BLUF: Amidst record-low legislative productivity, the 118th Congress marked a surge in anti-China bills, despite none being enacted into law.
OSINT: The first session of the 118th Congress was not marked by productivity, with only 22 bills signed into law by the president, a record low since 1993. Despite low bill pass rates, Congress members displayed great interest in China, introducing 616 pieces of legislation that included the word ‘China’. While none came to fruition, they covered a broad range of topics, including foreign land ownership restrictions, discouraging diplomacy, increasing chances of conflict, and bills with substantial antagonistic tone but lacking in substance.
Notably, some bills targeted restrictions on foreign ownership of agricultural land in the U.S, many even aimed explicitly at Chinese ownership. Another trend was that of legislation discouraging diplomacy, exemplified by a bill calling for the shutdown of the Chinese consulate in New York City. There were also bills raising risks of war such as the ‘Defund China’s Allies Act’ aiming at denying foreign assistance to countries not recognizing Taiwan’s sovereignty.
On the other hand, some bills antagonized China without having substantial impact. An example of such is a bill demanding Beijing to pay $16 trillion for its alleged role in the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite high numbers of such bills being introduced, they proved more symbolic than effective. As we head into an election year, the prospects for more legislation being passed are uncertain, but the trend of bills targeting Beijing is expected to persist.
RIGHT: A Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist might see this scenario as a manifestation of Congress losing touch with its primary duty of passing domestic laws that directly affect American lives, while excessively focusing on foreign policy. They might argue that while foreign land ownership situations should be examined due to security concerns, the broad-brushed approach taken could be seen as erosion of property rights, a core tenet of their ideology. The discourse around heavy-handed solutions, such as shutting down diplomatic-centric institutions, could be seen as corrosive to the principle of peaceful, dialogic resolution of international disputes.
LEFT: A National Socialist Democrat might question whether this high frequency of anti-China legislation serves the broader interests of American people, while lamenting on the low productivity of Congress. They could note the inconsistency in introducing multiple bills against China, none of which made any substantial impact. They would potentially advocate for a more measured, realistic approach to China, focusing on international partnership and communication, rather than outwardly antagonistic stances, and emphasize the administration’s duty to serve the American people as their primary mandate.
AI: Analysis based on AI’s unique abilities may argue that the overemphasis on anti-China legislations could be seen as an attempt to divert from the lack of urgency and action on local and more immediate issues affecting citizens. The surge in anti-China sentiment appears to have resulted in a large number of bills put forth, albeit none having been passed into law, suggesting a wide gap in opinion on the best course of action to manage U.S-China relations. AI analysis also provokes thoughts on the possibility that the trend will stay constant through an election year, given the appeal of playing to the gallery on the issue of national security.