In recent years, Americans have become increasingly conscious of the extent to which foreign governments cultivate influence inside the United States. Public debate has focused heavily on Qatar’s funding of elite universities and even the burgeoning influence of the South Korean lobby. China, despite being recognized as America’s primary geopolitical rival, has often been discussed in narrower terms: trade wars, Taiwan, semiconductors, military expansion, and industrial espionage. Far less attention has been paid to the depth of China’s institutional presence inside the United States and other Western democracies. China’s approach differs because the Chinese Communist Party does not view economics, agriculture, education, media, culture, and politics as separate spheres. Each is treated as part of national power.
China’s involvement in American agriculture emerged from structural weaknesses inside China itself. China possesses nearly 20 percent of the global population but only between 7 and 9 percent of the world’s arable land. Industrialization poisoned farmland and groundwater across the country. Official surveys found nearly one-fifth of Chinese agricultural soil contaminated by pollution, while major portions of groundwater became unusable for farming or human consumption. Urbanization absorbed productive farmland while younger workers abandoned rural regions for cities. Beijing established minimum farmland “red lines” necessary for food security, yet arable land continued shrinking below targets considered necessary for long-term self-sufficiency.
Americans increasingly recognize that foreign influence no longer operates solely through spies, diplomats, or traditional lobbying organizations.
At the same time, rising incomes transformed Chinese diets. Pork consumption exploded as hundreds of millions entered the middle class. Industrial hog production requires enormous quantities of corn and soybeans, and China’s domestic grain production could not keep pace with livestock demand. China became dependent on foreign agricultural systems not only for food imports but for the infrastructure supporting industrial meat production itself.
North Carolina illustrates how this dependency reshaped parts of rural America. The state developed one of the world’s largest concentrated hog-farming systems, built around confined animal feeding operations that produce millions of gallons of waste annually. Hog waste in eastern North Carolina is commonly stored in massive open-air lagoons containing urine, feces, blood, bacteria, and chemical runoff. Waste from these lagoons is sprayed across nearby fields, while heavy rains and hurricanes have repeatedly caused lagoons to overflow into rivers and residential areas. Entire communities became defined by the stench and contamination produced by industrial hog operations. Residents living near the farms reported respiratory problems, headaches, nausea, insect infestations, and polluted groundwater.
These environmental costs remained in the United States while Chinese food-security pressures intensified involvement in foreign pork systems. China’s domestic hog industry faced severe environmental criticism because concentrated pig farming polluted waterways and strained land and water resources. Then African swine fever devastated China’s hog population beginning in 2018, destroying hundreds of millions of pigs and causing major pork shortages. Chinese-linked demand for pork production abroad increased as Beijing sought more secure supply chains. American land absorbed part of the environmental burden associated with Chinese meat consumption.
The relationship extended beyond pork itself. Industrial hog production requires enormous feed imports, particularly soybeans and corn. China’s livestock industry became heavily dependent on imported American grain because domestic production could not sustain rising demand. American farmland increasingly functioned as external support infrastructure for China’s food system.
China also pursued American agricultural technology because biotechnology offered a way to compensate for declining soil quality and limited arable land. Access to genetically modified seed technology, crop science, and agricultural intellectual property accelerated China’s domestic capabilities while reducing dependence on foreign suppliers. Chinese efforts to obtain American agricultural intellectual property included both acquisitions and illicit activity involving proprietary seed technology. Agricultural biotechnology determines yields, pest resistance, drought resilience, and long-term productivity. Control over those technologies directly affects national food security.
The same fusion of economics, politics, and long-term influence appeared in education. Chinese Communist Party doctrine historically treated education and propaganda as inseparable. After 1949, schools became instruments of ideological conditioning. Students were taught political loyalty through the “five loves”: love of the motherland, the people, labor, science, and public property. Teachers underwent ideological retraining while Mandarin standardization became tied to political conformity and state authority. Education functioned not only to transfer knowledge but to shape political consciousness.
These assumptions shaped Chinese educational initiatives abroad. Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms expanded rapidly throughout the United States, embedding themselves in universities, K-12 schools, and educational nonprofits. More than 500 Confucius Classrooms operated inside American schools at their peak. Programs were especially active in states seeking trade and investment relationships with China. Educational partnerships often developed alongside economic agreements, sister-city arrangements, and political exchanges between American officials and Chinese counterparts.
