Trojan Horses: Covert Foreign Malign Influence Operations in America
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee U.S. House of Representatives
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
Did we have a hearing when that happened? No. Maybe that was an oversight on the committee's part, but surely we had an oversight hearing when the president accepted a lavish $400 million plane from the Qatari government. Well, you would be correct if you guessed again, no. The full committee apparently has no interest in asking whether a foreign government is buying influence with the president of the United States.
What about a scandal that falls directly within the purview of this subcommittee? Just this summer, the president cut a billion dollar mining deal with Kazakhstan. Within weeks of that deal, investors with a firm called Dominari Securities, which is housed at Trump Tower in New York and partly owned by the president's two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, joined with other partners to take a 20% stake in a corporate entity related to the Kazakhstan project. Around the same time, Cantor Fitzgerald, an investment company controlled by Mr. Lutnick's family and overseen by his sons, Brandon and Kyle Lutnick, helped one of the lead investors working with Dominari on the Kazakh deal raise $210 million in new capital for a related entity. These fundraising rounds typically generate millions of dollars in fees for Cantor, and I don't remember having a hearing when that happened either.
These are just a few of the examples I have time to raise in my five-minute opening remarks. But Mr. Sherman, I look forward to asking you why this committee is so willing to scrutinize foreign malign influence abroad while turning a blind eye to the corruption and foreign influence taking place right here at home. There is a long list of questions this committee has yet to answer, and I intend to ask them. Thank you, and I yield back.
Bill Huizenga
Gentlelady yields back. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record, and we're pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this very important topic. First, we have Mr. Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles y Arrenado e Pluribus Unum senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Not sure how you fit that on your business card, but then we have Dr. Matthew Johnson, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, Mr. Sam Lyman, the head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, and Mr. Donald K. Sherman, the president and chief executive officer at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also known as CREW. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us today.
Your full statements will be made part of the record, and I'll ask you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. And with that, I now recognize Mr. Gonzalez for an opening statement.
Mike Gonzalez
Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. The views I express in this testimony are my own. Nations around the world take advantage of the open nature of American society to seek influence or cause us harm. This is the case whether it's outright enemies such as China and Cuba or shadowy non-governmental organizations or individuals seeking also to sow chaos or to teach schoolchildren that America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
As I explain in my written testimony, foreign groups carrying out these operations can be roughly sorted into two buckets: Islamist and Marxist groups. Organizations and individuals inspired by these two very different ideologies regularly form tactical coalitions. This is the so-called Red-Green Alliance, red being the color of communism and green of Islam, and they unite to fight what they see as a common enemy, which again broadly we can define as the capitalist Christian West. Part of the reason is that sometime in the 1960s, the Marxist left decided to abandon the industrial worker as the locus of revolutionary agency in favor of identity groups based on race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, etc. It is also worth noting that members of the Red-Green Alliance will create mayhem on our streets and college campuses in the name of whatever the issue of the day is, whether Gaza, BLM, Cuba, ICE, the environment, Venezuela, social justice, Iran, etc.
As David Horowitz used to say, the issue is never the issue, the issue is the revolution. They also try to infiltrate and influence the K-12 educational system, institutions of higher education, our government agencies, the lobbying firms that write far too many of our laws, etc. One implication is that we can't avoid a separate societal discussion on whether Sharia law is a foundational element of the religion of Islam and not just of its political Islamist component. What matters here is what the majority of people who adhere to Islam believe. In my testimony, I also highlight China and Cuba as two communist enemies that finance and train members of the Marxist and Islamist networks, and I give examples of how they do this.
One of the main groups carrying out malign influence operations is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR. Like many such groups, some CAIR founders have links to groups broken up by the government post-9/11, groups set up by the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational terror group propped up by Qatar and Turkey. The Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas and has ties with Hezbollah. Other Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood fronts are American Muslims for Palestine and Students for Justice in Palestine, which coordinate action with Marxist groups such as Black Lives Matter, Code Pink, the People's Forum, the ANSWER Coalition, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, etc. Many of the leftist groups are financed by a millionaire, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, who lives in Shanghai and is tightly connected with the Chinese Communist Party, Neville Roy Singham.
