Is your mayor a spy? This sounds like a joke or a conspiracy theory, but this story is very real. 

Headlines about mayors being agents of the CCP might seem like McCarthy-era accusations or a plot-line from a political drama TV-show like “Homeland” or “House of Cards.” However, Eileen Wang, the mayor of Arcadia, California, recently resigned from office on May 11, 2026 after agreeing to plead guilty to charges of acting as an illegal agent for the Chinese government. According to federal prosecutors, Wang allegedly used her political position to advance the interests of Chinese officials while concealing those connections from the U.S. government. The story immediately attracted national attention: not only because of the shock factor, but because it seems more broadly reflective of an era defined by growing tensions between the United States and China, rising concerns about foreign influence, and deep distrust of institutions. So, what do we make of this? 

China’s government, in particular, has been increasingly accused by Western intelligence agencies of cultivating relationships with politicians, academics, and business figures abroad in order to shape narratives and advance its own geopolitical interests. However, in many cases, these relationships are not considered “spying” or illegal in any way. Due to post-World War II efforts to reduce direct military — or “hard power”–  conflict through international norms and institutions, many states increasingly rely on forms of “soft power,” including economic and diplomatic relationships, to advance their political interests. Additionally, “spying” today rarely resembles the image of espionage popularized during the Cold War. Subtle influence is far more difficult to detect than the secret codes, hidden microphones, and high-tech gadgets from spy movies. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the reality that all states operate within an anarchic system under the principle of self-help: it is not just China that is advocating for its own geopolitical interests within the international system. When looking at cases such as this one,  one has to remain cognizant of the fact that the United States and other countries frequently attempt to exert influence over other nations through things like trade and diplomatic relations to further their own interests as well. 

The line between legitimate diplomacy and covert foreign influence is often difficult to distinguish, as similar actions may be labeled differently depending on who is interpreting them. Moreover, the growing importance of influence within the modern international system often clashes with the principle of sovereignty, which remains one of the most widely accepted norms in global politics. As states increasingly attempt to shape political outcomes beyond their own borders through economic ties, media narratives, and diplomatic relationships, the boundary between acceptable international engagement and illegitimate foreign interference becomes increasingly contested. What constitutes espionage in an era of soft power and political influence? And how can democratic societies address legitimate national security concerns without falling into Red Scare era paranoia? 

That ambiguity is part of what makes cases like Wang’s politically explosive and significant. Discussions about Chinese influence in the United States often risk collapsing into xenophobia or broad suspicion toward Chinese-American communities. We’ve seen this before: during the Second Red Scare, fears of communist infiltration frequently spiraled into paranoia and harmful rhetoric against Asian Americans, who were specifically targeted with accusations of being communist sympathizers or enemy spies. Today, there is a real risk that discussions about Chinese government influence could contribute to broader suspicion toward Chinese-Americans or Asian-American communities more generally. In recent years, anti-Asian hate crimes increased significantly during periods of heightened U.S.-China tension, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (Pew Research Center). Politicians and media figures have sometimes allowed their criticism of the Chinese Communist Party to turn into unwarranted suspicion toward people of Chinese descent. 

At the same time, dismissing every concern about foreign influence as paranoia would also be irresponsible. China’s government has openly pursued a more assertive global strategy under Xi Jinping, and American intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned about operations targeting domestic institutions. The challenge is distinguishing legitimate national security concerns from political fearmongering. 

What about the larger picture? In an increasingly globalized world, local politics can no longer be separated cleanly from international power competition. Part of what makes local governments particularly vulnerable is that they are often not equipped to think in national security terms. Federal officials regularly undergo intelligence briefings and public scrutiny regarding foreign contacts. Conversely, municipal governments are primarily designed to manage practical community concerns such as infrastructure, development, public safety, and education. Therefore, international partnerships or relationships with foreign business interests may receive far less oversight at the local level. This does not mean local officials are uniquely corrupt or disloyal; rather, it reflects how globalization has expanded the scope of international political influence into domestic institutions that were never originally designed to operate within that environment.

Additionally, the Wang case highlights a deeper crisis of institutional trust within the United States. Public confidence in political institutions has steadily declined over the past several decades, with many Americans already believing that elected officials are overly influenced by wealthy donors and corporations. Allegations that foreign governments may also be exerting covert influence only deepen public cynicism. Even if such cases remain relatively rare, their symbolic impact is significant because they contribute to the perception that ordinary citizens have limited visibility into how political power actually operates. 

So, is your mayor a spy? Probably not. But the fact that Americans cannot dismiss that question outright says something important about the political era we are living in. States must be capable of protecting themselves from covert foreign influence through transparency, accountability, and legal oversight; however, within a democratic system, it is important to avoid a level of paranoia that leads to harmful rhetoric. As globalization continues to blur the boundary between domestic and international politics, maintaining that balance may become one of the defining political challenges of the modern era. 

Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole

References: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2023/11/30/asian-americans-and-discrimination-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/