On February 10, the US State Department submitted a report to Congress identifying two left-wing organizations as channels for the Chinese Communist Party’s influence operations in the US and exposing their financial networks. Scholars at the Taiwan Institute for National Defense Security pointed out that this is the CCP’s systematic infiltration using civilian organizations to manipulate public perception in a “sunlit cognitive warfare”. They highlighted three ways to counteract this strategy.
The report titled “Countering Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference” submitted by the US State Department on February 10 officially recognized “Pink Code” and “People’s Forum” as providing cover for CCP’s influence operations in the US. It named the “Singham Network” as spreading pro-CCP propaganda in the US. According to the New York Post, this is the clearest political determination by the US government in an official report regarding these organizations to date.
Deputy Secretary of State Sarah Rogers stated, “Organizations like ‘Pink Code’ and ‘People’s Forum’ defame the US, whitewash the violence of Marxist regimes, provide cover for the CCP, and obtain large sums of money from donors associated with the CCP.”
She emphasized that the State Department will achieve “complete transparency” for organizations lobbying for America’s adversaries and attempting to weaken American values, publicly disclosing their donors and non-governmental organization networks.
The report pointed out that Beijing spreads pro-CCP narratives in the US through non-profit organizations, proxy media, and digital platforms. This system is combined with the operations of CCP official media and diplomatic officials in the US with the aim to “undermine America’s reputation and policies and expand its influence.”
The characterization of the “Pink Code” in the report is particularly concrete. The organization, posing as an anti-war group, frequently disseminates pro-CCP rhetoric such as “China is not our enemy” and organizes American citizens to visit China for “red tourism” – visiting revolutionary sites like Ruijin or specially arranged “poverty alleviation model villages”. One participant later stated that the trip made her “realize” that she must “defend the CCP from US government aggression.”
Tom Cotton, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Republican Senator, stated, “I have been urging an investigation into the relationship between ‘Pink Code’ and the CCP, and I am glad the State Department is taking action.”
Xie Peixue, Deputy Researcher at the Taiwan Institute for National Defense Security’s Cyber Security and Decision-making Deduction Research Institute, told Epoch Times that the core logic of such actions is to let CCP narratives enter American society in the form of civilian voices – using Western left-wing mainstream discourse such as anti-war and social justice as banners, operating under the identity of local non-profit organizations, but the narrative aligns closely with the CCP’s official stance, effectively evading public vigilance against foreign propaganda.
He classified this pattern as a “cognitive warfare in the sunlight”, emphasizing its fundamental difference from traditional intelligence operations: “Traditional espionage operates in the shadows and once exposed, fails; whereas this infiltration through civilian organizations operates in public, aiming to manipulate public perception and policy direction.”
Therefore, he said, these actions are often difficult to identify and counter through traditional counterintelligence means.
Shen Mingshi, a researcher at the Taiwan Institute for National Defense Security, told Epoch Times that CCP’s infiltration of societies in various countries has “long existed,” but in recent years, the US government has gradually strengthened its review and intelligence disclosure mechanisms.
He stressed that the CCP tends to operate in a “soft infiltration” mode – often under the guise of cultural exchanges and cooperation, gradually building relationship networks by inviting individuals to China or providing special treatment, “not initially collecting confidential information, but first reducing the alertness of the target through interpersonal relationships and influencing values before taking further action.”
Shen Mingshi also mentioned cases where personnel around governors or members of Congress had contact with individuals with Chinese backgrounds, and such contacts were sometimes used to understand policy trends or obtain internal information.
The US State Department’s report once again brought the long-running financial network to the public eye. “Pink Code” and “People’s Forum” have deep connections with leftist tech mogul Neville Roy Singham in the US. Singham has long been based in Shanghai, and his “Singham Network” consists of multiple non-profit organizations, financial sponsors, and alternative media, covering a global communication network.
In 2023, he attended a seminar to shape the international image of CCP, and his identity was accidentally exposed; afterward, an investigative report by the New York Times revealed his role as a key funder of CCP propaganda.