I'm told that Code Pink is not going to disrupt this hearing, but if they did, it would be further evidence of the reach of the Singham network. Singham is married to Jodie Evans, the co-founder of Code Pink, and his network funnels funds into the group. Unsurprisingly, according to press reports, various parts of our government have opened investigations into this network. China is also deeply involved in influencing our schools, universities, Hollywood, etc. As for Cuba, for nearly seven decades, the despotic Cuban regime has waged a sustained campaign of subversion against the United States.
Today, this regime that denies freedom to Cubans themselves works with the Singham network and Islamist groups to undermine America's free market system. In December, two Venezuelan generals imprisoned in the US for narcoterroist activities wrote letters to President Trump explaining that Cuba's regime had hatched a plot to flood US streets with drugs to undermine America's moral fiber from within. The conspiracy, wrote one, was successfully executed with help from Colombian guerrilla groups, Cuban operatives, and Hezbollah. A Cuban agent also trained protesters who stormed Columbia University's Hamilton Hall in April 2024. Cuban officials, including the foreign minister, meet with US activists and instruct them on legislative and street action.
America is under threat from foreign influences, and if we want to remain a sovereign nation, we must bring accountability and transparency to our system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Bill Huizenga
Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, and I now recognize Dr. Johnson for an opening statement for five minutes.
Matthew Johnson
Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My remarks summarize the longer written testimony I have submitted for the record. My central point is simple: to understand China's malign influence, we must understand how the Chinese Communist Party exercises power and competes. The party treats organization itself as a source of power, using institutions under its control at home and in seeking access to influential institutions abroad to shape perceptions and decisions in Beijing's favor. The party, in other words, is an organizational weapon.
That phrase comes from Cold War scholar Philip Selznick. His insight was that Leninist parties, of which the Communist Party is one, treat organizations throughout society as potential instruments of political power. They seek entry, access, legitimacy, influential positions, and the capacity to mobilize institutional resources toward political ends. Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, has described organization in strikingly similar terms. At the fourth plenum of the 19th Central Committee in October 2019, Xi declared that, quote, "institutional advantage is a country's greatest advantage, and the competition between systems is the most fundamental competition between states," end quote.
In June 2020, speaking to the Politburo about party organization, he said that a tightly organized system, quote, "a tightly organized system is where a Marxist political party's advantage and strength reside," end quote. He called the CCP's organizational system, quote, "a powerful advantage that no other political party in the world possesses," end quote, operating, quote, "as the body commands the arm and the arm commands the fingers," end quote. Then, in May 2021, Xi instructed the party to, quote, "turn our institutional advantages, organizational advantages, and talent advantages into communication advantages," and he called for a greater use of high-level experts, international conferences, foreign mainstream media, differentiated messaging, i.e. targeting different groups of foreign society, and a larger international circle of friends. The sequence is clear: organization, from the Chinese Communist Party's perspective, is a source of competitive power. Party organization should run through Chinese society, and those advantages should be projected outward to shape foreign perception and decisions.
Inside of China, political functions are embedded across universities, companies, think tanks, media organizations, professional bodies, and the state. These institutions retain specialized functions within their own sectors, but the party can mobilize them for common political missions. Abroad, Beijing cannot simply command an American university, company, journalist, think tank, or activist. It must gain access and cultivate relationships within institutions that shape perception, expertise, and decision-making. But the public record does show that Beijing has an extensive repertoire of carrots and sticks: access to markets, officials, archives, data, research partners, conferences, and funding on one side, the carrot side; visa restrictions, market pressure, intimidation, and legal or administrative costs on the other, for example, lawfare.
China is already well-positioned in media, universities, research institutions, and think tanks. More recently, its outreach has moved toward American activist and political networks. DSA members traveled to China in 2025 on a delegation coordinated in part by a provincial foreign affairs office. Code Pink launched its "China is not our enemy" campaign in 2020 following meetings in Beijing and has since pursued China-focused advocacy and organized travel. Chinese university-based AI specialists have also appeared together with elected American officials in discussions promoting international cooperation and warning against a US-China AI race.
None of these episodes alone establishes tasking or control. Together, however, they show outreach reaching networks that can educate, recruit, advocate, and mobilize. In my submitted testimony, I examine this dynamic in three areas: one is artificial intelligence and data centers, the other is political influence within American political networks, and the last is universities and research institutions. I realize I'm at time, so during questions, it might be good to discuss the responses, which would include transparency, counter-capacity, and how we address my central point that the Communist Party's competitive advantage is, in fact, organizational. Thank you, I look forward to your questions.
