The book discusses the mid-20th century Central Intelligence Agency efforts to infiltrate and co-opt artistic movements using funds that were mostly channelled through the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Ford Foundation.
[1][2] Saunders concluded that by entangling the state in "free" artistic expression, the CIA undermined America's moral position in comparison to the Soviet Union.
[3] In Dissent Jeffrey C. Isaac wrote that the book is a "widely discussed retrospective on post-Second World War liberalism that raises important questions about the relationships between intellectuals and political power.
[11][12] Edward Said wrote that the book is "a major work of investigative history, an extremely valuable contribution to the all-important post-World War Two record" and that "the gist of her argument about Abstract Expressionism and its uses as propaganda is correct, if not wholly original".
[13] The Baumols concluded that the book has a lot of detail which is not necessary for Saunders' arguments and repetition that "gives the reader a sense of wallowing through a dense landscape, looking for the fascinating nuggets of history that are certainly there.
"[5] Jeffrey C. Isaac criticized the book, saying that it was "shrill" and with a "prosecutorial tone," that it had arguments without "nuance," that it did not "grapple in a serious way with the ideas that were the chief currency of those it purports to study", and that it did not consider the importance and the need to secure "liberal values and institutions".
[16] Joffe criticised the book for equating the U.S. propaganda efforts with those from the USSR in a "a strident anti-anti-Communism that refuses to accord the Western cause the moral worth it deserves, considering the wares the totalitarians were hawking.
[17] William and Hilda Baumol, in their book review, wrote that Saunders "generally avoids explicit judgments, seeking to be dispassionate in her account.
[5] Reviewing the book for Studies in Intelligence, former CIA official historian Thomas M. Troy Jr. wrote "Saunders deserves praise for presenting opposing views" and that she did "a fine job in recounting the intriguing story of how the CIA worked with existing institutions", but added that the book "has some major shortcomings" and "contains some silly mistakes and some real gaffes".