cases, even after consulting other scholars. This scarcity is partly due to the difficulty of verifying historical records, but also because states are inherently suspicious of each other, making successful deception challenging.

Difficulty of inter-state deception. Realist logic dictates that states in an anarchic system have strong incentives to be vigilant and distrustful, especially on critical strategic issues. It is hard to "bamboozle another country's leaders" when national survival is at stake, as pronouncements are rarely accepted without independent verification. This inherent distrust limits the effectiveness and frequency of inter-state lying.

Propensity to lie to publics. Conversely, leaders appear more likely to lie to their own people about foreign policy. This is particularly true for democracies pursuing ambitious foreign policies or initiating "wars of choice." American presidents, for instance, have a history of misleading their citizens on foreign policy matters, often believing they are acting in the national interest, even if it means deceiving the public.

3. Inter-state lies are employed to gain strategic advantage or avoid provocation, but are difficult to execute effectively.

The main reason that leaders lie to foreign audiences is to gain a strategic advantage for their country.

Strategic objectives. Inter-state lies serve various strategic purposes, primarily to gain an advantage over rivals or prevent them from gaining one. These lies can involve:

• Exaggerating capabilities to deter or coerce (e.g., Hitler's claims about the Wehrmacht, Khrushchev's "missile gap").
• Minimizing or hiding capabilities to avoid provocation or destruction (e.g., Germany's naval buildup, Israel's nuclear program, Soviet biological weapons).
• Downplaying hostile intentions to disguise an attack (e.g., Hitler's peace rhetoric before WWII, Soviet assurances to Japan).
• Making empty threats to coerce or deter (e.g., Germany in the Moroccan Crisis, NATO's nuclear policy).
• Provoking an attack by another state (e.g., Bismarck's Ems Dispatch).
• Inflating an adversary's threat to allies (e.g., Bush administration on North Korea's WMD sales).
• Facilitating spying or sabotage (e.g., U-2 incident, Lavon affair).
• Gaining advantage in negotiations (e.g., Greece's budget deficits for eurozone entry, US on EDC treaty).

Challenges of inter-state lying. Despite the potential benefits, inter-state lying is not commonplace because it is difficult to succeed. States are inherently distrustful, especially on high-stakes security issues, and will seek to verify claims. A reputation for dishonesty can also hinder future cooperation, particularly in "low politics" (economic/environmental issues).

Contextual factors. Inter-state lying is more likely in specific contexts:

• Dangerous regions: States in high-threat environments are more inclined to use any tactic for survival.
• Crises: Leaders may lie to avoid war or create conditions for winning one.
• Wartime: Deception is considered an integral part of war, with high stakes justifying falsehoods.
• Rival states: Lying to rivals is more common than to allies, as the latter are crucial for cooperation.

4. Fearmongering involves leaders lying to their publics to inflate threats and mobilize support for foreign policy.

Fearmongering occurs when a state’s leaders see a threat emerging but think that they cannot make the public see the wolf at the door without resorting to a deception campaign.

"Clearer than truth." Leaders engage in fearmongering when they believe the public does not fully grasp a serious national security threat, and straightforward communication won't suffice. The goal is to "make their arguments 'clearer than truth'" to motivate citizens to support necessary measures, such as increased defense spending or war. This strategy targets not only the general public but also educated elites and bureaucrats who might otherwise downplay the threat.

Historical precedents. American history offers several examples of fearmongering:

• FDR and the USS Greer (1941): Roosevelt lied about an unprovoked German attack to rally public opinion for WWII, despite knowing the US destroyer had pursued the submarine.
• LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin (1964): Johnson's administration falsely claimed an unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox to secure congressional support for escalating the Vietnam War, despite doubts about the incident.
• Bush administration and Iraq (2003): Key figures lied about Iraq's WMD, Saddam's links to Al Qaeda, and the imminence of war to build public support for the invasion.

Underlying rationale. Leaders resort to fearmongering due to a perceived deficit in public understanding or resolve. They may believe citizens are too ignorant, stupid, or cowardly to appreciate the danger, or that the political system is too paralyzed to act without public arousal. This top-down, anti-democratic behavior is justified by leaders as serving the national interest, believing the "end result... will justify the means."

5. Strategic cover-ups hide policy failures or controversial strategies from the public, often for national interest.

Leaders can also lie to hide a controversial but smart strategy, because they fear that it will meet serious public resistance and not be adopted.

Two forms of cover-ups. Strategic cover-ups manifest in two ways:

• Hiding failures: Leaders lie about botched policies or incompetence to prevent conveying weakness to adversaries, damaging international relations, or undermining national unity, especially during wartime. For example, French leaders concealed Marshal Joffre's incompetence during the Battle of Verdun to maintain morale.
• Masking controversial policies: Leaders implement policies they deem strategically sound but unpopular, fearing public resistance. They then lie to conceal these actions from their own citizens and potentially other states.

Historical examples.

• Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): President Kennedy lied about the secret deal to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for Soviet withdrawal from Cuba, fearing public and allied backlash.
• German military training (1922-1933): Germany secretly trained in the Soviet Union, violating the Versailles Treaty, and lied to conceal it from domestic critics and Allied powers.
• British Kenyan gulag (mid-1950s): The British government lied about atrocities in Kenya to prevent public outcry from ending violent colonial policies.
• Japan-US secret agreements (Cold War): Japan secretly allowed nuclear-armed US ships and contributed to troop costs, lying to its public to avoid controversy over these unpopular but strategically beneficial accords.

Dual audience. Unlike inter-state lies (foreign audience) or fearmongering (home front), strategic cover-ups are typically aimed at both domestic and foreign audiences. The primary goal is to deceive the public, but often involves misleading other countries simultaneously. This type of deception is not mere concealment, as it involves active falsehoods in response to public scrutiny.