Sam Lyman
Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on how malign actors conduct foreign influence operations in the United States. A war is raging between the world's two superpowers for AI supremacy, and China's pulling all the levers of state to win it, including foreign influence operations. As head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, I have spent the last several months meticulously documenting this foreign influence campaign. I welcome the opportunity today to share my findings on the nature and substance of these operations, specifically those that have targeted America's AI build-out. That China wants to beat the US in the AI race is a matter of public record.
As far back as 2018, Xi Jinping singled out artificial intelligence as, quote, "an important strategic handhold for China to gain the initiative in global science and technology competition," end quote. But Beijing talks to its citizens one way about AI and to the rest of the world another. In global forums, and especially in American settings, China is keen to portray itself as an AI dove. The line emanating from China's Western-facing propaganda is that the AI race between the US and China is a, quote, "misleading narrative," end quote. This line was parroted by Xue Lan, the CCP's leading AI ambassador, before an audience of US lawmakers earlier this year.
And over the summer, President Xi stated that AI development should not be a solo performance by any single country but, quote, "rather a symphony of global cooperation," end quote. But such statements contradict the facts, and the facts are these. China has launched complex bot networks and media campaigns to turn American public opinion against AI and data centers. In August, for example, X disclosed a network of roughly 200,000 suspected fake accounts from China, including some 200 of which spread anti-data center messages in American debates over electricity prices, grid reliability, and the costs and benefits of AI infrastructure.
Alongside these bot campaigns, Beijing's English-language propaganda outlets have been vigorously campaigning against American AI data centers. While China uses state media to warn US audiences that data centers are environmentally and economically dangerous, it simultaneously subsidizes up to half of the energy costs of its own AI data centers at home. Running parallel to China's propaganda campaign, the nonprofits and political groups supported by Neville Roy Singham, a Shanghai-based Marxist, have waged an all-out information war on the US technology industry. Over the last decade, Singham has funneled $278 million into a network of US-based nonprofits that the New York Times identified as a "global web of Chinese propaganda." Singham himself has openly collaborated with Chinese Communist Party members and shares office space with a Chinese propaganda agency.
The leaders of his nonprofits have openly collaborated with CCP media to rail against US policies. And those same nonprofits have been amplifying anti-data center messaging for months that directly echoes the CCP's own messaging on American data centers. Deeply enmeshed in the anti-data center effort is the Party for Socialism and Liberation, or PSL, a Marxist-Leninist group with extensive foreign ties whose stated mission is to dismantle American capitalism and whose leadership is drawn directly from the executives of Singham's nonprofits. To put the PSL's impact in concrete terms, it has been a critical mobilizer in anti-data center efforts that delayed, scaled back, or blocked approximately $23.6 billion in proposed AI infrastructure investment, in roles ranging from lead organizer to one member of a broader coalition. Our research tracked 21 separate PSL campaigns across 14 states that have contributed to 10 data center moratoria, one permanent data center ban, and four rejected or scrapped data center projects.
Before closing, I wish to be clear on one final point. Our research findings do not indicate that opposition to data centers is wholly astroturfed. Indeed, much American opposition to data centers is indisputably authentic. But two things can be true at once. First, there is a foreign influence campaign against American AI.
And second, Americans have genuine concerns about the data center build-out that need to be heard. Acknowledging the reality of the former does not negate the reality of the latter. There are both organic and inorganic strains in the debate surrounding data centers and American AI, and the American people deserve transparency to understand which is which. The findings of our research are admittedly disturbing. A party that advances positions aligned with the Chinese government, amplifies its messaging, and seeks to abolish the US government through revolutionary means has distorted the discourse between public officials and American citizens on the topic of artificial intelligence.
The network's methods and motivations in waging this campaign are worthy of investigation, and I hope that this committee will be able to shine a spotlight on both. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my findings. I look forward to taking your questions.
Bill Huizenga
Thank you very much, Mr. Lyman, and Mr. Sherman, you are now recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
Donald K. Sherman
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the chance to summarize my testimony on the impact of President Trump's stunning foreign conflicts of interest on our national security and how this corruption harms American safety and prosperity. My name is Donald Sherman. I am president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to fighting corruption and promoting ethical government. In the wake of revelations that President Donald Trump made over $2 billion monetizing the presidency in 2025, including over $117 million from overseas business, today's hearing on foreign malign influences must examine the biggest enabler of them, the president himself.