According to Free News Agency, from 2017 to 2022, Singham and his wife donated over $20.4 million to “People’s Forum” through a series of shell organizations. Singham married Jodie Evans, founder of “Pink Code,” in 2017.
Of note, Evans had previously openly criticized China’s human rights situation, but then “Pink Code” abruptly shifted its stance, fully supporting the CCP, even categorizing Hong Kong democratic protesters as hostile forces.
According to a 2025 report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, there are as many as 19 US left-wing organizations related to Singham, covering organizations like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), ANSWER Coalition, National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), spanning various issue areas including anti-war, social justice, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Manolo De Los Santos, Executive Director of “People’s Forum,” not only frequently appears in interviews with CCP official media but has also praised CCP’s development model as a “youth leading figure” on CGTN, and wrote an article in Chinese media outlet “Observer Net” looking forward to CCP playing a “key role” in the socialist progress in Latin America.
In December 2023, a leaked internal meeting video showed De Los Santos stating to over a hundred listeners in Manhattan, “When we defeat Israel and the American empire, we actually know how to destroy capitalism in the US.”
Xie Peixue believes that these influence operations pose three structural risks to democratic systems:
Distorting public discourse: When foreign propaganda is packaged as “voices of the country’s citizens,” the public debate space critical for the functioning of a democratic society will be significantly polluted, guiding public judgement on policy issues unknowingly.
Exacerbating social divisions: The CCP systematically utilizes America’s existing racial conflicts, class divides, and political polarization, inciting tensions on sensitive issues through related organizations internally, undermining societal cohesion from within, making it difficult for the US to form a united will in foreign policy.
Leading to policy paralysis: When related groups mobilize public opinion against defensive policies towards China, it may lead to delay or obstruction of government decisions. Xie Peixue pointed out that these actions are accustomed to exploiting the openness of democratic systems, “using the banner of democracy against democracy” – damaging the normal functioning of democratic mechanisms within a fully legal framework through freedom of speech and assembly.
Shen Mingshi added from the perspective of structural disadvantages, that when democratic countries deal with infiltration from authoritarian regimes, they always face an “asymmetric” situation of “enemy undercover versus us out in the open”: expanding surveillance and intelligence powers could easily lead to human rights violations, putting them in a dilemma.
He especially noted that many CCP news, cultural, or economic personnel have intelligence backgrounds, while the US business and academic circles generally lack corresponding intelligence prevention awareness, allowing such infiltrations to continue operating for a long time in a low-cost, low-risk manner.
In the face of these threats, the US government has signaled strengthened responses. Deputy Secretary of State Rogers explicitly stated that the donors network of organizations lobbying for America’s adversaries and their associations with non-governmental organizations will be publicly disclosed; Senator Cotton pledged to continue pushing for investigations into the relationship between “Pink Code” and the CCP.
This series of measures marks the US’s response to CCP’s influence operations, moving from intelligence assessments towards public policy actions.
Xie Peixue proposed three institutional directions: firstly, enhance the financial transparency of non-profit organizations, requiring traceability to the ultimate fund controllers; secondly, rigorously enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), mandating registration for organizations clearly serving the interests of foreign governments, placing their activities under public scrutiny; thirdly, promote cross-sectoral coordination, with joint actions by judiciary, finance, diplomacy, and intelligence systems, and sharing intelligence with allies to cut off the financial and command chains of influence operations.
Shen Mingshi suggested two social priorities: systematically review existing legal frameworks to evaluate if they have sufficient punishment and deterrent capabilities against infiltration behaviors; if there are deficiencies, expedite legislative reinforcement. Simultaneously, raise public awareness, emphasize that American society should not view activities related to the CCP with a purely open mindset, “must be aware that behind them often lies clear political intent”; if suspicious activities are discovered, promptly report to law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
The assessments by the two scholars converge on a core conclusion: to counteract the “cognitive warfare in the sunlight,” reliance on secret responses from intelligence agencies alone is not enough, systematic strengthening of institutional resilience and citizen awareness in an open and transparent manner in democratic societies is crucial. As demonstrated in this report, exposing infiltration networks to the public eye is itself a critical defense against this threat.