This year, state lawmakers across the United States have introduced at least 240 anti-China proposals, reflecting a significant shift in political and public sentiment towards the nation previously seen as a vital trading partner. These measures aim to ensure that public funds, whether for technology or even promotional items, do not support Chinese companies or products. Furthermore, many of these proposals are aimed at dismantling sister-city relationships between American and Chinese communities, an initiative that once promoted cultural and commercial ties.
In a concerted effort, numerous states are now prohibiting various transactions involving Chinese technology. For instance, Kansas has enacted a law that extends its reach into artificial intelligence and medical equipment, while Arkansas has targeted contracts for promotional items, such as T-shirts and coffee mugs, that feature Chinese manufacturers. Meanwhile, Tennessee has taken a more drastic approach, banning health insurance coverage for organ transplants conducted in China or utilizing Chinese organs.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders encapsulated the motivation behind these legislative efforts, asserting, “Either the United States or China is going to lead the world in the next few decades. For me, I want it to be the U.S.” This aggressive push comes on the heels of a broader national sentiment that has soured against China, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic and heightened rhetoric from officials.
The political landscape has evolved significantly since the Trump administration, which introduced stiff tariffs on Chinese goods, essentially catalyzing a wave of anti-China sentiment among state officials. According to an Associated Press analysis, anti-China proposals are largely stemming from Republican-controlled legislatures, with over 41 states introducing similar measures in 2023.
Kyle Jaros, an associate professor of global affairs at the University of Notre Dame, noted, “The first Trump administration had a very different message than the preceding Obama administration about state and local engagement with China. It tended to not see the value.” This shift in messaging, alongside the alignment of state policies with federal stances, encourages local politicians to adopt a more critical view of China without facing significant political backlash.
David Adkins, a former legislator and current CEO of the Council on State Governments, highlighted that vilifying China has become a political safe space across party lines. He stated, “Politicians of both parties, at all levels of government, pay no price for vilifying China.” Some government experts, like John David Minnich from the London School of Economics, argue that the measures are less about public pressure and more about strategic lobbying efforts targeting specific threats.
The recent rising tensions also correlate with an incident in 2023, when a Chinese balloon flew over U.S. airspace, further alarming state officials. Social tensions and fears regarding national security are driving perceptions that investments from China could lead to potential threats in intelligence and food security.
Kansas House Majority Leader Chris Croft, a retired Army colonel, expressed the collective responsibility of states in countering Chinese influence. He backed a law which restricts property ownership by adversarial foreign entities near military installations, including those from China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. Croft stated, “All of us have a part to play.”
While the push against Chinese investments and technology remains popular, critics have likened these restrictions to taking measures that might not yield substantial results. Approximately 1% of agricultural land in the U.S. is owned by Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, and Cuban interests, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Consequently, skepticism persists, with some lawmakers questioning the consistency of anti-China measures. For instance, in North Dakota, state senators debated the feasibility of divesting from Chinese companies while still relying on products manufactured in China.
In defense of these measures, Republican Senator Dale Patten pointed out the irony of targeting overseas companies while likely using products made by the same entities. He mentioned, “I would guess that this body right now is already heavily invested in neckties that have been manufactured in China, if we want to flip our ties over and take a look at it. That’s how difficult it is when we talk about doing something like this.
Despite criticism, state officials seem determined to continue their legislative efforts against China. Even with Trump’s hints of a potential easing of tariffs, experts like John David Minnich believe that state actions may have limited immediate effects compared to federal policies. States’ concerns about cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure persist as significant motivators.
Kyle Jaros emphasized the importance of these fears, stating, “The vast majority of China’s threats to the U.S. are in cyberspace. Some of those defenses are still not solid.”
As various states push forward with their anti-China proposals, it appears that the trend will continue as part of a larger national strategy to reassess relationships with China and ensure the U.S. maintains its global leadership role.
image source from：https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/24/from-banning-tech-to-ending-sister-city-ties-us-states-have-at-least-240-anti-china-proposals/
