From San Francisco to Washington, China’s overseas “mass scene” is questioned.

Less than a month from the planned visit of Xi Jinping to the United States, a group of WeChat chat screenshots that are being circulated in overseas Chinese communities, once again put a non-strange question in front of the public: are the Chinese Embassy abroad and its outskirts “welcoming the masses” for Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States?

According to current public information, U.S. President Trump has previously announced that Xi will visit the United States on September 24.Reuters on July 23, that Trump clearly stated that Xi will visit the United States on this day, and the topics of the two are expected to include major issues in China-U.S. relations such as artificial intelligence.

In the streamed WeChat group footage, some say the time of the event is scheduled for "22 to 26th", and declare that it is "related to the meeting with President Xi Jinping and President Trump", by "the Chinese embassy and the Chamber of Commerce invited personnel to participate", and even appear "free airline tickets, free to eat" and "send me an ID, I have registered" and other content.

01 / 02

It should be emphasized that by these two chat footage alone, it is not yet possible to independently identify the specific organizers, nor can it be proved that the so-called "Chinese Embassy funding" has been officially implemented. but it is worth paying attention, not because of a chat record itself, but because this way of organizing is very similar to the pattern that has been confirmed by the U.S. mainstream media survey during the APEC in San Francisco in 2023.

San Francisco has left a “Manual of Operations”

When Xi Jinping went to San Francisco to attend the APEC meeting in 2023, a large number of people were welcomed with five-star red flags on the streets.At that time, some Chinese community messages had shown that organizers provided transportation, food, accommodation and even cash subsidies.

In an interview with the San Francisco Record, it was found that students and supporters received a clear promise: to meet Xi Jinping could get free transportation, food and accommodation, and a large number of people were transported by tourist buses.

The Washington Post then conducted a larger survey, analyzing more than 2,000 photos and videos, and interviewing more than 30 witnesses, U.S. officials and stakeholders. The survey found that the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles paid hotel and dining fees for some supporters, and at least 35 pro-Beijing delegations participated in Xi’s welcoming events; at least four Chinese diplomats were photographed on the scene and in contact with some organizers.

One of the leaders of the group even publicly stated that he had arranged 20 buses, 400 hotel rooms and about 800 people to meet Xi Jinping in San Francisco.

This is far beyond the normal scope of "spontaneously welcoming Chinese leaders abroad."

It presents a relatively mature chain of political mobilization:

Consulate - Chief Executive Officer - WeChat Group - Registration personnel - Unified traffic accommodation - Unified identification - Unified on-site action.

As for the widespread “$400 per person and only $100 at the end” claim, we have not found enough material to independently confirm the entire “400 water to 100” process, so we can’t take it as a confirmed fact. But there is clear cash recruitment information in

1. WeChat group screenshots obtained at the time show that there is recruitment information that promises welcome activists to receive $100 a day, three days in a row, with free transportation, accommodation and dining arrangements.

So the “spending money organization welcomes the crowd” itself is not an empty wind.

“The question is not how much everyone pays, but who makes the public opinion.”

Many people see this news and first make a joke asking:

“How much do you pay this year, or $100 a day?”

But what is really worth asking is not an offer.

The real question is, why does a government need to concentrate people from different cities to the places where the country’s leaders visit on foreign lands, through consular systems, chambers of commerce, and crowdfunding networks, and then create a red flag and cheer?

If a person truly supports Xi, he has the right to stand on the streets to welcome Xi. This is the freedom of expression given by American society to everyone.

But if these “masses” were organized by foreign government agencies providing flight tickets, hotels, dining and even cash subsidies, the nature would be entirely different.

It’s no longer just “expressing a political stance,” it’s using resources to create a political visual effect – to be seen on television, in official media, and in domestic audiences:

“Overseas Chinese people warmly welcome Xi Jinping.”

