A piece by Lewis Goodall, published on 6 April, deserves much more attention than it is getting. In his account of his recent visit to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the USA, he suggests that the American right is no longer simply observing Britain. His suggestion is that it is reimagining it.

In that case, it is important to consider the CPAC. Run by the American Conservative Union, it can be described as a high-profile gathering of right-wing activists, politicians, and donors that promotes populism, nationalism, and increasingly authoritarian, anti-liberal democratic narratives.

Goodall reports that those attending the CPAC have created a narrative in which the UK is suggested to be “gone. Fallen. Lost” and as a country supposedly overrun, governed by Sharia law, and stripped of free speech. None of this, of course, is even remotely true, but truth is not an issue that worries those at the CPAC. Pathways to power are, and that matters because what Goodall is describing is not just myth-making. It is the early stage of something far more consequential, which is the deliberate construction of a political target.

If I read Lewis Goodall correctly, the consequences of this targeting of the UK by those at the CPAC are clear. US money will follow this false narrative that they are creating, and when it does, the consequences for the UK will be profound.

First, we need to understand the background to this suggestion. Most importantly, the American radical right, centred on figures like Donald Trump, does not operate purely as a political movement. It has been clear for some time, and especially since the Citizens United decision in 2010, that it is also a financial ecosystem. Media platforms, influencers, political action groups, think tanks, and donors are all intertwined. Narrative is monetised, and outrage is capitalised.

What that means is that once Britain is successfully defined within CPAC as the country that has “fallen”, it becomes an asset within the wider US geopolitical narrative. It can be used to generate attention, mobilise supporters, and, crucially, attract funding.

Second, that funding will not stay in the United States. It will flow across borders. As such, we should expect increased US-originated financial support for UK-based actors willing to promote this narrative. A new move by Keir Starmer might prevent that money from flowing to political parties, but that will not stop the funding of political commentators, media and social channels, media personalities, campaign groups, and so-called think tanks. The goal will be simple. It will be to replicate, within the UK, the same far-right politics that are, as Goodall would have it, fundamentally anti-Muslim in character.  These have taken hold in parts of the US. The aim will be to replicate that in the UK.

This is not speculation. It is how modern political movements operate, as the earlier Atlas Network demonstrated. They are transnational. They share strategies, messaging, and increasingly, resources.

Third, as Lewis Goodall notes, there are already willing participants in this process. Former Tory Prime Minister Liz Truss is an early adopter of the CPAC message and was present at CPAC for the third year running. As Goodall notes, she was there to promote claims about “creeping Islamism” whilst calling for a “Trump-style revolution” in Britain. That positions her, and others like her, as the natural conduits for this incoming financial support.

And we should not ignore the ideology to be found at CPAC. When Goodall writes:

“replace ‘Muslim' with ‘Jew' and the sort of language I heard at CPAC about Muslims and Islam would have felt entirely at home spewing from the mouth of a Nazi.”

he is not engaging in hyperbole. He is identifying the nature of the politics being exported. This is not conventional conservatism. It is something much darker.

Fourth, this has to be understood in strategic terms. Britain is not just another country in this story. It is, in many ways, the ideal battleground. That is because the false narrative about Britain has already been established with the CPAC audience. Britain has been cast as the failed state, and the warning to America. That, then, creates a powerful incentive for us funders to intervene, to supposedly “save” the country from the fate that American conservatives fear in the USA, but of which fate there is no more evidence than in the UK.

Supporting this claim is the fact that the UK undoubtedly has vulnerabilities. It does have a fragmented media landscape, weak political leadership, a history of under-regulated political funding, and a political class that has, too often, been willing to import ideas without scrutiny. All of this makes the UK an attractive target.

Fifth, the consequences of this will not be abstract. They will be immediate and tangible. We should expect:

• Increased funding for campaigns built on division, particularly around race, religion, and migration

• Greater amplification of disinformation about the state of the UK, which Donald Trump is now leading with his attacks on Keir Starmer and the Royal Navy

• Attempts to delegitimise democratic institutions, including the courts and the civil service, as is happening with the attack by Trump on the BBC

• Pressure to reshape UK politics along more authoritarian lines, as is being demanded by the likes of Vice President Vance

In other words, we should expect an onslaught, and we need to be clear about what is at stake. This is not just another phase in the culture wars. It is part of a broader struggle over the nature of democracy itself. The language that Goodall reports, of an “enemy within”, of “replacement”, and of a civilisation under threat, is not new. It has been used before, with devastating consequences.

That is why the UK matters, and why this matters to us. We are not just being talked about. We are being targeted and positioned as the political battleground on which this war might be fought. The fight will be over what kind of politics will define the coming decades. The question will be whether it will be pluralist, democratic, and grounded in social justice, or authoritarian, exclusionary, and driven by fear.

So what is to be done? First, we have to recognise the scale of the challenge. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is something that will be backed by substantial financial resources and sophisticated communication networks.

Second, transparency in broader political funding will become critical. If money is flowing into the UK to support these narratives, it must be identified, disclosed, and, where necessary, restricted. Disclosure by political parties will not be enough. Think tanks, social media and more will need to be registered and disclose their funding, as I already do.

Third, the media has to take responsibility. Repeating or platforming claims supporting the CPAC agenda without challenge is not neutrality; it is complicity, and plenty of that is to be expected.

Fourth, political leadership is required to challenge this narrative. This must not be the equivocation we have become used to from the likes of the Labour Party, but a clear defence of democratic values and an equally clear rejection of the narratives being imported.

And finally, there is a need for public engagement. These ideas gain traction when they go unchallenged. They lose power when they are exposed.

Lewis Goodall ends by reflecting on the danger of what is happening, saying:

I've been thinking, since I got home, about what it means to be on the receiving end of someone else's mythology. To be the villain in a story you didn't write and wouldn't recognise.

The Britain of MAGA's imagination is not my Britain- not the one I live in and report on and walk through every day. But myths have consequences. The stories powerful movements tell about other countries shape how those countries are treated- diplomatically, commercially, culturally. And a Britain that exists, in the American right's imagination, as a fallen civilisation is a Britain that cannot be a partner, an equal, a friend in any meaningful sense.

That is what is developing, before us, now, in plain sight if we are willing to see it.

There is, however, another way to frame this. We are not just the subject of someone else's story. We are the place where that story is about to be contested. Money will come; I suspect that is unavoidable. As a result, narratives will be pushed, and pressure will be applied. The question, then, is whether we are ready because, like it or not, Britain is becoming one of the key arenas in the emerging struggle against a new form of fascism.

And that is not a fight we can afford to ignore.

PDF of article