Book Review: Attack from Within

Photo by Ed Ortiz

“Disinformation is the deliberate use of lies to manipulate people, whether to extract profit or to advance a political agenda. Its unwitting accomplice, misinformation, is spread by unknowing dupes who repeat lies they believe to be true.” — Barbara McQuade

Disinformation and misinformation are major problems not only in the United States but around the world. In the U.S., disinformation is ongoing and is likely to intensify as the midterm elections approach. During the last election cycle, we heard countless false stories—from claims about people eating dogs and cats in Ohio to the JD Vance ‘couch’ joke that was hinted at by Senator Elizabeth Warren during the Democratic Convention.

Why do some people resort to these tactics? I’m not completely sure. Perhaps their political platforms are so weak that they feel compelled to use disinformation and misinformation to manipulate people into voting for them.

According to Merriam-Webster, disinformation is “false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.”1 Misinformation is defined as “incorrect or misleading information.”2

Last year, I attended the Printers Row Lit Fest, a book festival in the city of Chicago. There, I heard a panel discussion on disinformation and misinformation that included the author of the book I am reviewing today. Based on my experience and her contributions to the discussion, I found her arguments persuasive and accurate, which led me to purchase her book.

Attack from Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America, by Barbara McQuade, and my edition was published in 2025. In it, she does an excellent job describing the problem and presenting evidence to support her case. The book is divided into ten chapters, with chapter nine proposing recommendations on how to address the issue.

Right from the start, McQuade goes straight to the heart of the matter, describing how a Russian state-sponsored group called Doppelgänger operated. In 2024, the Department of Justice seized internet domains used by Doppelgänger to spread disinformation aided by artificial intelligence, including replicated pages from The Washington Post and Fox News. The group posed as Americans and posted links on social media that redirected users to cloned pages containing disinformation (pp. xi–xii). U.S. Cyber Command published a news bulletin describing their activities and delivery methods:

“This cross-platform campaign amplifies the deceptive content distributed through its cloned web pages across various social media networks, including Facebook and Twitter. Videos, articles, and polls designed to manipulate public opinion are disseminated seamlessly, blurring the lines between fact and fiction.”3

In the following quote, Barbara McQuade effectively highlights the root cause of what is happening in this country:

“In addition to technology, an important factor in information warfare is our nation’s deep polarization. If technology is the ‘how’ of disinformation, then tribalism is the ‘why.’ Both political parties have campaigned in recent years by portraying their opponents not as fellow Americans with different ideas about the best ways to govern, but as existential threats to our way of life… And while some people are genuinely fooled by disinformation, others simply don’t care about truth, only whether a narrative advances their own political viewpoint.” (p. xv)

Below are some highlights from the book:

“If we want to overcome the dangers of disinformation, we must choose truth over tribe.” (p. xix)

“Federalist Paper No. 63 warned of the risk of being ‘misled by the artful misrepresentation of interested men.’” (p. 14)

“In fascist politics, language is not used simply, or even chiefly, to convey information but to elicit emotion.” — Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy (p. 21)

When I read this part, all the news articles I have read over the past year highlighting the chaos in this country came to mind—troubling, to say the least. “Tactics in the authoritarian playbook include appealing to emotion over reason, exploiting division, undermining critics, dismantling public institutions, stoking violence, and creating an image of the Great Leader as both an everyman and a superman.” (p. 25)

“In 2016, Russia sought to exploit divisions in American society through a covert disinformation campaign… The Russia-based Internet Research Agency ‘created accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protesters…’ The names of their fake online groups ranged from ‘Stop All Immigrants’ and ‘Tea Party News’ to ‘LGBT United’ and ‘Muslims of America’… The Russian plan was ‘designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States.’” (p. 30)

On pages 69 and 70, the author describes the episode in 1971 when The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, revealing how the American public had been misled about the Vietnam War by four presidential administrations. The Justice Department threatened action against The New York Times, but the Supreme Court sided with the newspaper. In its written opinion, the Court stated:

“The only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry—in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government.”4

“Political scientist Thomas Rid writes that the goal of disinformation is ‘to exacerbate existing tensions and contradictions within the adversary’s body politic, by leveraging facts, fakes, and ideally, a disorienting mix of both.’” (p. 74)

“Another indoctrination technique popular among misinformers is message repetition… Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that propaganda ‘must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.’” (p. 77)

The author asks the following question: “Why is disinformation such an effective tool?” She then provides a possible answer: “One reason is that much of the news we receive today leaves us feeling anxious and looking for answers. Human nature plays all sorts of tricks on us. When we are uncertain or uneasy, we become more susceptible to persuasion and manipulation.” (p. 100)

“Why do we love conspiracies? Researchers say it begins with a desire to simplify a complex world.” (p. 105)

“Researchers have determined that with ‘shares’ and ‘likes,’ online disinformation can reach 1,500 people six times faster than the truth.” (p. 118)

“In 2022, the average adult spent an astonishing 6.5 hours online each day… When we spend so much time alone and never actually meet people with opposing viewpoints, it is easy to dehumanize them.” (p. 130)

“Turning news into infotainment may boost ratings, but it also increases dysfunction in our democracy.” (p. 138)

“Al-Qaeda and ISIS engaged in a tactic known as ‘stochastic terrorism,’ the incitement of violence through the public demonization of a group or individual… provocative speeches inspire supporters to take action, even though the speaker does not know exactly when or how, nor which supporters will act.” (p. 201)

Chapter nine presents proposed solutions. I don’t agree with all of them, but below are the ones I believe could partially address the problem:

  • Amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which grants internet providers immunity from legal liability. Algorithms are not content, but platform’s own products. Removing immunity could deter platforms from amplifying false and harmful content (pp. 260–261).
  • Regulate algorithms by requiring social media companies to disclose how they amplify content and micro target users. Regulations could prohibit algorithms designed specifically to generate outrage and maximize user engagement (p. 264).
  • Include media literacy in U.S. public school curricula to teach students how to become more discerning consumers of online information (p. 270).

Two statements in the closing chapter particularly caught my attention:

“We will always have differences of opinion on issues such as criminal justice and government spending—but we must be united in the process of how we solve problems. The ability to solve any problem requires a shared understanding of facts and truth.” (p. 293)

“In a time when we spend inordinate amounts of time and money on spectator sports, movies, and reality television shows, it can be argued that we get the leaders we deserve. In a democracy, a government of the people, we need responsible leadership not just from our elected officials, but from our citizenry.” (p. 297)

The author does an excellent job describing how disinformation and misinformation are contributing to increased division in this country. While examples are more easily identified within the party currently in power, the opposing party also employs these tactics, and I wish the author had addressed those instances more thoroughly. By emphasizing one side more than the other, the book risks limiting healthy debate. Even with this minor flaw, I still recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand how disinformation and misinformation are used—and what steps we can take to minimize their impact.

About the Author:

Barbara McQuade is a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School, her alma mater, where she teaches courses in criminal law, criminal procedure, national security, and data privacy.5

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation ↩︎
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation ↩︎
  3. https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3895345/russian-disinformation-campaign-doppelgnger-unmasked-a-web-of-deception/ ↩︎
  4. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/ ↩︎
  5. https://www.barbaramcquade.com/home-1 ↩︎

37 thoughts on “Book Review: Attack from Within”

