This analysis examines the structural functioning, historical origins, and deepening effects of US centered global elite cultivation networks on the sovereignty mechanisms of nation states. Taking as its starting point the claims made in 2026 by Pierre de Gaulle, grandson of Charles de Gaulle, regarding the “Young Leaders” program, it is essential to conduct a comparative examination of the operations of institutions such as the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), the French American Foundation, the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund, and Fulbright.
Pierre de Gaulle’s Disclosure and Behind the Curtain
Pierre de Gaulle, the grandson of the legendary leader of the French Resistance, Charles de Gaulle, pulled back the curtain on European politics with a statement he made at the beginning of 2026. In a short video circulated on the X platform, Pierre de Gaulle stated that the majority of French politicians were cultivated by the CIA backed “Young Leaders” program, using the following words:
“Cela me fait sourire quand on parle d’ingérence russe parce que ça arrange nos élites politiques et ça évite de dire la vérité aux Français. La plupart de nos hommes politiques ont participé au programme Young Leaders, parrainé par la CIA.”
(Translation: “It makes me smile when people talk about Russian interference, because it suits our political elites and allows them to avoid telling the French the truth. Most of our politicians participated in the Young Leaders program, sponsored by the CIA.”)
According to a fact checking report by TF1 Info, Pierre de Gaulle maintained that his claims were “completely verifiable” and reminded the public that the program’s participant lists are open to everyone (TF1 Info, 2026). Although the French American Foundation denies the allegations linking the program to the CIA, the institutional structure of the foundation and the presence of figures such as former CIA directors and Trilateral Commission founder David Rockefeller among its financial backers make it difficult to completely deny this connection (Le Courrier Européen, 2025).
The main point that de Gaulle points to is that the “Russian interference” narrative is a theater that prevents elites from telling the truth to their own people, and at the same time, a significant portion of these same elites are shaped by such programs. This study treats Pierre de Gaulle’s claim not as a conspiracy theory, but as the exposure of a globally institutionalized model of social engineering, and aims to reveal the anatomy of this model through worldwide examples.
Conceptual Framework: Dependency, Cognitive Infiltration, and Soft Power
The fundamental concept that must be developed to understand these programs is dependency. The outsourcing of the elite cultivation process to externally centered institutions transforms the mental reference frameworks of a country’s ruling class. This model, which can be called “cognitive infiltration” in international relations literature, aims to dilute national reflexes by penetrating the intellectual and bureaucratic reservoir of the target country (Robinson, 2004).
This mechanism, which can be considered a sub type of Joseph Nye’s concept of “soft power,” operates through attraction, identification, and internalization rather than direct coercion or bribery. A bright young diplomat or politician at the beginning of their career, through the network and mindset patterns acquired at a seminar in Washington, uses an unconsciously adopted reference framework decades later in national security decisions. When participants return from programs, they often think they have become more “open minded,” more “international,” and more “pragmatic.” Yet, without realizing it, they have outsourced their ability to define their own national interests. This situation is a modern manifestation of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of “cultural hegemony” (Gramsci, 1971).
The Global Flagship: The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP)
The most comprehensive and deep rooted example of this mechanism is the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), run by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State. Launched in 1940, the program has hosted more than 230,000 international leaders to date (U.S. Department of State, 2025). The program’s most striking achievement is that among its alumni are more than 500 former or current heads of state and government.
This figure shows that the program is not merely a cultural exchange initiative but an active tool in shaping the global leadership pool. The program’s functioning can be summarized as follows: U.S. embassies in relevant countries identify “promising” young politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, and civil society leaders through local contact points. These individuals are typically invited to the U.S. for a program lasting a few weeks, where they engage in high level contacts at the White House, the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, think tanks, and media organizations. Although the official purpose is “cultural exchange,” the de facto outcome is that participants internalize the American foreign policy perspective and, upon returning to their home countries, serve an unofficial “ambassador” function.
