WHEN a retired US Air Force colonel, Ray Powell, once again used my name in his testimony before the United States Senate foreign relations committee, it was not merely predictable. It was revealing. His 13-page submission to the US Senate, delivered under the banner of the self-styled Sea Light Foundation, is a textbook example of how some Central Intelligence Agency operatives manufacture fear, exaggerate threats and weaponize distortion to justify their own relevance and funding. And yes, he mentioned me again, page 9 of his so-called testimony to the US Senate, as if I were some central character in his self-spun geopolitical thriller.
But I must confess: being singled out by Powell is a badge of honor. When someone whose livelihood depends on stoking geopolitical fires sees you as a threat, then you are clearly saying something he does not want the world to hear — the truth.
To be blunt, Powell’s narrative is a simple, tired and worn-out storyline. He paints China as “this century’s most sophisticated and successful expansionist power,” a sweeping generalization he supports with cartoonish imagery, cherry-picked timelines and half-truths wrapped in pseudo-academic language. That, insofar as the South China Sea (SCS) dispute is concerned, the Philippines is a helpless US pawn vis-à-vis China; that Asean states are meek victims; and only the US, via “assertive transparency,” ”counter-ICAD (illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive) strategy,” and media manipulation can save the region and the Philippines.
This melodramatic framework conveniently ignores facts, context and nuance. Academically speaking, while framed as a strategic assessment, Powell’s report exhibits significant analytical limitations, normative biases and methodological inconsistencies that call into question its empirical validity and policy relevance, particularly in light of the current trajectory of US foreign policy. In short, Powell’s latest “assessment” is glaringly out of touch with today’s actual geopolitical trajectory, particularly the shifting tone of US-China relations.
In a multipolar world where US President Donald Trump, the architect of US foreign policy, has openly sought warmer ties with Chinese President Xi Jinping, what Powell is selling is not merely outdated; it is strategically irrelevant and at odds with the current strategic direction of US foreign policy, and the US-China diplomatic climate, particularly under a Trump administration that has signaled openness to recalibrating relations with Beijing. Worse, it undermines Trump’s and the US’ own strategic recalibration toward China.
Moreover, it is farcical that anyone who advocates peace, diplomacy, multipolarity or common development insofar as the SCS dispute is concerned, including Filipino voices like mine, has allegedly been recruited, trained or influenced by Beijing, implying some shadowy network of pro-China “mouthpieces.” The irony of it all, Powell accuses people of being propaganda tools while simultaneously selling his own propaganda as “maritime transparency.” Indeed, the absurdity and dramatic irony are stunning.
The economics of manufactured threats
The American public and the Trump administration need to recognize that Powell’s work is not charity. It is a business model. Sea Light is funded by US-based political establishments that thrive on narratives such as so-called Chinese expansionism. Powell’s testimony serves one primary function: to justify continued funding for his foundation, his activities, especially in the Philippines, and his visibility in Washington and Manila security circles.
He is not defending Philippine sovereignty. He is defending his relevance. What Powell is selling is fear packaged as expertise. But fear is lucrative only if policymakers buy it. And in Powell’s world, China must always be a threat, diplomacy must always be naïve, and any Filipino who advocates peaceful resolution of the SCS dispute must always be “Beijing-aligned.” This is not an analysis. This is scamming in the guise of a geopolitical assessment, with US taxpayers footing the bill.
Why Powell’s report has zero strategic value
Let us now examine the bigger picture. Trump’s foreign policy worldview is transactional, pragmatic and centered on American economic interests, not ideological crusades. Trump has repeatedly emphasized that he likes Xi Jinping. He believes the US can work with China, and the two countries under his watch have excellent relations. He prioritizes trade deals over strategic confrontation. He opposes endless foreign entanglements that drain US resources.
Powell’s testimony, on the other hand, calls for: a whole-of-government anti-China strategy; a new Cold War-style information warfare agency; expanded military signaling in the SCS; increased US interventionism; inflated maritime oversight budgets; and constant political warfare against Beijing. It reads less like a security analysis report and more like a fundraising brochure for a new Cold War. And that is precisely what it is. Would Trump agree to this?
In short, Powell is advocating policies diametrically opposed to the direction Trump is pursuing. If Trump truly intends to repair and stabilize relations with China, as his recent statements and meetings strongly indicate, then Powell’s alarmist framework will only sabotage those efforts. Powell’s worldview is incompatible with Trump’s objectives.
It is outdated and counterproductive.
Why Powell’s funding should be cut
I think President Trump must understand that Powell’s recommendations will escalate tensions with China, not reduce them. His solutions invite confrontation; they do not prevent it. Most of all, it will ruin Trump’s good relations with China at the moment if he allows the likes of Powell’s narrative to dominate and influence his foreign policy, and recalibrated ties with China, which will not benefit the US and US-China relations.
If Trump intends to fortify his good relations with China for economic and diplomatic gains, then he must recognize who is undermining his strategy. The likes of Ray Powell are not helping. He is actively obstructing. His work sows distrust, destabilizes diplomatic progress and inflates threats that do not serve US interests under Trump’s foreign policy vision.
US taxpayers should ask: Why are we funding a man whose work contradicts the president’s diplomatic goals with China? Why are we paying someone to create conflict where cooperation is possible? Why are we supporting someone who profits from fear, not facts? Cutting Powell’s funding and telling him to shut up is not just financially wise; it is strategically necessary, given Trump’s recalibrated foreign policy toward China.
Moreover, Powell grooms himself as an advocate for the Philippines. Yet he has no legal standing, no mandate, no claim and no jurisdiction in the region. He is not a Filipino in the first place and has no business speaking on behalf of the Philippines.
Conclusion
The region needs stability, not Powell’s fantasy war. Southeast Asia is not a theater for military adventurism. It is home to real people, real economies and real futures. What Southeast Asians like myself need is: peace, diplomacy, dialogue, mutual respect, stability, economic development and progress, neutrality and strategic autonomy.
We do not need the likes of Powell, who manufactures threats, stirring tensions and ex-military propagandists selling fear. Because the future of the region cannot and must not be shaped by those who profit from selling fear and confrontation at the expense of regional peace and security.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/12/06/opinion/columns/a-us-operative-conjures-a-maritime-mirage-while-trump-builds-peace-with-china/2238000