    1. I think you are going to enjoy her book, and chapter nine includes many recommendations. I thought the ones I highlighted were doable and could receive bipartisan support. Another of her recommendations was prohibiting anonymous users. I would love that, but I can already hear privacy and First Amendment concerns from many people. There are people pushing back on age verification for adult sites, so I can see similar pushback with social media platforms, which have far more users than adult sites.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Insightful review. I like how you emphasize that disinformation isn’t accidental noise but a deliberate strategy that exploits emotion and division. The connection you draw between weakened trust, social media incentives, and democratic fragility really stands out. It’s unsettling, but also useful, to see the problem framed not just as individual gullibility but as a systemic issue that requires legal, technological, and civic responses. Thanks for highlighting why media literacy and accountability matter so much right now.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. she is excellent and is a professor here at the university in my city. I’ve seen her speak a few times and is a great researcher, lawyer, and communicator. she was a US attorney here in Michigan until trump came into office last time and was cutting people that were not on ‘his team’ and she chose to step down on her own. misinformation is terrifying in the power it wields and can do untold damage, as we’ve seen. you’re right, that all sides have used it to some degree, however we are living through unparalleled times of deception, harm, and danger to our country.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. She definitely is, and I want to hear her speak again in the future. I heard what happened to her, and it was a mistake to push out an expert like her. I agree with you that the level of disinformation and misinformation we are currently experiencing is on another level—the worst, at least in my time.

      Like

      Reply

  6. It’s amazing and scary how prevalent disinformation, division, and censorship are. We certainly need educated students, better policy, guidelines, and consequences. And a different president and divorce of media from being controlled by so few companies.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Scary indeed. And a lot of people are doing it, even professionals who should know better. When Maduro was taken and brought to the U.S., there were people on LinkedIn, whom I personally know, pushing AI-generated images of the event, clearly depicting falsehoods. I agree with everything you said, and I hope the presidential candidates don’t push nonsense so we can have a president who is presidential once again.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. I agree with most of this post’s content. It’s one of many reasons I avoid most social media. But one part bugged me: “Both political parties have campaigned in recent years by portraying their opponents not as fellow Americans with different ideas about the best ways to govern, but as existential threats to our way of life… And while some people are genuinely fooled by disinformation, others simply don’t care about truth, only whether a narrative advances their own political viewpoint.” (p. xv)”
    This book was published in February 2024. At this point, that was 2 years ago. Much has transpired. We have watched 2 people get killed on camera and we have watched officials tell lies about what happened on the same day. We have watched them call the victims domestic terrorists. You used to have to bomb a federal building to get that label. Right. So I do actually think the current administration and MAGA are actually an existential threat. To our way of life. The tone of the book (giving both sides equal credit) is outdated at this point. However, that being said people do need to use their sense, self regulate and probably follow your model of sticking to the wall street journal and AP or equivalents. I can’t disagree with that part.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I read the 2025 edition with some updates, but it was still published after the incidents you mentioned. I can’t argue against what happened to the two people who were killed on camera. The incident was terrible, and there are no excuses for what happened. I think her point is that both parties are part of the problem, and people are being persuaded to act based on the information they are reading, sometimes with very tragic consequences.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. Of course, your “like” button has disappeared on my device screen today, so this is that.

    Let me add my own personal encounter with disinformation:..

    In the five long years in which I have seen law enforcement universally ignore ~ and even cover up for ~ my targeter, have seen decent citizens convene to stop him and back off instantly, I have been driven to the conclusion that he started, and continues, as a government agent of disinformation regarding the homeless.

    In attempting to get me arrested, enormous litter piles have been left around and behind my van. Crimes have been committed in its vicinity and false “evidence” dropped there, complete with footprints left in the snow at night leading from my van to the site.

    So many of his victims have been taken in for “psychological problems” (all transients and weed smokers, of course), that statistics actually rise in areas he frequents.