The United Kingdom Example: A Pool That Disregards Party Differences
One of the most striking aspects of the IVLP’s functioning is its incorporation of potential leaders regardless of political ideology. The United Kingdom example clearly documents this situation. All four prime ministers who were political rivals: Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Theresa May, were individuals included in the IVLP program before they rose to power. It is known that Thatcher participated in the program in 1967, and Blair in the second half of the 1980s (Global Ties U.S., 2019). Thatcher, decades later, expressed the value the program held for her in a note sent from 10 Downing Street with the words: “The whole tour was extremely valuable.” This shows that leaders from different ideological camps are equipped with the same mental reference framework and become predisposed to act with similar reflexes in times of crisis.
Critical Examples from the Middle East and Asia
The list of IVLP alumni also includes many figures who have played roles at critical junctures in world politics:
Anwar Sadat (Egypt): Sadat, who took Egypt out of the Soviet orbit, initiated the Camp David process, and made peace with Israel, is an IVLP alumnus. It is a widely held belief that the program was directly influential in Sadat’s foreign policy axis shift (Muravchik, 2003).
Indira Gandhi (India): India’s “Iron Lady,” Indira Gandhi, is also known to have participated in the program. The program served to bring India, within the Non Aligned Movement, closer to the West during the Cold War.
Felipe Calderón (Mexico): Former Mexican President Calderón is among the IVLP alumni. Mexico’s close cooperation with the U.S. in its war on drugs is interpreted as one of the long term effects of such programs.
Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand): Ardern, an iconic figure of the global left liberal movement, is known to have had contact with US centered leadership programs in the early stages of her career.
António Guterres (United Nations): It is documented that current UN Secretary General Guterres participated in U.S. visitor programs before his tenure as Prime Minister of Portugal.
These examples demonstrate that the program recognizes no geographical or ideological boundaries, focusing solely on the goal of cultivating “system compatible leaders.”
An Incubation Machine on the French American Axis: Young Leaders (France)
In the case of France, the “Young Leaders” program, launched in 1981 under the French American Foundation, has a more closed and elitist structure compared to the IVLP, operating between the two countries. The program brings together rising stars from France and the U.S., in their thirties and forties, with Pentagon, CIA, and White House circles over a two year period.
The alumni list clearly documents the mechanism’s success:
Emmanuel Macron (current President)
François Hollande (former President)
Christine Lagarde (former IMF Managing Director, ECB President)
Nicolas Sarkozy (former President, included in the program as a young politician in 1985, and after taking office, returned France to NATO’s military command structure)
As Pierre de Gaulle pointed out, this program does not give direct orders but rather ensures that participants adopt a reference point (the Transatlantic alliance and American global leadership) that overrides the concept of “national interest.”
The Four Pillars in Türkiye: A Systematic and Multi Layered Structure
The projections of the same logic in Türkiye represent one of the most systematic and intense examples in the world. These four main channels are examined in detail below.
Young Society Leaders (YSL) – American Turkish Society (ATS)
This program operates in Türkiye as a direct replica of the French American Foundation’s Young Leaders model. Conducted under the umbrella of the American Turkish Society, YSL particularly targets the young heirs of Türkiye’s giant holding companies, rising start up founders, and promising young politicians from mainstream parties. The program’s center is New York, and over a two year period, participants are integrated into the global system through closed seminars, workshops, and one on one meetings.
The program’s most striking feature is the selection of participants based solely on the criterion of “future power holding potential,” regardless of their political or ideological identities. In this way, conservative capital circles and secular business leaders merge in the same pool, developing a common network and language. Upon their return, YSL alumni position themselves as elites representing “global standards” in their own country, naturally showing a tendency to prefer one another.
The program’s funding structure is not entirely transparent, but among the American Turkish Society’s donors are Wall Street circles, large American foundations, and names linked to former high level CIA officials. Although the ATS’s founding purpose is stated as “developing Turkish American friendship,” the alumni lists over the years indicate that the program has a deep strategic function. Managers of major media organizations in Türkiye, CEOs of large holding companies, and many members of parliament were hosted under the YSL umbrella in the early stages of their careers.
