Congress will examine how foreign adversaries, particularly China, seek to influence American public opinion and policymaking at a hearing in Washington, D.C., titled "Trojan Horses: Covert Foreign Malign Influence Operations in America." The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, aims to scrutinize the use of nonprofits and activist networks by nations including China, Cuba, and Iran.
Matthew Johnson, a China expert and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, told Fox News Digital ahead of the testimony that Beijing's primary strategy involves shaping domestic debate through American institutions rather than direct Chinese government propaganda. Johnson argued that this approach makes Chinese strategic interests appear as organic, homegrown American concerns.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics of the hearing and the underlying narrative argue that characterizing anti-war advocacy as foreign influence undermines legitimate domestic dissent. Organizations like CodePink, which received funding from the network associated with tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham, have denied taking direction from the Chinese government. CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin and the group’s campaigns, such as "China Is Not Our Enemy," emphasize cooperation with Beijing and opposition to military confrontation, framing these positions as aligned with American peace interests rather than Chinese strategic goals.
Progressive voices and civil liberties advocates have expressed concern that broad definitions of "malign foreign influence" could chill free speech and scrutiny of U.S. foreign policy. They point to the fact that neither Singham nor the organizations he funded have been charged with wrongdoing, despite congressional investigations and a federal criminal probe. The argument is that questioning the motives of activists who oppose war risks conflating policy disagreement with foreign subversion.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative lawmakers and national security experts view the influence of Chinese-funded nonprofits as a significant threat to U.S. strategic interests. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., stated his goal is to "raise the curtain to expose these operations and stop them from undermining our national security, capitalism and the American Dream." Huizenga and other Republicans argue that groups promoting narratives aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) obscure Beijing's true geopolitical ambitions.
Johnson, testifying as an expert witness, argued that campaigns like "China Is Not Our Enemy" serve a strategic function for Beijing by masking its desire for a world order where the United States plays a lesser role. He noted that while peace and avoiding war are noble goals, the specific framing of these campaigns often aligns with China's priority of slowing U.S. advances in artificial intelligence and data-center infrastructure. Republicans in the House Ways and Means Committee have specifically accused CodePink of promoting narratives that serve CCP interests.
What the Numbers Show
Fox News Digital previously reported that Neville Roy Singham, a Shanghai-based tech entrepreneur, directed at least $285 million into six pro-China, pro-communist nonprofit organizations beginning in 2017. Among the recipients is CodePink, which has been a frequent organizer of protests inside Congress against U.S. policy toward China, Cuba, and Israel. The House Ways and Means Committee has subpoenaed three left-wing groups in a probe related to $39 million in funding tied to Singham's network.
Johnson’s analysis focuses on the strategic competition in technology, specifically noting that slowing U.S. progress in AI is a current priority for Beijing. The data shows a pattern where grassroots activism combines with efforts to shape the thinking of academics and policy experts. The funding network identified by Congress includes organizations that have consistently advocated for cooperation with Beijing, often contrasting with the bipartisan consensus in Washington on treating China as a strategic competitor.
The Bottom Line
The hearing highlights a growing bipartisan concern about the intersection of foreign funding and domestic political advocacy. While progressives argue that the scrutiny targets legitimate anti-war sentiment, conservatives frame it as a necessary defense against covert influence operations that distort public debate on national security. The key issue for lawmakers is distinguishing between organic American dissent and coordinated foreign influence efforts that may align with adversarial strategic interests, particularly in high-stakes areas like AI regulation and foreign policy.
Next steps involve the testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, where Johnson and other experts will detail specific mechanisms of influence. The outcome of this hearing could influence further legislative efforts to increase transparency for nonprofits receiving foreign funding or engaging in political advocacy. Lawmakers will likely examine whether current disclosure laws are sufficient to identify when domestic debates are being steered by foreign governments through American proxies.