The controversy over Trump administration influencers is therefore only the latest chapter in a much older fight over who controls the information surrounding American national security.

Carpenter’s conclusion is blunt: the government’s use of paid influencers should not be examined in isolation.

There is a long record of the Pentagon, CIA and other national-security institutions cultivating relationships with journalists, commentators and retired officials who could present government-friendly positions to the public.

Sometimes those relationships were disclosed.

Sometimes they were not.

Sometimes the individuals involved were formally government employees.

In other cases, they were presented as independent experts while maintaining financial, professional or institutional connections to the very agencies and industries they were discussing.

The result is a recurring problem: propaganda becomes more effective when it does not look like propaganda.

A government press release is obviously government messaging.

A retired general appearing on television as an “independent military analyst” feels different.

A social-media influencer speaking directly to millions of followers feels different again.

But the underlying question is the same:

Who is paying the person?

Who are they connected to?

Who benefits from the message?

And does the audience know the answers?

Carpenter’s argument is that Americans should ask those questions regardless of which party occupies the White House.

The technology changes.

The influencers change.

The administration changes.

The national-security information machine keeps rolling.

@americanmajority