Internal communications and meeting records tied to these programs openly framed education as a political instrument. In one discussion surrounding educational cooperation, participants emphasized that introducing Chinese language and culture into American classrooms would help cultivate future American elites with “friendly feelings” toward China. Another set of discussions connected educational outreach directly to improving China’s image and strengthening long-term bilateral influence at the local and state level. Programs were not described merely as language initiatives; they were described as mechanisms for shaping perceptions and relationships over time.
Chinese officials and affiliated organizations specifically targeted governors, mayors, school superintendents, and state education officials because local educational systems provided influence channels outside national political scrutiny. Partnerships in states like Minnesota and North Carolina linked Chinese educational programs with economic cooperation initiatives and trade relationships. Schools received Chinese funding, teachers, curricular materials, and subsidized cultural programming while American administrators participated in conferences and exchange visits organized through Chinese state-linked entities.
The programs systematically avoided politically sensitive topics such as Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, and criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. Chinese language instruction became attached to carefully curated presentations of Chinese politics and society. Students were introduced to Chinese history and culture through frameworks approved by the CCP while politically contentious issues disappeared from the curriculum entirely.
Many of the organizations involved in these initiatives were connected to the United Front Work Department, the CCP apparatus responsible for political influence operations abroad. Educational nonprofits and sister-school arrangements frequently acted as intermediaries that obscured direct Chinese state involvement. When scrutiny increased and universities closed Confucius Institutes, many programs simply rebranded or shifted into other institutional forms while maintaining the same personnel, funding relationships, and educational content.
This differed fundamentally from cultural programs sponsored by countries such as France or Germany. French and German cultural organizations promote language and culture inside pluralistic political systems that tolerate criticism and competing interpretations of national history. Chinese educational initiatives emerged from a political structure where propaganda and education operate together. The objective was not simply to increase Mandarin literacy. The programs sought to shape how future American business leaders, educators, policymakers, and students understood China and interpreted the Chinese political system.
The same methods became highly visible in New Zealand under Xi Jinping. Chinese officials openly described New Zealand as a model relationship for Western democracies. Influence operations expanded through political donations, business relationships, diaspora organizations, universities, and Chinese-language media.
National Party MP Jian Yang became one of the most controversial figures in New Zealand politics because of his background at institutions connected to Chinese military intelligence training. Before entering Parliament, he studied and later taught at organizations involved in training personnel for Chinese intelligence services. His background was not fully disclosed publicly when he immigrated to New Zealand and entered political life. Despite these concerns, he became deeply integrated into New Zealand politics and served on parliamentary committees dealing with foreign affairs and defense.
Equally interesting is that Businessman Zhang Yikun donated substantial sums to both the National Party and Labour Party while maintaining ties to organizations connected to Beijing’s united front system. Donations linked to Chinese business networks became a growing source of controversy because they coincided with increasing political reluctance to criticize China publicly.
Similarly, Labour MP Raymond Huo developed close involvement with organizations linked to Chinese community networks aligned with Beijing. Chinese embassies and consulates worked closely with local Chinese associations while community leaders were invited to China for political meetings and relationship-building activities.Chinese-language media outlets inside New Zealand increasingly echoed Beijing’s positions while critical or independent Chinese-language voices declined.
Universities also became economically dependent on Chinese international students and institutional partnerships. Concerns emerged surrounding self-censorship on issues involving Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and criticism of the CCP because universities feared jeopardizing relationships with China or losing tuition revenue. Chinese student organizations operated closely with embassy networks and monitored political activity among Chinese students abroad.
Xi Jinping elevated these activities through the expansion of united front work, which he described as one of the CCP’s “magic weapons”. United front strategy combined political relationships, educational programs, media influence, business dependency, diaspora management, and economic leverage into a coordinated system. The objective was to shape the political environment inside foreign democracies by creating networks of institutional dependence and social pressure. Criticism of China became politically costly, economically risky, and institutionally discouraged.
Americans increasingly recognize that foreign influence no longer operates solely through spies, diplomats, or traditional lobbying organizations. Influence now operates through farmland, universities, nonprofit organizations, local political relationships, school systems, supply chains, and media ecosystems. China’s presence inside the United States and other Western democracies developed through thousands of institutional relationships that together created long-term political leverage extending far beyond ordinary commerce or cultural exchange.
READ MORE:
Broadly Speaking, the Iran War Is About China
Zhang Youxia’s Arrest: Xi Jinping’s Paranoia Leaves CCP Elites in Fear
Xi Jinping: ‘The Reunification of Our Motherland Is Unstoppable’