What Pierre de Gaulle said for France is also valid for Türkiye: This program does not label its participants with a crude tag like “agent,” but instills in them a much more subtle dependency and cultural alignment. Thanks to their contacts in New York, YSL alumni become automatically predisposed to adopt the perspective of “the survival of the Transatlantic alliance” in a time of international crisis. Thus, the prioritization of Washington’s sensitivities in Türkiye’s foreign policy decisions is internalized as a natural reflex.
The program’s greatest success is that participants are equipped with a mental framework whereby, when a conflict arises between their own national interests and the interests of the global system, they often choose the latter. This is far more effective than a classic espionage activity, because will has been surrendered from within, without awareness. YSL is one of the most sophisticated tools of this unaware surrender.
Finally, YSL’s influence is not limited to politicians. Through media owners and major business figures, the program also has the capacity to intervene in the formation of public opinion. A YSL alumna media manager publishes the perspective of US centered news agencies in news bulletins without questioning them, thus spreading “dependency” to the masses. This is a holistic operation that encompasses not only the political but also the cultural and economic dimensions of sovereignty.
Millennium Leadership Program (MLP) – Atlantic Council
The Millennium Leadership Program, run under the Atlantic Council, is a structure directly funded by the strategic orientations of NATO and the U.S. Department of State. The MLP identifies promising young figures in Türkiye’s defense, energy, and foreign policy bureaucracy and transports them to Washington. The program’s participants include newly graduated military officers, young diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, specialists from the Ministry of Energy, and researchers working in strategic think tanks.
The MLP’s fundamental aim is to plant the definition of “global threats” within a specific framework in the participants’ minds. For instance, the coding of Russia and Iran as “risky actors” when energy security is mentioned, and the idea that the first option in defense cooperation must always be NATO, are presented as natural presuppositions in these programs. After two to three weeks of intensive seminars, participants unconsciously use this framework in the reports they prepare and the decisions they make upon returning to Türkiye.
Another significant function of the program is building personal friendships and trust bonds between Turkish bureaucrats and their American counterparts. American participants who rise to high level positions at the Pentagon or the State Department over the years can directly reach their former MLP program friends by phone and influence Türkiye’s policies through informal channels. This is a mechanism that institutionalizes the “back channel” function of classic diplomacy.
It has been observed that MLP alumni have not stepped outside the boundaries drawn by the U.S. in Türkiye’s energy policies, especially on Eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus issues. Similarly, in defense industry crises such as the F 35 and S 400, it is known that bureaucrats with an MLP background are more inclined to understand and adapt to the U.S. position. This situation arises without a direct order, solely as a result of common training and networking.
Although the program’s duration may seem short, its impact spans decades. As participants climb the career ladder, the mental maps they acquired in the program are also carried into national decision making mechanisms. The Atlantic Council’s appearance of neutrality as a think tank enhances the program’s legitimacy, but when its funding sources and management cadre are examined, its strategic orientation becomes clear. In this respect, the MLP is one of the most effective tools eroding Türkiye’s capacity for strategic autonomy.
The Turkish branch of the MLP operates in coordination with the program’s applications in other countries around the world. For example, MLP alumni from Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova and MLP alumni from Türkiye naturally speak the same language and develop common positions during regional crises. This creates a global “elite solidarity” and dissolves the natural competition between nation states under a common transatlantic umbrella.
Finally, the MLP’s impact in Türkiye has not been limited to bureaucrats but has also permeated academic cadres. When academics who are among the program’s alumni teach in the international relations departments of universities, they unconsciously shape the course curricula from a NATO perspective. In this way, dependency becomes an academic tradition passed down from generation to generation.
