On Tuesday, a House subcommittee in Washington will try to answer a deceptively simple question: How do foreign powers get inside the American conversation? The hearing, titled “Trojan Horses: Covert Foreign Malign Influence Operations in America,” is convened by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, and its focus is the quiet, creeping ways adversaries—especially China—seek to shape what Americans think, say, and ask of their leaders. It’s not about loud propaganda blaring from state media. According to Matthew Johnson, a China expert and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation who will testify Tuesday, Beijing’s real talent is subtler: it works through American institutions, American nonprofits, American universities, and American voices, so that the message doesn’t look foreign at all. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., put it bluntly, saying the goal is to “raise the curtain to expose these operations and stop them from undermining our national security, capitalism and the American Dream.” The metaphor of the Trojan horse is deliberate. Just as the Greeks hid inside a gift to breach the walls of Troy, foreign governments are accused of hiding their influence inside domestic forms—causes, campaigns, conferences, and coalitions—so that their fingerprints never appear. The hearing is, at heart, an inquiry into whether some of the familiar debates Americans are having about China, national security, technology, and the future are actually being steered by an unseen hand.
According to Johnson, the greatest advantage Beijing has is not its own propaganda machine but its ability to make its interests look like America’s own. “The idea is that it’s not the Communist Party talking, it’s actually institutions and individuals in the United States who are talking,” Johnson told Fox News Digital. “That’s actually the best outcome because then it looks organic… it looks like it’s somehow being produced from within our society as opposed to by external actors.” That insight is central to understanding why lawmakers are paying attention. Direct Chinese messaging, no matter how polished, will always carry the stain of its source. But when an American professor writes an op-ed, an American nonprofit organizes a rally, or an American activist group testifies on Capitol Hill, the audience is far more likely to trust what it hears. Johnson said one of Beijing’s current priorities is slowing U.S. advances in artificial intelligence and data-center infrastructure—an area Chinese leaders view as central to strategic competition with Washington. To do that, he said, China’s influence strategy combines grassroots activism with efforts to shape thinking among academics, policy experts, and other influential voices. It’s not about turning Americans into communists; it’s about nudging the debate in a direction that serves Beijing’s interests, especially when the conversation touches on military alliances, technology policy, and the broader balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
The backdrop to Johnson’s testimony is a widening congressional investigation into an unusual and highly partisan funding network linked to Shanghai-based Marxist tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham. Singham, whose fortune was made in software and who has deep ties to Chinese Communist Party-affiliated entities, has become a magnet for scrutiny. Fox News Digital previously reported that Singham directed at least $285 million into six pro-China, pro-communist nonprofit organizations beginning in 2017, with one of the most visible beneficiaries being CodePink, the anti-war activist group known for its loud protests and disruptive presence in Congress. Singham and the organizations have denied taking direction from the Chinese government, and neither Singham nor the organizations have been charged with wrongdoing. Still, the numbers are staggering, and they have sparked a federal criminal probe as well as multiple congressional investigations. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s hearing, the House panel has also subpoenaed three left-wing groups in connection with a separate $39 million flow linked to Singham’s network. For lawmakers, the question is not whether every dollar came with explicit instructions, but whether the funding was designed to create a chorus of voices singing a tune that happens to align with Beijing’s strategic playbook.
CodePink is perhaps the clearest example of why this issue is so politically explosive. The group was co-founded by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, who is also Singham’s wife, and has spent years organizing disruptive protests inside Congress, campaigning against U.S. policy toward China, Cuba, and Israel, and promoting a message of peace and cooperation with Beijing. One of its signature efforts is the “China Is Not Our Enemy” campaign, which argues that the United States should pursue partnership rather than confrontation with the world’s second-largest economy. House Ways and Means Committee Republicans have accused CodePink and similar groups of promoting narratives aligned with Chinese Communist Party interests—allegations CodePink strongly denies. The group says its positions are principled and organic, rooted in a genuine desire for peace and diplomacy. But Johnson suggested that even if the intentions of individual activists are sincere, the strategic effect can still serve Beijing’s goals. Asked why campaigns like “China Is Not Our Enemy” matter, Johnson explained that they help create an image of China that downplays the broader geopolitical competition between the two countries. That framing, he said, is exactly what Beijing wants: not necessarily a country full of pro-communist Americans, but a country that no longer sees China as a rival to be met with resolve.
Johnson’s testimony is expected to dig into that dynamic in detail. He said he tries to break down influence by examining how the framework of sensitive strategic conversations is steered in ways that map onto China’s interests rather than America’s. The goal, he says, is not to silence critics or label all peace activism as treason, but to understand how a foreign power can exploit good intentions for strategic ends. “The idea that we don’t want war with China, we want peace… these are all noble goals,” Johnson said. “But… its strategic function is that it masks the fact that Beijing actually does seek a world order that is more shaped by Beijing in which the United States plays a lesser role.” In other words, everyone wants peace. The question is what kind of peace—and on whose terms. Johnson said China does not need to convince Americans to support the Chinese Communist Party to advance its interests. Instead, Beijing benefits when public debate shifts away from viewing China as a strategic competitor and toward a softer. more transactional relationship. That shift could happen through think tank reports, academic symposiums, op-eds, protest movements, or even documentaries and educational materials—all funded by money that appears to come from domestic philanthropy rather than foreign state power.
For ordinary Americans, the takeaway isn’t panic about the person next to you at a protest or the professor in a lecture hall. It’s a call for transparency and for honest reckoning with how money moves through the world of ideas. Johnson said the real issue is whether there is actually a balance in America’s foreign policy debates and whether the public has enough transparency to assess that balance. Lawmakers appear ready to push on that point, with Huizenga warning that foreign influence threatens not just specific policies but the entire idea of American self-government. “From an American perspective, we want to be sure that it’s Americans who are leading the debate on this issue, not Beijing,” Johnson said. That may sound like a low bar, but in a media ecosystem flooded with think tank reports, social media campaigns, and grassroots organizations, it’s not always easy to tell who is actually what. Tuesday’s hearing won’t answer every question, and the investigations into Singham, CodePink, and other groups will likely continue to stir controversy. But the underlying concern is one that nearly everyone can share: a country should be able to debate its own future without a foreign adversary quietly paying for the microphone. The hearing is a step toward making sure that when America speaks, it’s speaking for itself.