According to a Reuters poll, 69% of Americans believe Trump's business interests influence his decisions as president. Hardly surprising when you look at the extent of his conflicts.
Trump has expanded his business empire to profit off the presidency, creating 59 new companies since winning the 2024 election. More than a dozen Trump-branded real estate projects have been announced since Trump became a candidate for president again in 2022. The world has received the message that our government is for sale. Last year, the president accepted a luxury airplane gifted from a foreign nation. What could be a better analogy for the Trojan horse than that?
The Secret Service had enough security concerns about the plane that they asked the president not to use the donated jet in the middle of an international trip. National security experts have repeatedly warned about the risks associated with Trump's business relationships with foreign nations. In Vietnam, for example, President Trump's company applied for five new trademarks after the administration lowered its tariffs on Vietnamese goods in 2025. Days before President Trump's second inauguration, an investment vehicle backed by the United Arab Emirates' national security advisor bought a 49 percent stake in Trump's crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, for 500 million dollars. Months later, the Trump administration handed over America's most sensitive AI chips technology to the UAE despite national security concerns.
This type of corrupt profiteering from influence seekers is unprecedented, dangerous, and in some cases against the law. Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, warned that most of Trump's business appears to be in countries with "authoritarian governments or democratic governments gravitating toward authoritarianism, presenting serious national security challenges to the United States." It was this very concern that foreign financial entanglements could corrupt the presidency and country which led our founders to enshrine the Foreign Emoluments Clause in our Constitution, barring the president and other senior federal officials from receiving profits, gains, or advantages from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. Trump's web of conflicts illustrates how right they were to be concerned. As one former National Security Agency official noted, "Fundamentally, ethics policies governing the executive and his cabinet are national security protections," adding that our founders viewed financial relationships between foreign nations and officials in offices of public trust as a threat to the existence of the Republic itself.
While President Trump is certainly the primary source of these conflicts, his family's profiteering is also deeply concerning. For example, a company tied to Don Jr. received a 620 million dollar loan in taxpayer funds from the Pentagon after a senior White House staffer reportedly intervened. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who serves as special envoy for peace, is involved in many of America's most serious national security decisions. Meanwhile, his private investment firm benefits from a 2 billion dollar investment Kushner secured from Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund. Special Envoy Kushner is reportedly soliciting even more foreign governments for his firm, yet there's still no evidence he's complied with the law and filed a financial disclosure statement, which would allow Congress and the public to question any potential conflicts.
The examples of profiteering are seemingly endless, and the President has fired inspectors general tasked with investigating corruption and left IG vacancies at key agencies like State, NSA, and USAID. In closing, there is important work Congress can do to protect our national security, including conducting vigorous oversight of Trump conflicts, passing legislation to enforce the Emoluments Clauses, and additional legislation to ensure that companies owned or operated by a President or their immediate family members are not eligible to receive government contracts. I urge Congress to take these actions to restore accountability and protect our national security, and I look forward to your questions.
Bill Huizenga
Gentleman's time has expired. With that, we're going to have a short moment of business here. We do have some folks who have not verbally disrupted the committee as of yet, but are in the determination of the clerk, the committee is going to suspend while the Capitol Police restore order in the committee. This has been deemed to be a protest by the clerk because of the nature of the shirts and what is happening. Now, having lived through this this morning with Secretary Becerra with four interruptions with people being forcibly pulled out within the first minute of his testimony, I do appreciate the cooperation.
But obviously, Code Pink and adjacent groups have made a living disrupting hearings, and that is not going to be stood for. So, Mr. Gonzalez, I'd like to start with you. For Americans who have never heard the name of Neville Roy Singham, you started talking about the Singham network that engages in those influence campaigns. And I'd like you to maybe unpack a little bit more what his connections to the Chinese Communist Party and the Cuban regime is and some others. And look, in Michigan, we've become very familiar with a gentleman named Hasan Piker, who has been coming into our state to campaign with a number of candidates.
And his time spent in China I outlined in my opening statement as well. So can you just enlighten us a little bit more about the Singham network?
