Is China Interfering in US Politics?
Yes, but not the way you might think
President Trump used a primetime address last week to revive a familiar grievance. He didn’t quite say outright that the 2020 election was stolen, but he came close, pointing to China’s acquisition of roughly 220 million American voter records as evidence of a vast effort to undermine his campaign. The insinuation was unmistakable even if the speech never quite landed on “stolen.”
There is no evidence for that claim. Multiple US intelligence assessments — including those produced under Trump’s own first-term appointees — concluded that while China considered attempting to influence the 2020 election, it did not deploy a campaign aimed at changing the outcome. The reporting released last week doesn’t alter that conclusion. Career intelligence officials, election administrators from both parties, and independent auditors have all reached the same bottom line: there is no evidence China manipulated ballots, voting machines, or vote totals.
But dismissing Trump’s claim shouldn’t lead us to dismiss the broader problem. He’s wrong about the specific accusation. Yet there’s a version of his instinct that isn’t wrong — and it’s ultimately the more important story: China has spent decades trying to shape American politics. It just isn’t doing it at the ballot box.
Americans still tend to think about election interference through the lens of Russia’s operation in 2016: hacked emails, troll farms, fake social media accounts, and cyberattacks against election infrastructure. After 2016, Washington built its defenses around that model. Election systems became critical infrastructure. Federal agencies expanded teams dedicated to protecting voter databases and voting machines. The assumption was that the next foreign attack would look something like the last one.
Iran has also generally favored short, disruptive election interference campaigns — hacks, impersonation, fabricated news sites, AI-generated content, and intimidation efforts designed to inflame divisions during an election season.
China studied that playbook and largely rejected it. Its strategy is slower, quieter, and considerably more ambitious. Its objective isn’t primarily to influence what happens on Election Day, and intelligence analysts have found little evidence that China consistently backs one presidential candidate. Its goal is instead to shape the political environment in which elections take place. Americans generally think of election interference as something that happens during a campaign. Beijing increasingly treats elections as the culmination of influence accumulated over years — through relationships, institutions, information, and political narratives that shape the environment long before a vote is cast.
The 220 million voter files Trump cited are a good example. Despite the rhetoric surrounding them, these weren’t stolen election databases. Voter registration records are public in most states — the same data routinely purchased by campaigns, consultants, and data brokers. It’s worth being precise about how China obtained this information. The reality is much more mundane than a cyber breach.
Declassified intelligence reporting found Chinese intelligence services conducting what US officials described as “opinion analysis” on the records — not to alter votes, but to understand how Americans think, where they live, what issues matter to them, and which communities might be susceptible to targeted influence.
That’s not election hacking. It’s closer to building an extraordinarily detailed map of the American electorate over time. There’s no vulnerability to patch, because the data were never stolen in the first place. Combined with commercially available consumer and social media data, they allow Chinese analysts to identify politically important communities, understand which issues resonate in different parts of the country, and tailor influence campaigns accordingly.
The same data that helps American campaigns target persuadable voters can also help foreign intelligence services understand where particular political narratives are most likely to gain traction. As Craig Singleton of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies put it, “Beijing would not need to change a single vote to exploit that information.”
That broader effort reaches far beyond influencing particular elections. McGill’s Benjamin Fung says China’s aim is to “cultivate an environment that will benefit the CCP government” — not to install a specific winner, but to make the whole system more pliable over time. In practice that means encouraging an American political climate less willing to confront Beijing over issues such as Taiwan, technology restrictions, trade, or human rights.
Over two decades, China has built networks designed to cultivate influence across universities, business communities, diaspora organizations, local politics, and the information ecosystem itself. Some of these activities are entirely legitimate. Educational exchanges, cultural organizations, and business relationships exist in every major bilateral relationship. The concern arises when organizations that appear independent are quietly directed, funded, or pressured by the Chinese Communist Party to advance Beijing’s political interests while obscuring that connection.
