The basic premise of the White Paper—that El Salvador was a victim of "indirect armed aggression by Communist powers"—was initially accepted by both the American press and congressional leaders.
On May 18, 1981, The Washington Star published an op-ed, "Scarcely A Soviet Shadow in Salvador White Paper", by Jerome M. Segal, who worked on foreign aid issues in the U.S. Agency for International Development.
He focused on the trip report by Shafik Handal, Secretary General of the El Salvador Communist Party, relating the distinct lack of enthusiasm and commitment he received when he went to Moscow seeking military and financial support for his insurgency.
On June 8, 1981, The Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitney published "Apparent Errors Cloud US 'White Paper' on Reds in El Salvador", an article based on a three-hour interview with Glassman.
[4] In the estimation of historian William LeoGrande, the initial impact was more significant than the subsequent criticism: "When the White Paper was fully dissected four months later and its core arguments thrown into doubt, it hardly mattered.