Mike Gonzalez
Yes, it's extensive. It's got media outfits such as Breakthrough News and the People's Dispatch, which are used to spread Russian and Chinese and Cuban propaganda in this country. According to Fox News today, and in fact, this is in many reports, it has funded Code Pink, it funds the ANSWER Coalition. The People's Forum and the Tricontinental Institute are two main things. The People's Forum is first of all is run by basically a Cuban agent, Manolo De Los Santos, who spent many years in Havana, living in Havana, who is constantly tweeting out pictures of himself with Cuba's puppet dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel.
And I say puppet because Miguel Díaz-Canel is a figurehead. The Castro family continues to run Cuba as if it were its own plantation. So the People's Forum one particular night, the night of April 30th, 2024, held a big rally for demonstrators who were coming from Columbia, Columbia University that is. They asked for the they delayed the meeting for the people to arrive. Then they trained them.
Manolo De Los Santos gave them a Cuban rousing speech. And then they they gave them some training on how to how to break into places. And then they sent them they said, go back and go back uptown. And they did.
And a couple hours later, they took over Hamilton Hall. They disrupted Columbia. Columbia was not able to hold a graduation that year for parents who had paid whatever you get paid to go to Columbia now, $400,000, and your daughter or son are not able to have a graduation because of all this. It really is a, but that's a pattern. It's a pattern.
They disrupt our streets, they disrupt our campuses, they push Chinese and Russian propaganda to unsuspecting Americans.
Bill Huizenga
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lyman, I'm going to turn to you. We have a unique situation in Michigan. There was something that was passed called Public Act 233.
It was a Governor Whitmer-led effort to pull away siting from local control of wind and solar and battery facilities in Michigan and put it in with the Michigan Public Service Commission. It's that kind of things that have raised the ire of my constituents when it comes to data centers and what's been going on there on the ground in Southwest Michigan. And I agree, they have real concerns about energy use, water use, land use by these data centers. And they're legitimate concerns and things that should be discussed and explored. But I truly don't believe that the Communist Chinese Party shares the same legitimate concerns that my constituents do about the welfare of Americans as they race to catch up with the United States in the AI race.
Can you please explain the CCP's connection to the AI data center debate? And do you think that the CCP's, what is their ultimate goal? You talked about transparency earlier, but I don't think that's transparent.
Sam Lyman
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. It's important for American citizens to understand that the Singham network will campaign against certain technologies here in the US while saying nothing of those technologies back in China. And data centers is a prime example. So we've seen that in the Singham network, its nonprofit groups have been campaigning against American AI data centers for years. Yet at the same time, they've said nothing about the data center build-out back in China.
That's what's fascinating about China's own state media propaganda efforts. China has several English-language propaganda arms that have for months been messaging against data centers, talking about how much data centers could raise electricity prices and how much water they consume. Yet that same China state media has been celebrating back home major milestones reached with Chinese AI development. And that same Chinese government has been subsidizing the use of energy by AI data centers by up to 50%. So that is a documented double standard that we've seen with the Singham network's advocacy for years now.
They've been campaigning not just against American AI data centers, but multiple arms of the US technology sphere for years. And they always campaign against the US companies, but never criticize the Chinese companies themselves.
Bill Huizenga
We see that exact same thing when it comes to power production as well. And my time has expired. Mr. Johnson, I'm going to come to you on a written question about the Communist Party's United Front Work Department and what it is and their influence here and with some examples. So we'll get that to you in writing. And I would remind all of the members are allowed to submit questions in writing through the chair to our witnesses today.
With that, the chair recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, for five minutes.
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also would just like to respectfully register my objection to the removal of a few members of the public who were here exercising their freedom of speech by wearing t-shirts, but they certainly were not being disruptive. And that is something that Mr. Gonzalez mentioned about supporting freedom of speech.
So, I think it is harder to combat malign foreign influence when you have conflict of interest happening in the most high echelons of your government. And in this case, I'm talking about the president. So Mr. Sherman, picking up on your and my remarks, in the UAE case, we've reported investments in the president's family's crypto business followed by US decisions involving advanced AI chip exports to the UAE, including chips destined for G42. So from a corruption and a conflict of interest perspective, what safeguards could or would or should we expect to see to ensure a president's personal financial interests cannot influence national security or export control decisions?