Marshall Memorial Fellowship (MMF) – German Marshall Fund (GMF)
Operating continuously since the Cold War years, the Marshall Memorial Fellowship takes its name from the Marshall Plan, which was used for the reconstruction of post World War II Europe. The program hosts young parliamentarians, journalists, and civil society leaders from Türkiye at U.S. institutions for weeks, giving them first hand experience of American political culture, media operations, and civil society mechanisms. Although the official purpose is “strengthening democracy,” the de facto outcome is that participants erode their own country’s national reflexes in times of crisis.
The most important feature of the MMF is the reports that participants will write, the news they will make, or the civil society projects they will sustain upon returning to their home countries under the guise of “independent observers.” After an internship at a media outlet in the U.S., a journalist may unconsciously reflect Washington’s priorities in a foreign policy analysis written in Türkiye. After meeting an advisor in the U.S. Congress, a politician may present a regulation contrary to national sovereignty as a “best practice.”
The “Marshall” emphasis in the program’s name carries psychological depth. Participants are reminded of the U.S.’s historical role as a “savior” and “order builder,” thereby reinforcing a sense of gratitude towards American leadership. Over time, this feeling can lead to the loss of critical distance and turn into an unconscious acceptance such as “Whatever the U.S. says is right.” In this respect, the MMF is a version of the Cold War’s cultural hegemony tools, adapted for the present day.
MMF alumni in Türkiye include MPs from different parties, well known columnists, and managers of major NGOs. It has been observed that these figures take care to use an “understanding” and “conciliatory” language, especially during periods of heightened tension in Türkiye U.S. relations. Although it is difficult to say that the program directly directs these individuals, it is clear that it gives them an “alternative perspective.” The problem is that this alternative perspective almost always coincides with U.S. interests.
Although the MMF process usually lasts a few weeks, the alumni network created among graduates continues for a lifetime. Through this network, a journalist in Türkiye can receive informal guidance from an American colleague on how to ask the “right questions” during a crisis. Similarly, a politician can secure international legitimacy support for a regulation they wish to enact through their contacts in Washington. This network is an invisible but highly effective lobbying mechanism.
Finally, the coordination of the MMF in Europe and Türkiye is carried out through the German Marshall Fund’s offices in Berlin, Brussels, Warsaw, and Istanbul. This geographical distribution ensures that the program serves a unifying function not only in Türkiye but across the entire wider European and Middle Eastern region. In this way, an MMF alum from Türkiye and an MMF alum from Greece or Bulgaria can meet in a common transatlantic language, despite their potential for national conflict. This is a “supra mind” mechanism that penetrates the deepest layers of national sovereignty.
International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) – U.S. Department of State
Among these four channels, the IVLP is the most official, most direct, and most extensive. The program, personally run by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State, scouts young politicians in target countries who have the potential to become future ministers, prime ministers, or critical bureaucrats, right at the very beginning of their careers. The Turkish branch of the program is coordinated by the political and public diplomacy sections of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, and candidates are selected with great care.
What distinguishes the IVLP from other programs is that it shows participants first hand the inner workings of the U.S. state mechanism itself. A participant has the opportunity for one on one meetings with a national security advisor in the White House, a general in the Pentagon, a senator on Capitol Hill, and a Secretary of a government department. This kind of access carries a weight and prestige that no private foundation or think tank can provide. Through this, the participant not only sees “how the U.S. works” but also gains the self confidence to position themselves as a “leader of the future.”
The program’s historical record is staggering. According to official U.S. government figures, there are more than 500 former or current heads of state and government who have passed through the IVLP program alone to date. This figure demonstrates the program’s role in shaping the global political system, far beyond its impact on individual careers. In Türkiye too, prime ministers, ministers, and general secretaries from very different ideological lines participated in the IVLP when their careers were at the stage of parliamentary candidate or deputy minister.
The IVLP’s most important achievement is creating a “conformity of expectations” in participants. A politician hosted at the highest level U.S. institutions can later exert natural influence in a phone call with a U.S. official, saying, “I hosted you at the White House.” This allows the U.S. to acquire an actor compatible with it, without needing to directly intervene in Türkiye’s domestic politics. In this respect, the program is far more sophisticated and effective than classic espionage activities.
