First Missteps or a Deceptive Government? Analyzing José Antonio Kast’s Administration

Original article: ¿El primer tropezón o un Gobierno de Kast que partió mintiendo?

By Leopoldo Lavín Mujica

Just a week after taking office, José Antonio Kast made a decision that highlights his political approach: abruptly ending the transition of power with Gabriel Boric’s administration.

The reasoning put forth by the Republican leader was clear: the outgoing government acted in ‘bad faith’, hid information, and, therefore, is not a trustworthy interlocutor. Nevertheless, a review of recent events and conflicting statements raises an uncomfortable question for Kast’s administration: Are we witnessing a simple communication misstep or is Kast’s government already facing its first controversy over claims that do not align with reality?

The Heart of the Dispute: A Phone Call That Was Real

It all began on March 3, when President Boric stated in an interview that he had informed Kast about the Chinese submarine cable project and the warnings from the United States ‘weeks before’ the controversy erupted. The response from the elected president’s team was immediate and emphatic. The future Minister of the Interior, Claudio Alvarado, categorically contradicted Boric, asserting that Kast ‘was never informed nor aware of this situation.’

The dilemma is that just 24 hours later, Kast himself admitted the contrary. At a press conference on March 5, the Republican leader confirmed that he did indeed have a phone conversation with Boric on February 18, in which the outgoing president ‘hinted’ at the submarine cable issue.

Kast’s clarification—that it was more of a ‘statement’ than ‘information’ and that he expected further details—does not erase the central fact: his main aide denied something that had indeed occurred.

This series of inconsistencies left Alvarado in an awkward position and, as Minister Spokesperson Camila Vallejo pointed out, ultimately validated Boric’s claim. The future government’s communication strategy, designed to portray itself as a victim of the ‘lack of transparency’, crumbled due to an inaccuracy that originated from its own ranks.

If the accusation of ‘lying’ against Boric was the foundation of the rupture, Kast’s admission undermined that argument.

The Call That Was Never Answered: Misinformation or Omission?

The episode does not end there. The future government spokesperson, Mara Sedini, faced her own challenges in explaining why Kast did not respond to Boric’s repeated calls on February 20, when the United States announced visa revocations for Chilean officials.

In an interview on Radio Duna on March 5, Sedini justified that Kast did not answer because the President called from ‘an unknown number’ and argued that ‘presidents do not answer the phone’ from unregistered numbers.

However, journalist Mónica Pérez revealed that three members of Kast’s team—his chief of staff, chief advisor, and press chief—were contacted by their counterparts at La Moneda to inform them that it was the President calling.

Despite this evidence, Sedini insisted that Kast ‘never became aware’ of the communication attempts. Her statement—that ‘we are focusing on small details, like who answered or didn’t answer the phone’—was poorly received even among Republican circles, which noted that ‘it could have been managed better when feeling cornered.’

The most troubling implication of this version presents one of two scenarios: either Kast’s aides received the alert and chose not to inform him—which would signify a severe internal failure—or the future spokesperson is withholding information to preserve an image that is already beginning to show cracks. In either scenario, the transparency that Kast’s team demands from the outgoing government is glaringly absent within its own ranks.

The Memo That Reveals a Premeditated Strategy

On the night of March 3, following a tense meeting at La Moneda, Kast’s team circulated an internal memo among the parties to set the political and communicational tone. It accused Boric’s government of acting ‘in bad faith’, ‘hiding information’, and ‘destroying any trust’. The document, accessed by Ex-Ante, states: ‘President Boric claimed he informed about the Chinese cable, and that is not true.’

However, the facts demonstrate that the central premise of that accusation is, at the very least, questionable: there was indeed information, even if Kast considers it insufficient or superficial. Kast himself acknowledged during his press conference that the conversation took place. Therefore, if the document establishing the official stance is founded on a premise that the leader of the sector himself denied, are we not confronted with a deeper credibility issue?

A Sign of Firmness or a Trial Run of Post-Truth Era?

Kast’s circle insists that the decision to end bilateral meetings aims to showcase the new administration’s ‘stamp’: ‘a government that makes firm decisions’. However, what has been observed in recent days resembles more an erratic communication management, with spokespeople who contradict each other and explanations that fail to hold up against factual scrutiny.

Critical voices have interpreted this attitude as a precursor to ‘Kast’s style’: confrontational, rupture-oriented, prioritizing striking declarations over factual precision.

Deputy Ana María Gazmuri encapsulated this perception: ‘We are witnessing the installation of the real Kast’s style.’ But beyond style, what is at stake is the relationship the new government will establish with truth and the citizenry.

In the meantime, the outgoing government has maintained its willingness to dialogue and has made all necessary information available. Boric lamented on social media, ‘deeply regretting that the elected president chose to tarnish the healthy and proud republican tradition of transferring power.’

The Cost of Inconsistency

In the days leading up to the transition, Kast opted for a break based on an accusation of ‘lack of information’ that his own statements served to relativize.

Now the question remains for history and the citizenry: Was this a first stumble, typical of the inexperience or nervousness of a freshly installed team? Or are we witnessing the first episode of a government that builds its narrative on claims that do not withstand verification, inaugurating an era where communication strategy prevails over facts?

Firmness is a virtue, but when exercised on a flimsy base, it risks becoming stubbornness. And in politics, starting with a controversy surrounding the veracity of one’s declarations can have ramifications that extend beyond the early days in office.

The republican approach, or the ‘public thing’ as its name indicates, must prioritize the common good and transparency over communication strategy, regardless of ideological differences. The episode involving the Chinese cable leaves a bitter lesson: before accusing others of lying, it’s wise to ensure that one’s own version is watertight. And in this case, it was not.

A Theoretical Framework: The Far Rights and Their Relationship with Truth

This episode should not be viewed merely as a novice communication error but rather as a manifestation in Chile of a global phenomenon that political science has studied with increasing concern: the structural relationship of the far right with truth.

Researchers like Kris Hartley have defined ‘post-truth’ not as an occasional lie but as a ‘deliberate strategy to create an environment where objective facts lose influence over public opinion, where theoretical frameworks are undermined to prevent understanding of phenomena, and where scientific truth is delegitimized.’

In this context, research centers like C-REX at the University of Oslo document how the far right has perfected the art of ‘epistemic warfare’, where misinformation is not an accident but an integral part of the political project.

The mechanism is perverse: when feelings (‘gut feelings’) replace facts, as political scientist Iris Segers notes, an alternative reality is constructed wherein coherence matters less than the emotional mobilization of the base.

What we have witnessed in these initial weeks—a charge of ‘lack of information’ that Kast’s own statements disprove, a spokesperson downplaying facts as ‘small details’, and a team contradicting itself without eliciting self-criticism—is not merely a stumble.

It is, as historian John Adams warns, a departure from the republican maxim that ‘facts are stubborn things, and whatever our desires or passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.’

When reality becomes malleable to serve the narrative’s interests, when truth is subordinated to communication strategy, democracy itself erodes because, as Rex Smith points out, without a shared understanding of what is true, ‘a democracy can crumble due to misinformation, manipulation, and lack of public trust.’

International evidence shows that this dynamic is not exclusive to Chile, but what’s alarming is that Kast’s government appears to be debuting, in its first week, a script that has already shown its consequences in other regions: the construction of a reality molded to power, where truth is not what matters, but its manipulation and political efficacy.

Leopoldo Lavín Mujica