Donald K. Sherman
Thank you for the question. I think it's important to note that this is not a new concern. This is a concern that dates back to the founding of this country. It is why the Foreign Emoluments Clause exists in the Constitution, because our founders were afraid that gifts might, you know, lead a president or senior officials to view foreign nations in a positive light, or worse, that gifts and payments of a certain magnitude might lead to foreign leaders actually having financial leverage over government officials. And so this concern was so significant that it was codified in our founding documents.
Now, of course, the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution has an explicit role for Congress. Congress should be asserting itself to register its approval or disapproval of the president operating a business that continues to solicit money from individuals in foreign governments or tied to foreign governments, but we have not seen that.
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
So speaking of gifts and gifts of great magnitude, this $400 million Boeing 747 provided by Qatar for the president's use. So explain to the committee the concerns that the American people have and that members of Congress should have about a foreign government giving a sitting president a gift of this magnitude. You started, but $400 million is a lot. I would think you would want to get something in return for that.
Donald K. Sherman
Well, I think the committee understands the concern because the title of this hearing invokes the Trojan Horse, which was famously a gift, a malign gift. And so I think it's frankly quite clear the potential impact of a gift on a senior federal official. One is the sort of influence seeking, right? Is this person that receives the gift putting American interests first or are they being influenced by the flattery of receiving the gift? But in the worst case scenario, as exemplified by the Trojan Horse example, it's not just a gift, it is a malign gift that is intended to undermine American interests.
And so, you know, I think for the American public, particularly as we are a nation at war, the president's continued acceptance of gifts demonstrates that our government is subject to foreign influence out in the open. And if you have enough money to pay for it, you can get influence from or over and access to the highest levels of our government. I think the best example of this is when the president of South Africa was in the Oval Office and he joked to the president following the Qatar episode, I'm sorry I don't have a plane to give you. This is the message that the president is sending to our allies, to our adversaries, to any foreign government seeking to influence our government, and more importantly, sending it to the American public that our president at the highest levels can be leveraged by flattery, can be leveraged by gifts, can be leveraged by payments to his business.
It also seems to me like these gifts, these deals, I also referenced the Kazakhstan deal, and I'm sure there are probably a number of others. You said this President started 59 businesses since he's been in office, but it also suggests that this President and this country and our national security is for sale. And I certainly would hope that that's not the case. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Bill Huizenga
Gentlelady's time is expired. With that, the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan, is recognized for five minutes.
James Moylan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for you for being here today. I appreciate your testimonies and I'm from the island of Guam. So we are very familiar with the PRC. We're the most western soil. I just came in last week.
It took me pretty much a day to get from Guam to DC. So that's how far we are at from CONUS. And we got a strategic location because of, you know, where we're at since Spanish-American War, since World War II, since Vietnam War to today. And Guam stands at the forefront of this PRC expansionist activities in the Pacific and this means Guam alongside our other Pacific islands are uniquely positioned to address malign influence operations that the PRC may be conducting in this critical region. We're it, we're the last US soil.
I'm glad we have allies, but we're the last US soil in the second island chain. So addressed to you, Mr. Gonzalez, and also Mr. you, Dr. Johnson, in your research, what kind of influence operations do you see the PRC conducting specifically in the Pacific islands? And what are they testing out that they can prove to show the CONUS US that, you know, we have these capabilities? And what do you think Congress should be our best response to these kind of activities, sir?
Mike Gonzalez
Thank you, Representative Moylan. I've never been to Guam, I'd love to visit. I don't have an answer to you because I haven't looked into it, but I assure you as of today, I'm going to try to dig in because I have heard that China is getting involved in Guam. I'm sorry to hear that. You're right to raise the question.
Maybe my colleagues here can give you a better answer. I will look this up and I can contact your office later if you'd like.
Matthew Johnson
Yep, thank you very much for the question, Representative. I think speaking broadly to cite other examples more or less in the neighborhood that I'm familiar with, the Australians have serious concerns about China's activity in Papua New Guinea and other Pacific islands. I think the main focus of concern is that there is a visible combination of political relationship building followed then by economic cooperation agreements and security agreements that are the main concern at least of the Australian government in the region and to the extent that this impacts our national security as well, I would think that they would be of concern here in Washington as they are to you. The only piece I would add there from a broader strategic perspective is simply that China views island chains in its neighborhood as geographical features, strategic features that contain China. And so building influence in the Pacific islands and pushing farther eastward from Beijing's perspective is high on the geostrategic list.
