Because of the U.S. funding freezing, the entire global ecosystem of China nonprofits is facing an extinction event.
I'm not exaggerating for clicks. This is really what is happening. Read my piece below:
In many cases, these orgs provide our last window into what is actually happening in China. They do the painstaking, risky work of tracking Chinese censorship, tallying local protests, uncovering rights violations, & documenting the Uyghur genocide.
The research and other work done by these nonprofits is invaluable. It largely isn’t replicated by think tanks, universities, private firms, or journalists. If it disappears, nothing will replace it, and Beijing’s work to crush it will be complete.
The US spending freeze has revealed how dependent these organizations are on a single government for their survival—and, by extension, how fragile our sources of information about China really are.
The US must immediately grant emergency waivers to China-focussed nonprofits. If the US is not able to do this, governments around the world that value democracy, human rights, and truth must step in and find a way to restore funding to these organisations now.
This crisis should serve as a wake-up call for democracies everywhere. Funding from a single government should not be the only thing standing between us and an information blackout on Chinese civil society. That is not a model of international democratic resilience.
A key part of China’s agenda is to persuade its own citizens and the world, falsely and through deception and coercion, that democratic systems are not better. Beijing claims its system is the best way to guarantee economic prosperity and stability.
It is difficult and time-consuming to do the work that proves Beijing is lying. Tools that allow us to uncover the flaws of China’s own system, and the actual struggles Chinese people face, directly support the goals, security, and resilience of democratic governments.
Without the work that China nonprofits do, it will be much harder to show that China’s governance model is deeply flawed. If we can no longer prove that, it becomes much harder to understand why democracies are worth fighting for in the first place.
Thanks for everyone who has reached out to try to help. A very important note: USAID does NOT fund any of these China nonprofits. The funding I'm talking about is State Department grants. Efforts to preserve USAID are great but they won't help these China orgs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: The Trump administration has just told a federal judge in a court filing that it will not comply with the court's order to resume funding for USAID and State Department foreign assistance.
Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali wrote in a filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Trump administration must unfreeze foreign assistance payments to USAID and State Department grantees.
The Trump admin's response, filed by Pete Marocco, the new Director of the Office of Foreign Assistance at State, states that the administration will continue its freeze on funds for both USAID and State:
Tim Walz brings a level of interest in China that is rare in a politician nominated for so high an office. In recent years, Walz has focused on China's human rights record. This is a man who will be unlikely to value market access over democratic values.
Criticism that Walz is pro-CCP is silly, and I don't say that lightly. Walz was pro-engagement with China for a long time. So was I, and no one would ever call me pro-CCP. China changed, and my views (and that of many others) changed with it.
Walz appears to actually LIKE the country and people of China, as do I. That's an enormous strength. One of the best ways to counter the CCP is by not letting the CCP define China or its people.
Friday is my last day at Axios, after 4 wonderful years. I'm looking for new opportunities to continue doing journalism and/or investigations related to China. Please DM with leads if you have any!
A thread of my best work at Axios over the years:
Our editor-in-chief said this week that I "led some of our most ambitious investigative stories and journalism." Another colleague described me as a "one-woman investigative powerhouse."
If you're interested in bringing that powerhouse to your own newsroom, DM me.
This data-based investigation uncovered Airbnb rentals in Xinjiang hosted on land owned by a sanctioned entity. It took real ingenuinity to get and use this data the way we did. Airbnb left the China market entirely a few months later.
I'm so proud of this amazing reporting series we did at Axios — five beautifully laid out longform dispatches from Tanzania, Okinawa, and Micronesia — with support from the @pulitzercenter.
@pulitzercenter This story about the CCP-funded party training school was very difficult to report out. But through ingenuity and dedication, we did it — we managed to get an inside look at the closed-door CCP-led training sessions despite being blocked at every turn by Tanzania's ruling party.
@pulitzercenter My 2nd Tanzania story provides a nuanced inside look at the overseas Chinese help center there & its director. The centers have attracted scrutiny in the west. They provide needed services but also replicate China's domestic structures of social control.
I'm so thrilled that 2023 is the year the New York Times, Washington Post, and AP have started writing about China's United Front work in diaspora Chinese communities. It was lonely out here for a while!
In 2017-2018, I published an investigative series (for @ForeignPolicy) about China's United Front work among Chinese communities in the United States.
The Chinese government blacklisted me in 2019, almost certainly because of that series.
It's been lonely out here!
@ForeignPolicy Here are the recent (excellent) stories from WaPo, NYT, and AP that I'm referring to, in reverse chronological order
WaPo: In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing’s positions generate anxiety.
I actually think we have a pretty healthy debate going on regarding China right now in DC. There's the usual mudslinging, but what we're doing is actively debating what kinds of policies the U.S. should take, while operating on a reasonably overlapping set of accepted facts.
We've gotten so accustomed to differing sides operating on such completely different planes of reality (climate change is real vs hoax, Obamacare is wonderful vs actual slavery) that operating from a reasonably similar set of accepted facts now feels uncomfortable to some.
A reasonably similar set of accepted facts isn't groupthink. It's healthy informed debate.