Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1405652789-scaled

Media fail to identify xenophobia as Biden says Trump ‘rolled over for Chinese’

Joe Biden and some of his supporting super PACs are choosing to adopt, rather than challenge, the anti-China premise of the Trump campaign's attacks.

Analysis | Washington Politics

As Covid-19 and its economic effects clearly dominate all else politically, ads for the Trump campaign are ramping up the anti-China rhetoric in an effort to deflect blame. The first attack ad Donald Trump launched since Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee was titled “Biden Stands Up for China” (4/9/20), while a pro-Trump super PAC is airing multiple ads (4/16/20, 4/16/20) painting Biden as cozy with China. One ad warned China is “killing our jobs, stealing technology and putting us in danger with Covid-19”; the other concluded, “Now more than ever, America must stop China. And to stop China, you have to stop Joe Biden.”

Rather than respond by focusing blame for the crisis squarely where it belongs—on Trump’s incompetent, reckless and self-centered management—and working to beat back the dangerously rising anti-Asian sentiment in this country, Biden and some of his supporting super PACs are choosing to adopt rather than challenge the anti-China premise of the attacks.

The pro-Biden super PAC American Bridge released an ad (4/17/20) that announced in a menacing voiceover: “[Trump] gave China more than praise. He shipped China 17 tons of American masks and medical supplies. Our masks and supplies. Supplies we need now.”

The Biden campaign put out its own ad (4/18/20) accusing Trump of being the one who’s too cozy with China, saying he “rolled over for the Chinese” and “didn’t hold China accountable” for its own management of the pandemic.

As the Nation‘s Jeet Heer (4/20/20) pointed out, using the phrase “the Chinese” here is particularly problematic, as it conflates China’s government with Chinese people—many of whom live in the United States. And the obsession (shared by much of the media) with “holding China accountable”—i.e., making China a scapegoat—continues to prioritize aggressive us-vs.-them international posturing over international cooperation and looking for lessons from China’s ultimately successful drive to control the virus’s spread inside its country (FAIR.org, 3/24/20).

The responsible way for media to cover this campaign battle would be to call out these xenophobic Yellow Peril ads for what they are. But while some journalists are able to do so for the pro-Trump ads, far fewer are questioning the pro-Biden ads. After Trump’s April 9 ad, a team of New York Times reporters (4/10/20) managed to call the ad “xenophobic”—though its decision to characterize his rhetoric as merely “exploit[ing] racial discord” rather than fomenting it reveals the paper’s continued adherence to its executive editor’s insistence that it must not directly call Trump racist (FAIR.org, 11/22/19). The Washington Post‘s John Wagner (4/10/20), noting that the ad included an image of former Washington State Gov. Gary Locke, said it “appeared to be suggesting that Locke is a Chinese official at a time when Asian Americans face rising bigotry and blame for the coronavirus outbreak.”

But when media later included the pro-Biden response ads, criticism was in short supply.  While Trump’s xenophobia and racism are unparalleled in contemporary mainstream US politics, and therefore easy to identify, it’s certainly possible—and urgent—to point out xenophobia and racism from both major parties, without at the same time falling into the common media fallacy of creating a false equivalence between them.

Reporting a week later on both sides’ ads and rhetoric on China, a separate New York Times team (4/18/20) labeled the GOP strategy an attempt “to divert attention from the administration’s heavily criticized response to the coronavirus by pinning the blame on China.” But the reporters merely found it “striking” to see both Biden and Trump “attempt to portray each other as captive to Beijing.” The piece also described, without commentary, the American Bridge ad.

Meanwhile, in a Post followup  (4/18/20) about Trump’s efforts to link Biden to China, the team of reporters let the rival super PACs offer the only commentary on their ads. And a piece by the Post‘s Michelle Ye Hee Lee (4/19/20) on the American Bridge ad couldn’t get past bland press release-style descriptions in its more than 500 words: “Trump and his allies increasingly are seizing on China’s role in the spread of the novel coronavirus to attack Biden,” while the ad “aims to counter the Trump operation’s narrative.”

Like the New York Times, the LA Times (4/17/20) called Trump’s strategy “xenophobic,” but offered no similar analysis of the pro-Biden messaging.

ABC‘s The Note (4/20/20) appeared to buy in to the ads’ political messaging, arguing that

pinning blame on China could draw bipartisan agreement—particularly as more evidence emerges that the Chinese government knew more than it was letting on months ago.

(It’s worth reiterating that China alerted the World Health Organization about a peculiar form of pneumonia on December 31, 2019, when just 27 cases had been recognized, none of which had yet turned fatal; it was not until a week later that Chinese scientists identified the novel coronavirus as the culprit. China declared a lockdown in Hubei Province on January 23, after 18 deaths had been counted nationwide; by comparison, the first statewide stay-at-home order in the US was issued on March 19, by California, after 200 national deaths.)

On CNN (4/19/20), host Don Lemon aired a clip from Biden’s ad and commented, “The Biden campaign turning the tables on the president there, because Trump has been trying to say that Biden is the one who is too cozy with China.” Contributor Garrett Graff likewise had no critique of Biden’s ad:

Yes, and it’s hard to believe that this administration could get away with saying Joe Biden is soft on China, given the extent to which President Trump is on record praising China over the course of this entire presidency, let alone just in the last couple months during the pandemic.

MSNBC‘s Joe Scarborough (4/18/20) went so far as to rave about Biden’s ad: “This is the most devastating political ad I’ve seen in years. It reveals the truth about Trump and China, and that truth is ugly.”

Over at NBCNews.com (4/18/20), Sahil Kapur laid out the issue for readers:

The back-and-forth shows the extent to which the deadly virus, which experts say originated in the city of Wuhan, has turned China into a powerful election-year issue, with both major party candidates scrambling to get on the right side.

It’s a classic media formulation, but of course it’s not the virus that turned China into a powerful issue—it’s political leaders, aided and abetted by their media accomplices. And unfortunately, the “right side”—the one that seeks to end both the pandemic and xenophobia—is largely missing from the media at the moment.

This article has been republished with permission from FAIR.


Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden (Matt Smith Photographer / Shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Lockheed Martin NASA
Top photo credit: Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Littleton, Colo. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

The Pentagon spent $4 trillion over 5 years. Contractors got 54% of it.

Military Industrial Complex

Advocates of ever-higher Pentagon spending frequently argue that we must throw more money at the department to “support the troops.” But recent budget proposals and a new research paper issued by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University suggest otherwise.

The paper, which I co-authored with Stephen Semler, found that 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending from 2020 to 2024 went to military contractors. The top five alone — Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion) – received $771 billion in Pentagon contracts over that five year period.

keep readingShow less
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.