So it's absolutely the case, I would agree that we should be concerned about events in Guam.
James Moylan
I appreciate your research continuing into that area and I thank you for your responses. And yes, the United States is very concerned. Guam is the homeland. We're the oldest US territory there there is. We have a missile defense, our own Golden Dome being built in order to deter our aggressors.
We had the Marines coming on over, most of them coming on over from Okinawa to protect the homeland as well. We had the the Marine Corps barracks hasn't been built in the last 70 plus years is being built on Guam. We have an army battalion for our missile defense system coming into the island as well. We are a target. If we were defenseless or not, we are a target.
So as your research continues, I really appreciate that too. So basically, in the increasingly global and interconnected world, how can the United States continue to freely innovate and collaborate with different allies throughout the world, like the Pacific, mitigating issues like forced technology transfers? Mr. Gomez.
Mike Gonzalez
Well, we have a presence already in Asia, as you know, we're in Okinawa. We're also have an alliance with with Thailand and we're not going to abandon that part of the Pacific to to the Chinese. We have made that very clear. The I guess for the Japanese would be the best example, although with the Taiwanese as well, the great producers of chips, we have a a very the economics have really tightly knit in our our industries with the the chip production in Taiwan. But obviously that could be increased and I'd love to find out more about what role Guam could play in that.
Keith Self
Gentleman's time has expired. With that, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Self, is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, for rising raising the issue of the red-green alliance. Nobody wants to talk about this, the green part of the red-green alliance. I will tell you I consider it one of the existential threats to our constitutional republic. Frankly, if you want to know the plans of of Islam across the United States, I have dozens of videos that I can share with you where they openly preach sedition against the US Constitution, the US government.
This is a political ideology. Let me explain it to you real simple. They divide the world in two: the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Harb. And they are commanded to wage war against the Dar al-Harb, which is the non-Muslim world. Most of and Sharia, as we refer to it, is the forcing function of that worldwide command to dominate whatever culture they go into.
Just recently, the mayor of New York, Mr. Mamdani, made comments that illustrate what I'm talking about. He inverted the moral values of ICE in our immigration system, played the victim card, says that border security is immoral, ICE is immoral, immigration laws are immoral. And this is what we are up against and yet no one wants to talk about this. I think that it is a major issue and Mr. Gonzalez, as I say, I appreciate you bringing it up and I would ask you to expound upon your comments in your written testimony, if you would.
Mike Gonzalez
Thank you, Representative Self. I can add to my written testimony, actually, if you'd like. As you know, Omar Ahmed, who was a co-founder of CAIR and a long-time chairman, gave a very interesting comments to a newspaper years ago. One of them was, Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. And he also said, I wouldn't want to create, no, this is Ibrahim Hooper, who was also a CAIR founder and early leader, said, I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.
So I'm addressing CAIR here, not Muslims in America, CAIR. These are people who founded CAIR, who made these comments. Mr. Ahmed said he asked, that the newspaper misquoted him and he asked for a retraction, but the journalist actually stood by her reporting. And there was, people who have looked into this, apparently there was never a request, a real request for a retraction. Obviously, this is already a conversation in the country, sir.
And I think you in the Congress need to get be involved in that conversation. What exactly is Sharia? Who wants to impose it? What are the feelings? What are the thoughts of the people who adhere to Islam?
The numbers in France and Germany are not good. I quote in my testimony a poll from Muslims who live in France, close to 50% of them believe that Sharia should be imposed in the lands where they live. The numbers in Germany are very close. Obviously, the situation in Europe is far more advanced than what it is here. But I deeply believe, and I don't know what Sharia is, I'm not an Islamic scholar.
I think real Islamic scholars need to be involved and delve into this. But I, from what I've seen, I don't think it's consistent with our Constitution. You know, people have compared it to Catholic canon law. Canon law is just about how the church runs itself. Nothing to do with the criminal system or with the way the political system should be run.
Canon law is very limited. So I thank you for raising this issue. It is an issue that I think you in Congress, both sides, should take up and bring and initiate or join a conversation that is already taking place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Bill Huizenga
Gentleman yields back. Seeing no one on the Democrat side, we will go to our colleague from Florida, Mr. Fine, for five minutes.
