A wave of anti-China sentiment has surged through state legislatures across the United States in 2023, with at least 240 proposals introduced aimed at severing ties with China in various sectors.
Legislators are focusing on prohibiting public funds from supporting Chinese technology, a move that extends from high-tech items like drones to everyday tourist items such as T-shirts and key chains.
States are not just limiting purchases; they are also scrutinizing sister-city relationships that connect American cities with their Chinese counterparts.
As U.S.-China relations have soured, state officials have taken robust actions to ensure that local government agencies, police forces, and public pension systems do not engage with Chinese businesses or products.
In Kansas, a new law emphasizes restrictions in areas such as artificial intelligence and medical equipment.
Meanwhile, the Arkansas legislature has banned contracts for promotional items that may come from China, while Tennessee has gone a step further by prohibiting health insurance coverage for organ transplants involving organs from China.
“Either the United States or China is going to lead the world in the next few decades,” stated Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who championed a wide-reaching “Communist China Defense” legislative package.
She further emphasized her intention for the U.S. to take the lead over China.
The push for these anti-China measures gained momentum even before the implementation of significant tariffs during the Trump administration, with the ongoing economic and political climate fostering this trend.
According to an analysis by the Associated Press using bill-tracking software Plural, anti-China proposals have emerged in at least 41 states, predominately in GOP-controlled legislatures.
The rhetoric from the Trump administration during his first term laid the groundwork for the current surge in legislative measures against China, as many state officials felt encouraged by his hardline stance, particularly regarding trade.
COVID-19 also played a pivotal role in shifting public attitudes toward China, casting a shadow on prior positive trade relations.
Kyle Jaros, an associate professor at the University of Notre Dame, noted that the attitude during the Obama administration encouraged state engagement with China, which contrasts sharply with the more critical perspective adopted by the Trump administration.
Engaging in anti-China legislation has proven to be a politically safe move for officials.
David Adkins, former Kansas legislator and current CEO of the Council on State Governments, pointed out that vilifying China poses little risk for politicians of both parties.
While some argue that the push is driven by strategic lobbying rather than popular demand, the incidence of a Chinese balloon crossing into U.S. airspace heightened fears of Chinese technology and investments posing direct threats to national security.
State officials are now viewing Chinese investments through a lens of suspicion, fearing potential espionage or even threats to food security.
Chris Croft, Kansas House Majority Leader and a retired Army colonel, emphasized the necessity for a unified effort among both state and federal entities to counter the perceived threat from China.
The state of Kansas recently introduced a law that severely restricts property ownership within a 100-mile radius of military installations by firms and individuals associated with foreign adversaries, specifically naming China, as well as North Korea and Iran.
Despite a prevalent push for stricter ownership laws, some skepticism exists regarding the actual threat posed by foreign investments in farmland.
Critics assert that the influence of Chinese and other foreign entities in U.S. agriculture remains minimal—a U.S. Department of Agriculture report notes that interests from several countries combined made up less than 1% of the nation’s agricultural land by the end of 2023.
In Arkansas, the ban on sister-city partnerships primarily affects Little Rock, leading some to question the effectiveness and relevance of such measures.
Even within conservative circles, doubts are arising.
In North Dakota, where a Chinese company’s plans to develop farmland near an Air Force base spurred a legislative reaction, proposed measures to divest state funds from Chinese investments met with significant pushback.
Despite efforts by some lawmakers to pass more stringent divestment laws, such measures ultimately failed in the state Senate, reflecting the complexity and nuance surrounding foreign investment discussions.
Republican Senator Dale Patten highlighted the contradictions in state legislation, pointing out that the legislature itself likely holds investments in products made in China, complicating their position against Chinese entities.
As the legislative push continues, it remains uncertain whether states will successfully decouple from China or if national policy changes may displace or undermine local measures.
According to Minnich, should Trump’s tariffs lead to an improved relationship with China, state efforts may become less relevant in the big picture.
However, many states are expected to retain their focus on addressing legitimate concerns regarding Chinese interests and the potential for cyber threats.
While some may view the measures as shortsighted or politically motivated, the increasing scrutiny on Chinese investments reflects a broader national narrative questioning the implications of foreign involvement in critical sectors.
image source from：https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/24/nation/us-states-anti-china-proposals/