It has been observed that IVLP alumni, especially during international crises, adopt the exact conceptual set used by Washington when defining Türkiye’s national interests. Concepts such as “rules based international order,” “democracy promotion,” and “human rights” become unquestioned presuppositions for these individuals, just as they are for the U.S. However, the content of these concepts is often defined in a way that serves U.S. strategic interests. IVLP alumni unconsciously internalize and act as carriers of these definitions.
In conclusion, the IVLP is the most comprehensive, deep rooted, and influential tool shaping the future leadership cadres of countries worldwide, including Türkiye. The program’s existence should not be perceived solely as an “intervention,” but the structural dependency relationship it creates poses a vital problem for the future of national sovereignty. The fundamental defect of the IVLP, like the other three programs, is that the mental framework it imparts to its participants almost always leads them to decide in favor of the “global system” when it conflicts with the interests of their own countries. This is the silent evacuation of sovereignty from within.
The common feature of these four channels is that they do not adhere to a single ideology. For the system’s designers, whether a candidate is rightist, leftist, secular, conservative, or Islamist is not a determining factor. The sole criterion is the “potential to hold power in the future.” Indeed, Türkiye’s recent political history bears the traces of this flexibility. Dozens of figures from seemingly diametrically opposed lines: from Süleyman Demirel to Bülent Ecevit, from Abdullah Gül to Ahmet Davutoğlu, from Ali Babacan to Ömer Çelik, from İlber Ortaylı to Kemal Derviş, from Ruşen Çakır to Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, were hosted in the early stages of their careers by leadership programs funded by the U.S. government or foundations, such as IVLP, Eisenhower, and Fulbright (U.S. Embassy Türkiye, 2024). This shows that a common ground of global alignment is being built, far beyond ideological polarizations. A particularly striking example is that of a young politician taken to the U.S. under the IVLP in the 1990s, who, years later as Minister of Foreign Affairs, aligned with U.S. regional policies almost without any objection. This is the expected output of the system, rather than a personal betrayal.
Extended Global Examples and Track Record
This mechanism is not limited to Western or allied countries. Traces of such programs can be followed even in countries the U.S. considers strategic rivals:
Eastern Europe and Color Revolutions: Zoran Đinđić, one of the leaders of the Bulldozer Revolution in Serbia in 2000, was an alumnus of US centered leadership programs. The fact that Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia received part of his education in the U.S. and later enacted pro Western reforms demonstrates the influence of these networks. It is documented that many of the prominent figures of the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Revolution in Ukraine participated in civil society programs supported by the U.S. Department of State or USAID in the early stages of their careers (Polese & Ó Beacháin, 2011).
Latin America: Former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe participated in leadership programs held in the U.S. before the Plan Colombia process, which he carried out in close cooperation with the U.S. Figures like Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Sebastián Piñera in Chile are also among the alumni of similar programs.
Southeast Asia: Former Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono participated in civilian leadership programs in addition to U.S. military education programs. Among the advisors to Benigno Aquino III in the Philippines were IVLP alumni.
These examples reveal that the program is a global “elite recruitment” network and how effective it is in shaping political processes worldwide in line with U.S. strategic interests.
Psychological and Institutional Dimensions of the Dependency Mechanism
To understand these structures, it is necessary to underline the following points: It must not be inferred that everyone who participates in these programs is a “direct American agent.” The real danger and mechanism operate in a much more covert way:
- The Network Effect: Participants establish direct contact with high level bureaucrats, think tank directors, and media moguls in the U.S. Years later, when they reach decision making positions in their own countries, they naturally trust and cooperate with these individuals.
- Status and Prestige: Being selected for the program signifies the person’s admission into the “global elite” club. This status anxiety facilitates participants’ unquestioning attachment to the system.
