China’s move to expel U.S. journalists from the country last week comes at a time of great need for accurate information about COVID-19. The move is part of a broader Chinese effort to control the global narrative about the pandemic and is especially dangerous right now—as cracking down on foreign media further undermines trust in China’s ability to respond to the pandemic with transparency.

Workers unload shipments of medical gowns at a hospital in Wuhan, China on Jan. 24, 2020. (Chris Buckley/The New York Times)
Workers unload shipments of medical gowns at a hospital in Wuhan, China on Jan. 24, 2020. (Chris Buckley/The New York Times)

The escalation started last month, when Beijing expelled three Wall Street Journal reporters in response to a headline that called China the “sick man of Asia.” The Trump administration responded by imposing new limits on the number of Chinese nationals working for Chinese state media outlets in the U.S., reducing the number from 160 to 100. Then, last week, China announced it was revoking the press credentials of more than a dozen American foreign correspondents at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, effectively gutting the U.S. press corps in the mainland. Since then, several Chinese staff working for U.S. media outlets have also been forced out of their jobs. 

Protecting China’s Preferred COVID-19 Narrative

First of all, we need to be clear—the U.S. and Chinese actions are not equivalent. The U.S. restrictions affected Chinese media outlets such as Xinhua and CGTN, which are under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. China has argued its moves to revoke U.S. press credentials in response were “entirely necessary and reciprocal countermeasures” and “legitimate and justified self-defense in every sense.” But restrictions on independent media, which can play an important role in holding governments accountable, and on state-run media, which cannot challenge government actions, do not lie on the same plane.

It should also be clear that China’s move to expel journalists is not separate from Beijing’s efforts to influence the global narrative surrounding COVID-19. Now that China appears to have brought the domestic outbreak under control, Beijing has sought to showcase the successes of its approach and cast itself as a leader in the global response. To this end, the Chinese government has mounted a campaign to supply much-needed testing kits, masks, and ventilators to countries in Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and has sent its medical experts and hosted teleconferences to meet with other countries’ health experts. With fewer foreign journalists working for foreign, independent media in China, there will be fewer journalists to report stories that deviate from this message.

Let’s not forget that China is still cracking down on voices critical of the government’s management of the crisis. China was slow to divulge information about the outbreak in early weeks and silenced those who did. The most prominent whistleblower, Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang, was officially reprimanded for sharing information with other doctors about possible novel coronavirus cases in December, and later died of COVID-19. An official probe last week exonerated Li and recommended the reprimand be withdrawn. And earlier this month, a political commentator and real estate tycoon disappeared after circulating an essay criticizing the government for not dealing with the crisis more openly and quickly. With fewer foreign journalists in China, it will be harder for the world to see these stories, undermining trust in how China deals with the virus going forward.

The Need for International Reporting on China

Independent reporting on how COVID-19 is affecting China still matters even though China appears to have weathered the peak of the crisis. Last week, China appeared to hit a milestone when its national health commission reported no new locally transmitted cases for the first time since the outbreak, though concerns remain about possible unreported cases, particularly asymptomatic ones. But China remains worried about people who contracted the virus elsewhere coming into the country, and has instituted strict screenings and quarantine for those arriving from abroad. As China lifts the lockdowns that curbed infections and daily life begins to return to normal, concerns about the risk of a potential second wave could grow, particularly as the virus spreads among China’s neighbors. Even after the outbreak winds down, there will continue to be surveillance and privacy concerns about the cell phone tracking app and other technology used to monitor those with the virus. The expulsion of U.S. journalists casts lingering doubt on information disclosed by China about how the country is preventing new infections or rolling back the strict controls that were put in place. 

And in Washington, the expulsion of journalists has deepened the U.S.-China diplomatic rift at a time when constructive cooperation is needed most. It also coincides with the U.S. evacuating much of its diplomatic staff from China, limiting many levels of communications just as tensions at the top run high. To be sure, U.S. officials risked retaliation against U.S. reporters when they imposed the limits on Chinese state media, and a global pandemic is no time to be playing a blame game. But China’s restrictions on foreign journalists do nothing to help address the crisis.

A global crisis is when trust in information matters the most. There are many civil liberties and personal freedoms that may need to be sacrificed or limited to grapple with a public health crisis—but press freedoms that help guarantee access to information should not be among them. Allowing media to report on the full picture of China’s COVID-19 experience can help other countries weigh the costs and benefits of the measures they are considering. Ultimately, expelling reporters from the country that was the source of—and is still grappling with—COVID-19 is not conducive to the trust that’s needed to move forward.


Related Research & Analysis

The Perils of a Cold War Analogy for Today’s U.S.-China Rivalry

The Perils of a Cold War Analogy for Today’s U.S.-China Rivalry

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

In the new era of great power rivalry between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”), the paradigm of strategic competition has become popular. In looking to make sense of the present global geopolitical moment and paradigm, pundits search for a relevant historical analogy.

Type: Analysis

What Do Changes in China’s Nuclear Program Mean for India?

What Do Changes in China’s Nuclear Program Mean for India?

Thursday, March 13, 2025

At the end of 2024, the annual U.S. Department of Defense report on military and security developments in China reinforced evolving assessments of China’s rapid nuclear expansion with an alarming projection: The U.S. expects China to have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 despite having maintained a nuclear arsenal of approximately 300 warheads for decades.

Type: Analysis

Mary Speck on China’s Search for Inroads into Central America

Mary Speck on China’s Search for Inroads into Central America

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

China has ramped up its engagement in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador so that it can “operate in the United States’ backyard,” says USIP’s Mary Speck. However, China “likes to give showy gifts, but hasn’t really invested” in what the region needs to address governance issues, economic instability and organized crime.

Type: Podcast

How China Uses Police Assistance to Reshape Global Security

How China Uses Police Assistance to Reshape Global Security

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

In recent years, China has greatly expanded their use of foreign law enforcement assistance and cooperation as a way to counteract and contend with U.S.-led global security structures. Using interviews and research from an upcoming USIP report, USIP’s Ena Dion and the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime’s Matt Herbert discuss why China is expanding its foreign law enforcement assistance and how the U.S. can formulate a response.

Type: Question and Answer

View All Research & Analysis