China shrugs at US Senate’s $250 billion tech bill

Chinese authorities and state media think the Innovation and Competition Act isn't ambitious enough to fear.

US capitol building
Photo: Al Drago/Getty Images

The U.S. Congress wants to counter Chinese influence by borrowing from China's toolkit. But Beijing, which is used to funneling massive amounts of cash into selected industries, seems to think Washington hasn't gone far enough.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act — first known as the Endless Frontier Act — 68-32 in a bipartisan vote. After significant changes, the amended bill pledges to spend over $250 billion to boost America's science and technology sectors, with the clear goal of obtaining (or depending on your viewpoint, maintaining) a technological lead over China. It has yet to be passed in the House.

The day after the Senate passed the bill, the Chinese government condemned it. At a June 9 press conference, Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said the bill "gravely interferes in China's domestic affairs" and is "filled with Cold War zero-sum mentality." The National People's Congress, China's legislature, released a statement with similar language, calling the act "paranoid" and "doomed to fail."

But besides the expected, almost routine statements, there are more discussions in state media explaining why the hostile bill isn't particularly threatening to China. In fact, in China, the prevailing narrative is that the USICA is not ambitious enough to give America a real leg up.

Yuyuantan Tian (玉渊潭天), a WeChat account linked to China's state broadcaster, called the bill "too much talk and not enough work" in an article published in late May. A $100 billion investment in scientific research — what was proposed in the original Endless Frontier Act — would only amount for 0.5% of America's annual GDP, the article said. When divided into different research fields, "the number can be quite small."

In the United States, early opposition to the bill also centered around whether investing in applied science will take away funding from basic research. But Yuyuantan Tian thinks the investment in applied science is too little, too late. "If the manufacturing industry — the last link in the chain — continues its path downhill," the U.S. is getting a useless law "no matter how much you invest in the 'frontier,'" the article said.

Some Chinese commentators are asking whether this new bill means the United States is learning from what China calls its "whole nation" strategy and ditching America's small-government tradition.

There's a popular belief in China that what it calls its "whole nation system" (举国体制) has enabled it to concentrate resources in dedicated fields to maximum effect. To Chinese officials, it has worked for the country's research and education sector by pouring a lot of investment into a few cutting-edge fields, and has worked for China's sports industry too, which rapidly grew into a world leader in many competitive sports, although those results have been visibly mixed. But the system is also frequently criticized outside China as authoritarian and interventionist.

So, when it became clear that the USICA sets aside $52 billion to grow America's domestic chip industry, many Chinese commentators asked why America is doing that which it once despised. Yan Xuetong, director of the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University and a regular social media user, posted a question on Weibo pegged to the USICA news asking whether "investing the whole nation's resources into scientific research is something only a certain political system can do?" A June 9 editorial by the party-owned tabloid Global Times raised a similar question, calling America "a sick person looking for whichever doctor it can find."

Deng Jinting, a researcher at Beijing-based Renmin University, cautioned that the USICA asks the Department of State to publish a list of all Chinese subsidies to domestic companies, which may become another sanction tool against subsidy recipients. Zhang Qiuju, a researcher at a think tank affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told state news service Xinhua the bill will force Chinese-American scientists to take a side because they can only receive funding from one of the two countries.

Chinese officials seem less worried about the actual cash being pumped into U.S. tech and more concerned about the effect on China's reputation. Perhaps none of the original Endless Frontier Act has received as much attention in China as one particular section later added to the bill: Division C, originally introduced by Sens. Bob Menendez and Jim Risch as the Strategic Competition Act. It focuses more on China's human rights violations and online propaganda than its technological chops. In the final version passed by the Senate, Section C would spend $300 million each year on a "Countering Chinese Influence Fund," which would be used to expose Chinese propaganda and raise awareness of the Belt and Road's negative impacts, among other uses.

But when it comes to the big picture, while some U.S. senators have called the bill an unnecessary government intervention, the idea that the state should be an active promoting force of the domestic technology industry is quite mundane in China. The state routinely introduces national policies to incentivize and fund key industries, like Made in China 2025 or the semiconductor-focused "Big Fund." In the June 9 editorial by the Global Times, the tabloid made a rare acknowledgment that the direction USICA is going with, namely increasing internal investment, "looks about right."

Even though there is still a ways to go before the fund and other measures in this section become reality, Chinese state media and nationalist influencers have already started using it to justify the narrative that any anti-Chinese government message online is funded by countries like the United States. "Give me $300 million, and I will slander China," said a headline in the China Daily, a state-owned newspaper.


A pro-China disinformation campaign is targeting rare earth miners

It’s uncommon for cyber criminals to target private industry. But a new operation has cast doubt on miners looking to gain a foothold in the West in an apparent attempt to protect China’s upper hand in a market that has become increasingly vital.

It is very uncommon for coordinated disinformation operations to target private industry, rather than governments or civil society, a cybersecurity expert says.

Photo: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Just when we thought the renewable energy supply chains couldn’t get more fraught, a sophisticated disinformation campaign has taken to social media to further complicate things.

Known as Dragonbridge, the campaign has existed for at least three years, but in the last few months it has shifted its focus to target several mining companies “with negative messaging in response to potential or planned rare earths production activities.” It was initially uncovered by cybersecurity firm Mandiant and peddles narratives in the Chinese interest via its network of thousands of fake social media accounts.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Ripple’s CEO threatens to leave the US if it loses SEC case

CEO Brad Garlinghouse said a few countries have reached out to Ripple about relocating.

"There's no doubt that if the SEC doesn't win their case against us that that is good for crypto in the United States,” Brad Garlinghouse told Protocol.

Photo: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile for Collision via Getty Images

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the crypto company will move to another country if it loses in its legal battle with the SEC.

Garlinghouse said he’s confident that Ripple will prevail against the federal regulator, which accused the company of failing to register roughly $1.4 billion in XRP tokens as securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.


Microsoft and Google are still using emotion AI, but with limits

Microsoft said accessibility goals overrode problems with emotion recognition and Google offers off-the-shelf emotion recognition technology amid growing concern over the controversial AI.

Emotion recognition is a well-established field of computer vision research; however, AI-based technologies used in an attempt to assess people’s emotional states have moved beyond the research phase.

Photo: Microsoft

Microsoft said last month it would no longer provide general use of an AI-based cloud software feature used to infer people’s emotions. However, despite its own admission that emotion recognition technology creates “risks,” it turns out the company will retain its emotion recognition capability in an app used by people with vision loss.

In fact, amid growing concerns over development and use of controversial emotion recognition in everyday software, both Microsoft and Google continue to incorporate the AI-based features in their products.

“The Seeing AI person channel enables you to recognize people and to get a description of them, including an estimate of their age and also their emotion,” said Saqib Shaikh, a software engineering manager and project lead for Seeing AI at Microsoft who helped build the app, in a tutorial about the product in a 2017 Microsoft video.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories