Title: The Silk Strings of Empire: On the Subtle Instruments of Chinese Influence in the American Right
It is a persistent temptation of democratic societies to imagine that authoritarian power is always wielded bluntly—through tanks, decrees, and Orwellian censorship. That China might instead wield influence by whisper, by flattery, by trademark concessions and well-placed friendships, is too serpentine a notion for a public trained to expect tyranny in jackboots, not stilettos. Yet to observe the American political right over the last decade—its sudden silences on Chinese human rights abuses, its curious capitulations in rhetoric, its entanglements in profit and propaganda—is to glimpse something both subtler and older than the Cold War’s Manichaean simplicity. It is to see influence as the ancients knew it: as an art.
If the name Trump once signaled the American ideal of brash autonomy, by the time Donald Trump assumed the presidency, it was already an emblem freighted with international entanglements. The family’s complex portfolio of trademarks, leases, and potential development deals in the People’s Republic of China was less a scandal than a shrug. That Ivanka Trump, while acting as a senior advisor to the president, secured Chinese trademarks for her personal brand—covering everything from spas to voting machines—might in another era have raised the specter of foreign emolument. But in a media environment so saturated by scandal that corruption became atmospherically normalized, these instances passed without consequence. The moral imagination of the republic, overworked and undernourished, had little energy left to parse the fine print of soft influence.
Nor was this softening limited to the corridors of real estate or fashion. That Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News—a network vociferously nationalistic, ostentatiously anti-globalist, and nominally adversarial toward communist regimes—should simultaneously echo Chinese disinformation on COVID-19’s origins, parrot Beijing’s talking points about Western decadence, or downplay Uyghur persecution, presents a paradox too little examined. That this paradox intersects with the figure of Wendi Deng Murdoch, the Chinese-born ex-wife of Rupert Murdoch and close friend of Ivanka Trump, is less conspiracy than court intrigue. A 2018 report by U.S. intelligence agencies quietly warned of Deng’s potential ties to Chinese government interests, particularly in relation to her lobbying for architectural projects near sensitive military installations. Though no formal charges were ever brought, the portrait painted was one of access and ambiguity—the very medium in which influence thrives.
This network—composed of Murdochian media, Trumpian politics, and a floating class of cosmopolitan intermediaries—has not simply betrayed an ideological lapse but suggested a strategic alignment. China’s goals are not mysterious: to weaken American moral authority, divide its political factions, and embed Beijing-friendly narratives in Western discourse. That it might achieve this not by bribery or espionage but through the oxygen of profit, the temptations of fame, and the loose ethics of media empires, should not surprise anyone who has read Machiavelli—or Madison.
It was Madison who feared that “factions,” left unrestrained, would deform the republic. He did not imagine those factions amplified by cable news, subsidized by foreign markets, and distracted by cultural warfare so relentless that geopolitical clarity becomes impossible. In this landscape, China’s greatest weapon may be America’s own taste for sensation over substance. When Fox News, in the same hour, rails against Marxist conspiracies while platforming hosts who have openly praised China’s stability or urban planning, it ceases to be an ideological project and becomes a vessel for discord. Wendi Deng Murdoch, whose social circle bridges Beijing, New York, and Davos, is emblematic of the new emissaries of empire: not diplomats, not spies, but guests at dinner parties where policy is softened over Pinot Noir.
Certainly, skeptics will note the absence of a smoking gun. There are no signed directives from Xi Jinping to Rupert Murdoch or a trail of yuan leading from the Politburo to Trump Tower. But if the twentieth century taught anything, it is that influence does not always declare itself in ink. It arrives as suggestion, as access, as the soft murmur of markets opening and doors closing. It is the whisper in the greenroom, not the command in the war room, that often determines the course of a nation.
China, ancient and undemocratic, has always understood this. It knows that in a democracy addicted to outrage and novelty, influence need not be forced. It need only be offered, like a gift. And the American right, for all its flag-waving, has proven remarkably eager to accept the gift horse—so long as its mane is brushed, its hooves polished, and its stable air-conditioned.
A Historical Echo: The Subtlety of Influence in Democracies
To understand the mechanics of Chinese influence within the American Right, it is crucial to examine the historical context within which such subtle forces operate. Democracy, by nature, is susceptible to the quieter forms of persuasion that authoritarian regimes excel at deploying. The ancient states understood that the overtly coercive act is seldom the most effective: the subtler hand, the understated gesture, proves far more durable.
In the mid-twentieth century, as the Soviet Union flexed its geopolitical muscles, it was not through direct military intervention in Western politics that the USSR sought to undermine American ideals. Rather, the Soviet Union achieved its greatest influence by weaving webs of ideological influence and subtly exploiting the social fissures in Western democracies. One can trace the roots of modern Russian propaganda in the Soviet-era strategies of cultural subversion and intelligence operations which sought to split the Left from the Right, to manipulate policy through supporting certain factions, and to feed divisions. As the Cold War grew colder, the methods of subversion moved away from blatant interference towards more insidious, sophisticated channels, many of which still persist in the modern era.
Yet while the Soviets employed grandstanding attempts to gain favor, China's approach has been far more elegant. Its ability to manipulate international business, leverage influential media figures, and cultivate quiet personal relationships demonstrates an understanding of modern diplomacy as an art form, one that does not necessarily require an overt, public agenda. The Chinese government is an institution that does not believe in the “clumsy force” of earlier models of foreign intervention. In the post-Cold War world, Beijing recognized that it must work within the rules of the West to maintain its legitimacy and project power abroad. Rather than directly challenging the dominant powers, it cleverly positioned itself as both an economic partner and a moral alternative. China's deft manipulation of intellectuals, the elite classes, and political figures who prefer soft power to military conquest mirrors the Soviets' older, covert model—but with the addition of the global market as an active player.
The Trump family’s dealings with China fit seamlessly into this long-standing pattern. Their real estate ventures in the Middle Kingdom—cautiously cultivated under the previous administration—served as both a financial windfall and, in the eyes of the Chinese government, a prime opportunity to influence the American political landscape. In such a climate, one does not need explicit action from Beijing to realize the potential value of a "friendly" president or a supportive family. As long as Donald Trump and his allies in the family continued to maintain these ties, China did not need to exert overt pressure on them. The very nature of these dealings—private and behind-the-scenes—ensures that the relationships remain difficult to scrutinize, but not immune to exploitation.
The Family Business: Trump's Financial Dependencies
As with most matters surrounding the Trump family, the truth of their dealings in China is obscured by the grandeur of the Trump brand itself. However, the relationship between the Trump Organization and China deserves closer scrutiny. Ivanka Trump’s securing of trademarks in China during her father’s presidency stands as perhaps the clearest example of the blurred lines between family profit and foreign influence. The timing of these trademarks cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. Ivanka’s burgeoning international brand suddenly found favor in China—a country where trademark law, at the time, was notoriously fickle and often influenced by state interests. Her father’s role as president did not necessitate a formal quid pro quo arrangement. Instead, the family’s connection to the highest echelons of the American government likely provided the necessary leverage for these business transactions to unfold as smoothly as they did.
The ethical questions surrounding Ivanka’s trademarks raise broader concerns about foreign influence within the United States. The Emoluments Clause—an aspect of the Constitution designed to prevent foreign governments from buying influence through direct financial compensation to American officials—was virtually ignored during the Trump administration. The suggestion that these business dealings and the securing of trademarks could be seen as a form of indirect compensation to the Trump family does not seem far-fetched. The notion that China's government, a non-democratic state, might engage in such soft coercion to ensure favorable policies, or at least reduce opposition, is not only plausible but strategic.
What remains most disturbing about the Trump family’s business entanglements is the systemic inability or unwillingness of democratic institutions to confront them. Unlike foreign government operatives or lobbyists seeking explicit policy shifts, China’s actions, when viewed through the lens of business, appeared benign. But history suggests that it is not the overt gifts of cash or promises of policy change that should worry us, but rather the insidious financial entanglements that act as an invisible form of leverage.
Fox News: The New Propaganda Wing?
If the Trump family’s dealings with China offer a glimpse into the financial side of American-Chinese relations, the role of media—specifically Fox News—offers a window into the ideological subversion at play. While Fox News is ostensibly an American network, its ties to Chinese money and influence have long been the subject of quiet speculation. Under Rupert Murdoch’s ownership, the network has consistently shifted from its earlier days of fierce anti-communism to increasingly sympathetic rhetoric on China. While Murdoch has publicly criticized China, his business interests in the region speak volumes about the realpolitik of the situation.
One cannot overlook the shifting stance of Fox News when it comes to China. The network has, at various points, downplayed the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, softened its rhetoric on human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and echoed narratives sympathetic to Chinese government positions. These positions do not arise from nowhere; they are strategically aligned with Murdoch’s interests in maintaining access to Chinese markets and protecting his media empire’s profitability within the region. The recent years saw Fox’s increasingly pro-China stance even as the Trump administration—once publicly hawkish on Beijing—adopted policies that occasionally contradicted the views put forth by Fox News personalities.
The nature of this media influence cannot be understood in simplistic terms. Fox News is not explicitly on the Chinese payroll, but the subtle alignment of its messages with Chinese priorities cannot be dismissed as coincidental. A network built upon sensationalism and populist rhetoric naturally has the most to gain from becoming a willing partner in promoting China’s strategic narrative—a narrative that serves to weaken American resolve while presenting China as a stable, alternative model of governance.
Murdoch’s willingness to sacrifice ideological purity for access to China’s lucrative market is a choice that speaks to a broader cultural and political reality: in an era where media is as much about markets as messages, the lines between profit and propaganda blur. What has emerged is a corporate media apparatus willing to echo Beijing’s message when it serves its bottom line. The connection between Fox News and China, while far less explicit than a spy ring or governmental directive, is no less profound for its subtlety.
The Politics of Influence: Wendi Deng Murdoch and the New Elite Diplomacy
In the intermingling spheres of business, politics, and media, the figure of Wendi Deng Murdoch presents the most complex case. A Chinese-born entrepreneur, Deng’s personal ties to Rupert Murdoch were not merely the stuff of high society gossip. They were part of a larger geopolitical strategy. Deng's intimate relationship with Murdoch positioned her at the intersection of power in both China and the West. Her business dealings and media involvement further cemented her status as a potential conduit for Chinese influence.
Her role as an intermediary between Chinese government interests and Western elites cannot be easily dismissed. Deng’s position as a key figure within Murdoch’s media empire allowed her to exert influence on a variety of media channels that shaped Western views on China. But beyond her media empire connections, Deng's personal relationships with high-ranking Chinese officials—including President Xi Jinping—suggest a deeper involvement in Chinese soft power operations. She is not just an observer; she is a player in the global theater of influence, moving between power centers with the ease of a diplomat who does not need official credentials.
The Broader Picture: China’s Long Game
To understand the larger implications of this quiet manipulation, one must place these individual connections into the broader context of China’s global ambitions. The Chinese government has long recognized that in order to challenge American hegemony, it must first undermine the moral and cultural foundations that support it. China’s strategy, then, is not one of direct confrontation but of incremental influence—a steady encroachment that takes advantage of the dissonance inherent in democratic societies. By nurturing alliances with elites, shaping cultural narratives, and leveraging economic ties, China aims to foster a world more sympathetic to its interests.
This long game is playing out across multiple fronts, in politics, business, and media. The fact that the American Right, once the fiercest critic of Communist regimes, has found itself so enmeshed in China’s web speaks to the paradox of our times: it is not coercion or propaganda alone that shapes modern geopolitics, but the softer, subtler threads of influence woven through business, media, and elite diplomacy.
Conclusion: The Death of Bipartisan Vigilance
The quiet relationship between China and the Trump family, Murdoch’s media empire, and other American elites represents a profound shift in how influence is wielded in the modern age. The notion of foreign interference has evolved beyond the blunt tools of espionage and corruption to embrace the subtler instruments of cultural influence and financial entanglement. While no explicit “smoking gun” exists to prove the case of Chinese manipulation, the circumstantial evidence—woven through business dealings, media narratives, and personal connections—becomes impossible to ignore.
If America is to confront the rise of China as a global power, it must first recognize the nature of this influence. The Chinese strategy is not one of overt confrontation, but of quiet infiltration. The American Right, whether through greed, opportunism, or naiveté, has unwittingly become an accomplice in a far-reaching geopolitical drama. The stakes are high, and the time for reckoning is long overdue.