Thus, a crowd of people organized, transported, funded, and even motivated by interests could be re-packed into the so-called “spontaneous Chinese patriotism overseas.”

That is exactly where the problem is.

More seriously, the welcoming team was not only responsible for "welcoming"

The events in San Francisco in 2023 have another background that cannot be ignored.

A large number of Tibetans, Uighurs, Hong Kong Democrats, Chinese dissidents and human rights activists who oppose Xi Jinping also came to the scene to protest.

As a result, several physical conflicts occurred.

The Washington Post investigation found that, despite conflicts between the two sides, after video verification, some of the worst acts of violence were initiated by pro-Beijing officials, including the use of flagships, chemical sprays and wrist-foot attacks on opponents. The U.S. Congress and executive authorities then asked the Chinese Committee to investigate whether the incidents involved multinational repression supported by the Chinese government.

This has further escalated the issue from “spending money on people standing in the street.”

If the function of overseas warfare networks was just to arrange a few elderly people to wave flags, it might just be absurd.

But if the same organizational system simultaneously assumes the function of welcoming, encircling, suppressing dissidents and even violent conflict with protesters, then it involves no longer image projects, but the extension of foreign government forces into the public space of a democratic society.

Why do we always need embassies, consulates and embassies?

The Communist Party of China has long emphasized the support of overseas Chinese citizens to the so-called "fatherland".

But true public opinion has one of the most basic characteristics: No mobilization fees are required.

If a leader has genuinely widespread and ardent support abroad, he comes to New York, Washington, or San Francisco, and people naturally welcome themselves to the airports, hotels, and venues.

No need for ID card.

No need for unified registration.

No need to arrange a bus.

There is no need for free flight tickets, free accommodation, and free meals.

Once a so-called “mass welcome” requires a complete chain of funds, transportation and organizational chains, it does not show the enthusiasm of the masses, but the ability to organize.

This is why such images are important in Chinese political communication.

In a system that relies heavily on political ceremonies, leaders’ visits must have red flags, cheers, and “warm welcome” from overseas Chinese, as such footage is ultimately not only for Americans.

Its real main audience is in China.

Diplomatic visits therefore simultaneously carry on the function of internal political propaganda.

From Beijing to overseas, the most indispensable is always "mass actors"

China's political culture has long attached great importance to the "scene".

Leadership inspection needs the welcome of the masses;

Important meetings need applause.

Disaster inspection needs to be appreciated;

Diplomatic visits require overseas Chinese flying flags.

The real question is not whether these people have the right to support Xi, but whether the state machine uses money and organizational systems to turn political loyalty into a product that can be purchased, arranged and displayed.

If the recruitment information circulated before the September U.S. visit was finally further confirmed, it would suggest that the San Francisco approach in 2023 was not a coincidence, but could have become a replicable overseas political mobilization mechanism.

At that point, what the public really needs to ask is not:

“How much does it cost to meet Xi Jinping a day?”

and should ask:

Who makes the money? where does the money come from? what kind of organizations are responsible? what role does the Chinese embassy play? do the participants receive remuneration? are these activities declared according to law?

If American society just sees a five-star red flag, and does not know that there are airline tickets, hotels, big buses, WeChat groups and organizers behind the red flag, then what it sees is just the political stage of the clip.

And for the news media, what really should be tracked is the hand behind the stage.

Focus on the Chinese point of view: who Chinese abroad support and who oppose is personal freedom; but if foreign governments fund organizing the masses, manipulating the immigrants, creating political voices, and even letting these organizations intervene in encroachment and conflict against dissidents, then this is not ordinary immigrants’ activities, but a network of foreign political influence worthy of continuous investigation by U.S. law enforcement agencies, Congress and the media.

This time Xi Jinping's visit to the United States, if there is really a massive "spontaneous welcome" again, the media may not shoot a little red flag, and ask a few words:

How did these people come from, who paid?

Because the answer is probably more worth reporting than the welcome scene itself.