Randy Fine
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you all for being here today. You know, as I prepared for the hearing today, I got to reflect on personal experiences I've had dealing with this issue over the last 18 months since I got to Congress. Our preparation documents talked about Iran creating these Lego figures and putting them onto social media in order to influence the discussion of debate in Iran. I've had one of those made about me. And so, our materials talked about the influence of Russia Today, a state-sponsored propaganda outlet from the nation of Russia that gets involved in American politics.
And despite the fact that I'm not known as a Russia hawk, that organization tends to retweet me ad infinitum. And I can't really figure out why it is other than I think to facilitate that disagreement. Even, you know, I have been attacked by some of these people who are likely paid influencers, whether it is Hasan Piker on the left or Tucker Carlson on the right have come after me in my time in Congress.
And in my primary that I just had, something far more pernicious than anything that we've talked about here happened, where in the last three weeks of my primary campaign, three million dollars was spent on television advertising, direct mail pieces, and text messages from an entity that is not registered in the United States in any form or fashion. They're not registered with the FEC or anywhere else, literally highly likely foreign money being spent directly on American elections. So I I am very sympathetic to everything that we're talking about here. And so, Mr. Gonzalez, my question really I want to start with you, I want to thank you for drawing attention to CAIR and its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. By the way, it's called the Muslim Brotherhood.
It's not called the radical Muslim Brotherhood, it's not called the Islamist Brotherhood, they call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood. And I and I appreciate you bringing attention to my bill proposing to designate CAIR as a terrorist organization. I would note that I led on this issue in Florida in 2024, we passed a bill that named it a terrorist organization in the state of Florida. Texas has followed our lead, and now we're trying to do it nationally. We need to get that bill passed.
You also mentioned the Holy Land Foundation case, in which a domestic Muslim organization raised and transferred millions of dollars to support Hamas. And also a case that CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. The final result of the Holy Land Foundation case was President Trump designating the Holy Land Foundation as a specially designated global terrorist. What are the hurdles, Mr. Gonzalez, which are preventing groups like CAIR or American Muslims for Palestine, again, not American radical Muslims for Palestine or not American Islamists for Palestine, but American Muslims for Palestine, what are the hurdles that that for groups that have documented ties to terror networks from being listed as specially designated global terrorists?
Mike Gonzalez
Thank you, Representative Fine, and yes, I did mention the bill that you brought up. As you know, American Muslims for Palestine is also a also has ties, or its founders had ties, with the Holy Land Foundation and its media outfit, the Islamic Association of Palestine. I think CAIR has become very adept at becoming a part of the establishment, at presenting itself as just a benign part of the establishment. And every time, I'm sure they're going to not be very happy that I'm saying the things that I'm saying today.
Welcome to the club.
Mike Gonzalez
Yeah, they accuse people of all sorts of malign, no, the facts are what they are. These people said these things, these people had tied with the Holy Land Foundation and the American Association of Palestine, and they were disbanded, shut down by the US by the US government for reasons that we know, because money was being funnelled to Hamas. By the way, Hamas is is the Palestine is a Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood didn't just set up the Holy Land Foundation, it set up Hamas. So I think the fact that CAIR has has had a very good has been great at associating itself with some politicians and has has gotten really good PR is one of the reasons one of the things.
Randy Fine
I only have a couple seconds left, but I want to ask you a question. Why does American Muslims for Palestine, why don't they call themselves American Islamists for Palestine? Why isn't CAIR the Council on American Islamist Relations? Why don't they call themselves the Council on American Islamist Relations? Why do you think they call themselves by those terms?
Mike Gonzalez
I think the term Islamist is has emerged because we're comfortable using that term because it's political Islam.
You know, I'm a big believer in freedom of religion. I, you know, it's hard to indict an entire religion. It's, it's, we don't. But, but Islam is the political aspect of the religion. That's the reason why I think the distinction that you're drawing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Bill Huizenga
Gentleman's time has expired and I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today and for the members for their questions. Members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witness as I had referenced earlier, including my own for Dr. Johnson. And we're just going to ask that you respond to those in writing. So, pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to the length limitations and without objection, committee stands adjourned.