That distinction became clear in the debate over Confucius Institutes — centers funded by the Chinese government and housed mostly at American universities that offer Chinese-language classes and cultural programming. At their peak, more than 100 operated on American campuses, funded directly by Beijing. The institutes often avoided politically sensitive subjects — including Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and the Tiananmen Square crackdown — while encouraging universities to maintain close ties with Beijing. Critics argued that they presented a sanitized view of China that made the government’s most controversial actions seem less visible — and therefore less objectionable.
Following bipartisan scrutiny, congressional pressure, and restrictions imposed during the first Trump administration, most Confucius Institutes closed. But the story didn’t end there. Researchers later found that many of the same partnerships resurfaced under different organizational names while maintaining ties to the same Chinese university networks. When an avenue of influence was blocked, Beijing found a way around.
The same pattern appears elsewhere. Chinese authorities have used organizations within overseas Chinese communities to pressure critics of Beijing and marginalize politicians viewed as sympathetic to Taiwan or Hong Kong.
Federal prosecutors allege that Linda Sun, a former senior aide to New York Governors Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul, secretly advanced Beijing’s interests by helping shape official messaging on issues important to China, blocking Taiwanese officials from gaining access to state leaders, and facilitating contacts with Chinese government representatives — all while allegedly concealing those ties. Sun has pleaded not guilty.
Whether or not prosecutors ultimately prevail, the case illustrates the type of influence operation US officials say Beijing increasingly favors: quietly shaping the political environment and access to decision-makers rather than attempting to manipulate ballots.
Online, Chinese disinformation groups, such as the one known as “Spamouflage,” increasingly masquerade as ordinary American voices. Rather than promoting overtly pro-China messages, researchers found the network using social media to amplify existing American divisions over immigration, race, gun violence and foreign policy — issues that had little to do with China directly but contributed to a more polarized political environment that distracted attention from Beijing itself. By making America more divided and inward-looking, China seeks to create a political climate in which policies such as export controls, military investment in the Indo-Pacific, or support for Taiwan become more politically contested — regardless of who occupies the White House.
Part of the reason Beijing prefers this model is that influence accumulated gradually is both harder to detect and harder to reverse. A cyberattack produces headlines, investigations, and retaliation. Relationships cultivated over years, narratives that slowly gain traction, and institutions that shape public debate rarely do.
Analysts describe this as “cognitive warfare” — an effort to shape what societies believe, trust, and argue about before crises emerge. Elections simply provide moments when those efforts become more consequential because citizens are paying closer attention to politics.
The first Trump administration deserves credit for recognizing that China’s political influence — not simply its military modernization — posed a national security challenge. It increased scrutiny of Confucius Institutes, closed China’s Houston consulate over espionage concerns, expanded FBI investigations related to China, applied tighter scrutiny to foreign funding at universities, increased enforcement of foreign-agent-registration laws, and emphasized the Justice Department’s China Initiative to counter economic espionage and intellectual property theft.
The Biden administration abandoned some of those specific programs, including the China initiative, which it argued was racially profiling Chinese Americans. But it preserved many of the underlying restrictions on technology transfer, investment screening, export controls, and research security. There has been more continuity between the two administrations than today’s political debate often acknowledges.
That makes the current moment especially striking. Even as Trump revives claims about a stolen 2020 election, his administration has reduced or dismantled several of the government offices responsible for tracking foreign influence operations. At precisely the moment the United States needs a more sophisticated understanding of how authoritarian states shape democratic societies, Washington risks returning to yesterday’s understanding of political interference as something restricted to elections and political campaigns.
Trump may be wrong about how China interferes in American elections. But his speech inadvertently highlighted this much larger blind spot. Democracies have become remarkably good at protecting ballots. They are still learning how to protect everything that happens before anyone casts one.
If Washington continues to prepare primarily for the last attack — hacked emails, breached voting systems, and stolen ballots — it risks overlooking the longer game. Beijing has spent two decades investing in something much harder to detect, and ultimately much harder to undo: shaping the American political environment itself.
 | A guest post by
|