    You do the math, right?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. I love that you heard Barbara McQuade at the Printers Row Lit Fest last year…it’s such a terrific event/forum and your thoughts about the book…super intriguing. Especially her thoughts here:
    “We will always have differences of opinion on issues such as criminal justice and government spending—but we must be united in the process of how we solve problems. The ability to solve any problem requires a shared understanding of facts and truth.”
    That feels hopeful to me…
    Thank you for this excellent, excellent review! Adding to my reading list – thanks to you! 💝

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You’re very welcome, my friend. She definitely knows the subject, and the book is a great resource. There is so much that people don’t understand about this problem and how, unknowingly in most cases, they are active participants in the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. For me, this is the critical action that needs to be taken: “Include media literacy in U.S. public school curricula to teach students how to become more discerning consumers of online information (p. 270).” Knowledge is power. The ALA has already done the work to support the curricula needed, and I fully expect they will update their frameworks and pedagogical strategies on an ongoing basis. However, I don’t think the goal of a universally educated citizenry to support a true democracy can be reached as long as the quality of a child’s education is dependent on the real estate tax base where his parents live.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I agree with you—that’s the perfect target if we want to solve the problem in the long term. Great point about the real estate tax. I’m at a particular advantage because where I live, I can see two states, Iowa and Illinois, and how the cities with higher taxes have better education systems.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I hadn’t thought of this before, but I’m reminded of Brown versus Board of Education. If separation, in that case by race, was deemed inherently unequal by the Supreme Court, shouldn’t the same principle hold true for separation by socio-economic class?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Probably. I’m wondering if anyone has attempted to pursue that in court. I know there is plenty of research on integrating socio-economic classes in urban areas to promote equal educational opportunities. There are cities pushing for affordable housing in affluent neighborhoods to pursue that goal.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. The “solution” my state of NH has come up is to divert funds from the public schools for “vouchers” so students can go to a better school. Very wrong-headed. That only makes the divide between the haves and the have-nots even wider. (Sorry. I seem to be on a tear tonight.)

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. I’m not convinced that vouchers are the solution, so I agree with you. There has to be a better way, but I know there are so many different scenarios and circumstances impacting progress. This is one of those problems that educators across the country need to discuss, bringing not only the issues but also potential solutions, with the hope of finding an approach that meets the needs of most children.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

  11. Such an important topic, Edward. Thank you for highlighting this book and the issues it addresses. I always try to read widely and from a variety of sources, but I don’t always manage it as well as I’d like.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Lori. Yes, it’s really hard these days because even serious news outlets are falling into the trap of distorting the news slightly to attract viewers, as in the case of CBS and BBC. Sadly, I’ve gone back to old-fashioned newspapers because they go through a more rigorous editorial process.

      Like

      Reply

  12. great work on this Edward. a great article prioritizes technical objectivity and neutrality and this piece achieved both. it’s highly appreciated that you pointed out the quasi-partisan identity of the book but like you said, the main question at hand is the value of the book.

    great work on this! Mike

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Mike. I left out many of those examples that I thought were incredibly helpful in understanding what is currently happening because they targeted only one party, even though I know both parties are guilty of this. The tactics are the same, and a neutral person can see how each party is using them.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The confusion, rage, and cynicism created by the practices you describe from McQuade were widely discussed by George Orwell and Hannah Aren’t.

        While siding with one side or the other might be a problem, left and right meet in the middle when they become autocracies individually. One might find more examples from history than we can at a moment when autocracy is more the domain of one side.

        The party in power always benefits from the informational conundrum. It causes some to give up, some to believe all leaders are corrupt, some to become cynical, some to become violent, and some to believe lies or conspiracies. It divides people, making them suspicious, but ineffective.

        There is a very old adage that has been attributed to many great men. It goes like this: “In a time if moral crisis, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral.”

        We must recognize.that the middle place has disappeared.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. These are very old practices indeed. This is a big problem, and I’m not sure how we are going to solve it—especially when our two parties are engaging in it, and foreign entities are facilitating the chaos. You are right that the middle has disappeared, though I think there is a minority trying to hang on to it, like me. I hope the people of this country come to their senses soon before we are pushed into a civil war, where everyone (left, right, and center) will suffer greatly.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

Leave a reply to ZeroSpace Cancel reply