The New York Times recently published a front-page investigation alleging that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is exerting influence on New York elections through hometown associations, non-profit organizations, and community networks. The report cited videos showing that overseas Chinese groups in their inauguration oaths pledged to “support China’s core policies, including the reunification of Taiwan,” and revealed how Chinese consulate officials interacted with pro-CCP community leaders and candidates to apply pressure. These details highlight Beijing’s efforts to seek political influence overseas.
However, the article sparked backlash within the Chinese community after its release. Many individuals do not deny the interference’s existence but question The New York Times for exaggerating its limited impact into a “decisive force,” with certain parts even being accused of “intentional exaggeration to support their inherent biases towards the Chinese community.”
The report used the example of a former Taiwanese-American State Senator in South Brooklyn, who allegedly faced pressure from the Chinese consulate for attending a reception hosted by the President of Taiwan. Eventually, she lost some support from overseas Chinese leaders and was defeated by a Republican challenger in the 2024 election, leading to the Democratic Party’s loss of an absolute majority in the State Senate. The New York Times portrayed how a pro-CCP figure, Mr. Chen, “interviewed candidates, shifted support, and altered the course/outcome of elections.”
However, examining the distribution of votes, this narrative does not hold true. In Sunset Park, predominantly populated by Fujianese, considered Mr. Chen’s “turf,” the Taiwanese-American State Senator actually received a lead in votes. If overseas Chinese groups could truly sway election outcomes, such results would not have occurred. As a community member put it, “influence exists but not to the extent of changing the results.”
Moreover, The New York Times failed to prove that a shift in overseas Chinese leaders equates to a change in the entire membership of hometown associations. Does the support only translate into mobilization, or can it genuinely convert into votes? This is a gap left by the report. Several Chinese community observers point out that what really influences voter turnout are issues concerning housing, public safety, and livelihood rather than the operations of the Chinese consulate.
Community members who have had multiple interactions with The New York Times reporters even stated directly that they are “not seeking the truth but reporting with extreme bias, cherry-picking materials that fit their preconceived narratives, and even making far-fetched associations that are disconnected from reality,” greatly undermining the credibility of journalism.
Two key questions that need to be examined are: first, why did the Mayor skip the Taiwan banquet due to a warning from the Chinese consulate, while the State Senator attending faced ongoing pressure? Who wielded influence in these situations? Second, are non-profit hometown associations violating regulations by endorsing political candidates, and is the flow of government funding transparent with effective oversight? These institutional questions demand answers.
Reducing the discussion to merely “CCP manipulating elections” denies the voters’ autonomy and attributes the outcome of the election solely to “foreign intervention.” Such claims not only distort reality but also involve stigmatizing the community, which is a cause of great anger among many Chinese individuals.