- Common Language and Concept Set: Concepts such as “democracy promotion,” “civil society,” “good governance,” and “rules based international order,” even if they seem hollow or ideological, actually provide participants’ minds with a specific framework. Through these concepts, U.S. foreign policy priorities are presented as “universal values.”
- Automatic Alignment in Times of Crisis: Without the need for a direct order, a habit of looking through the same vision window develops. A politician in Türkiye, a minister in France, or a general in Indonesia automatically prefers the “international community” position, i.e., the US centered position, in a time of crisis.
Thus, no matter which party wins the election, individuals who are inclined not to question the transatlantic agenda and to prioritize Washington’s strategic sensitivities over their own country’s interests are always placed in top management. This functions as a “pre screening mechanism” that effectively nullifies the meaning of democratic elections.
Conclusion: The Future of Sovereignty and National Elite Cultivation Capacity
Pierre de Gaulle’s short video and the ensuing debates have essentially surfaced a truth that can be summarized in a single sentence: One of the greatest dilemmas of the contemporary nation state is that it has lost the capacity to independently cultivate its own ruling class.
The outsourcing of the elite cultivation process means the evacuation of sovereignty from within. This transnational “lathe,” which melts down Macron in France, Blair in the UK, and numerous figures from different ideological camps in Türkiye in the same pot, operates with an efficiency independent of ideology.
In the face of this picture, the solution lies in the reconstruction of national elite cultivation capacity. This capacity is not just about military or economic power; it is also an intellectual, cultural, and institutional capacity. Countries like Türkiye, France, and Indonesia need to:
Establish world class public policy and international relations programs in their own universities,
Make their own think tanks financially and institutionally independent,
Cultivate an intellectual cadre capable of defining the national interest in times of crisis without seeking external approval,
Instead of completely rejecting international programs, develop a counter hegemonic discourse by recognizing the nature of these programs.
If this will is not demonstrated, then no matter how much the ballot boxes function, the real sovereignty decisions have already been made in another geography, at the head of an invisible “lathe.” Dependency is stronger than the sturdiest chains, because you do not notice it. The disclosure by De Gaulle’s grandson made these chains visible for a moment; the rest depends on whether each nation will examine its own chains.
References
TF1 Info. (2026, January 15). VÉRIF’ – Est-il vrai que la “plupart des dirigeants” français ont été formés par la CIA ? https://www.tf1info.fr/verif/
Le Courrier Européen. (2025, December 26). Les anciens présidents français auraient-ils participé à un programme de financement américain controversé ?
French American Foundation. (2025). Announcing the 2025 Young Leaders. https://frenchamerican.org/
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (2025). International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP). https://exchanges.state.gov/us/program/international-visitor-leadership-program-ivlp
Global Ties U.S. (2019). The International Visitor Leadership Program: A Legacy of Leadership. Washington, D.C.
The American Turkish Society. (2023). Young Society Leaders Program: Eleventh Class. https://www.americanturkishsociety.org/
Atlantic Council. (2015, April 23). Atlantic Council Welcomes Inaugural Class of Millennium Fellows. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Marshall Memorial Fellowship (MMF). https://www.gmfus.org/
U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Türkiye. (2024, May 10). Media Note: U.S. Mission in Türkiye Celebrates 75 Years of the Fulbright Program. https://tr.usembassy.gov/
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.
Muravchik, J. (2003). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny. AEI Press.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.
Polese, A., & Ó Beacháin, D. (2011). The Color Revolution Nexus: A Reassessment of the Causes and Consequences of Post Soviet “Colour Revolutions”. Russian Politics and Law, 49(3), 3-23.
Robinson, W. I. (2004). A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Scott Smith, G. (2003). The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The New Press.
20 Minutes. (2025, December 25). Nos trois derniers présidents ont-ils suivi un programme « financé par la CIA » ?
The Hill. (2025, June 24). French American Foundation unveils 2025 ‘Young Leaders’.
Pierre de Gaulle’s post on X (formerly Twitter). (2026). (Original video and quote).
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
Bir yanıt yazın