Follow us on social

google cta
Congress and the 4 faces of China baiting bills in 2023

Congress and the 4 faces of China baiting bills in 2023

Congress didn’t do much this year, but members took aim at Beijing in legislation at every chance

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

The first session of the 118th Congress was one of the least productive in the body’s history. Only 22 bills were signed into law this year by the president — by far the lowest total since at least 1993, the first year for which the National Archives have data. (For comparison, the next least productive year during this timespan was in 2013, when 72 bills became law.)

Despite the slow year, members nonetheless found time to introduce an abundance of bills relating to the threat of China, which was the focus of hearings in committees ranging from Financial Services to the Judiciary committee, and of legislation concerning everything from fentanyl distribution to TikTok.

In 2023, members introduced 616 pieces of legislation that contain a variation of the word “China” — more than 3.5 for every day that Congress was in session on average. That’s already more than any two-year congressional session, except for the 117th Congress (2021-2022; 860 bills) and the 116th (2019-2020; 620 bills), according to a search of the congressional record.

One of the few “accomplishments” in Congress this year was the formation of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party — which was almost instantly dubbed the “tough on China committee” — in January.

From that starting point, bills targeting China’s presence in economic, technological, military, and other fields were introduced. To be sure, in line with other issues, none of these bills became law. But here are the four broad types of anti-China legislation introduced in Congress in 2023.

The legislation targeting foreign purchase of land in the U.S.

Members of Congress introduced at least nine bills aimed at restricting foreign ownership of agricultural land in the United States. As RS has explained, these efforts are not always logical, even if there are some legitimate national security concerns over China or other nations buying up farmland.

Some of the proposed legislation is more targeted and looks to tackle these concerns, but others chose a broader approach. The harshest measure was introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Katie Britt (R-Ala.) in their “Not One More Inch or Acre Act,” which directed the president to take the actions necessary to “to prohibit the purchase of public or private real estate located in the United States by citizens and entities of the People's Republic of China.”

The bills that discourage diplomacy …

One of the clear themes to emerge from this session of Congress is that many China hawks interpret diplomacy as a sign of weakness. One example is the bill introduced by Reps. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisc.) and Lance Gooden (R-Texas) calling on Biden to take the necessary actions to close the Chinese consulate in New York City. As Cornell University professor Jessica Chen Weiss noted when the Trump administration closed a Chinese consulate in Houston over allegations of espionage, “losing the consulate does not appear to be part of a coherent strategy to deter or compel China to alter its behavior,” and could rather be interpreted as part of an effort to bolster fears of Beijing being an existential threat.

… And the ones that increase the chances of war

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) and five co-sponsors introduced the “Defund China’s Allies Act” to “prohibit the availability of foreign assistance to certain countries that do not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan,” aimed at 21 countries in Central America and the Caribbean. The bill argues that the “United States efforts to condemn these countries’ willing diplomatic shift toward a genocidal government is undermined by an incomprehensible adherence to the so-called ‘One China’ policy, on terms dictated by the Chinese Communist Party,” implicitly calling for an end to the policy that has maintained peace in the Taiwan Strait for decades.

The bills that needlessly antagonize without accomplishing anything of substance

When it comes to relations with China, many members of Congress choose to “speak very loudly and carry no stick,” as Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) explained to RS in an interview earlier this year. “The question is: how do we do things that will actually help Taiwan's security without unnecessarily escalating or antagonizing the PRC?,” she added. “Not the silly things like renaming an embassy or just saying all this stuff rhetorically. That doesn't actually help Taiwan, but does escalate the conflict with China.”

Jacobs was likely referring to the bills introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Reps. John Curtis (R-Utah), and Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) which would have renamed the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in Washington, D.C. to the Taiwan Representative Office, because it “better reflects its status as Taiwan’s de facto diplomatic mission to the United States.”

That was only one of many bills that were purely symbolic and antagonizing, including one that demanded that Beijing “must be held financially liable for $16,000,000,000,000,” because of its responsibility in the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and a resolution that declared China to be the biggest threat to freedom in the world.

“Whereas it is the opinion of Congress that the Chinese Communist Party is the greatest threat to freedom and to the free world,” reads the text, introduced by Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). “Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress agrees that the Chinese Communist Party is the greatest threat to freedom and to the free world.” That’s the entire resolution.

This year in Congress ended appropriately for a legislature that accomplished very little of substance: The Senate went home for the holidays without reaching an agreement on major legislation that seeks to fund Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and address border security, despite the spending package having the support of the White House and both party’s leadership in the upper chamber.

With 2024 being an election year in which partisan politics often take up an even larger role in Washington and Congress’s two chambers still divided, the prospects for more legislation getting passed are not high. It is not realistic to expect much from Congress next year, but the overload of bills aimed at countering Beijing is one thing that is almost certain to continue.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Lightspring/ Shutterstock

google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

keep readingShow less
us military
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/PRESSLAB

Team America is back! And keeping with history, has no real plan

Latin America

The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.

For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.