6. Nationalist myths are fabricated historical narratives that foster national unity and external legitimacy.

"Historical error," as the French political theorist Ernest Renan succinctly put it, "is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation."

Purpose of mythmaking. Nationalist myths are sacred stories about a nation's past, crafted by elites to portray their group favorably and rivals negatively. These myths come in varieties:

• Self-glorifying: Emphasizing heroic deeds and noble origins.
• Self-whitewashing: Denying or downplaying national wrongdoings.
• Other-maligning: Portraying rival groups in a harsh light.
  The primary goal is to fuel group solidarity, create a powerful sense of nationhood, and motivate citizens to endure hardships or fight for their homeland.

Public demand and elite creation. Nationalist mythmaking is a two-way street: elites invent these stories, but the common people often "hunger for these myths," wanting to see their nation as righteous. This collective desire reinforces the creation and perpetuation of narratives that accentuate the positive aspects of a nation's history.

International legitimacy. While less effective, nationalist myths can also aim to gain international legitimacy. For instance, the post-WWII myth of the "clean Wehrmacht" in Germany was partly accepted by the US to facilitate German rearmament and integration into NATO. Similarly, Israeli myths about the Palestinian exodus helped garner American sympathy. However, outsiders are generally harder to fool, especially with recent events, and scholars can eventually unravel these fictions.

7. Liberal lies disguise illiberal state actions with idealistic rhetoric to maintain moral standing.

When states act in ways that run counter to liberal norms or international law, their leaders often invent false stories that are designed to mask what they are doing.

Contradiction of norms. A well-developed body of liberal norms and international law dictates acceptable state behavior. However, leaders sometimes act contrary to these rules for strategic gain, such as invading countries, launching preventive wars, or targeting civilians in wartime. When such illiberal actions occur, leaders often create false narratives to mask their behavior and present their country as adhering to moral principles.

Historical examples.

• WWII Allied portrayal of Stalin: Despite Stalin's tyrannical nature and mass murders, Churchill and Roosevelt portrayed him as "Uncle Joe" and downplayed Soviet-American differences to justify their alliance against Nazi Germany.
• Katyn Forest Massacre (1943): When evidence emerged that the Soviets murdered thousands of Poles, the British government lied, blaming Nazi Germany to maintain Allied solidarity.
• Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland (1939): Hitler falsely claimed Poland initiated hostilities and that Germany was acting in self-defense, staging border incidents to justify the invasion.
• British area-bombing in WWII: The British government lied to its public, claiming attacks on Germany were confined to military targets, while purposely engaging in area-bombing that killed many civilians.

Justifying the unjustifiable. Leaders tell liberal lies because publics prefer to believe their country acts justly, even when evidence suggests otherwise. This is similar to nationalist mythmaking, where people want to identify with a noble cause. Leaders also seek to portray themselves as responsible members of the international community and avoid future accountability for war crimes.

8. Fearmongering and strategic cover-ups pose the greatest risks of domestic blowback and foreign policy failure.

This is why fearmongering and strategic cover-ups are the most dangerous kinds of lies that leaders can tell.

Blowback on the home front. Pervasive lying, especially through fearmongering and strategic cover-ups, can severely damage a country's domestic politics. When leaders manipulate their citizens, it fosters a culture of dishonesty that can:

• Undermine informed choices: Citizens cannot make sound decisions if they are fed false information.
• Cripple policymaking: Distrust among officials increases transaction costs and leads to flawed decisions.
• Erode the rule of law: Widespread dishonesty undermines the legal system's effectiveness.
• Alienate the public: Loss of faith in leaders and institutions can lead to authoritarian tendencies.

Risk of backfiring. These types of lies are also prone to backfiring, leading to foreign policy fiascos.

• Fearmongering: If leaders misread the threat and push a misguided policy based on inflated dangers, it can lead to strategic disasters (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq). When the public discovers it was misled, it can compound the country's troubles and erode trust.
• Strategic cover-ups: Hiding controversial policies prevents robust public debate, increasing the chance of adopting flawed strategies. Concealing failed policies allows incompetence to persist, hindering accountability and preventing necessary course corrections.

Lower risks for other lies. Inter-state lies, nationalist myths, and liberal lies generally carry lower risks of blowback or backfiring. Inter-state lies are often compartmentalized and accepted as part of international relations, with limited domestic spillover. Nationalist myths and liberal lies often succeed due to collective self-delusion, where publics believe their country acts nobly, thus minimizing domestic backlash.

9. The United States' ambitious foreign policy makes it particularly prone to fearmongering, with dangerous consequences.

Given America’s global ambitions, therefore, we should expect fearmongering to be a constant feature of its national security discourse in the years ahead.

Global ambitions and security paradox. The United States, as the world's most powerful state with a robust nuclear deterrent and geographic insulation, is inherently secure. However, a significant portion of its foreign-policy establishment believes in a moral and strategic responsibility to police and shape global politics, often through military force. This ambitious foreign policy creates a paradox: to justify "global crusades" despite its security, leaders must convince the public that minor problems are "dire and growing dangers."

Democracy and wars of choice. The US fits the profile of a democracy prone to fearmongering: a powerful nation inclined to initiate "wars of choice" in distant places. Such wars, where there's no clear and imminent threat, require significant public mobilization. This necessitates inflating threats and deploying deception to garner support, as seen in the Bush administration's lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War.

Corrosive effects. The constant feature of fearmongering in US national security discourse is problematic. It not only has a "corrosive effect on democratic institutions" by undermining informed public debate and trust, but it also increases the likelihood of strategic disasters. The experiences of Vietnam and Iraq serve as stark reminders of the potential costs when leaders resort to deception to justify military interventions.

Last updated: March 11, 2026