Republicans believe Tim Walz has been ‘groomed’ by China. But how does China view him?

When Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ team vetted Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate, his Midwestern roots and background as a teacher, coach and veteran distinguished him from the typical “coastal elite”. However, it’s unclear whether her team considered Walz’s ties to China to be an asset or a potential liability.

Walz first travelled to China in 1989-1990 to teach in the southern city of Foshan. In subsequent years, he organised study tours to China. By 2016, Walz had visited China some 30 times, including a honeymoon trip after marrying a fellow teacher on June 4, 1994, the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. He also earned a nickname in his time there: 田华 or “fields of China”.

Republicans and the conservative media have viewed Walz’s China ties with suspicion. Senator Tom Cotton demanded an explanation for Walz’s relationship with China. And Senator Marco Rubio proclaimed, “Walz is an example of how Beijing patiently grooms future American leaders”.

Other conservatives labelled Walz a Manchurian candidate and called him “Totalitarian Tim”. The National Review asserted that Walz had engaged with “senior Chinese leaders” as governor. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has even launched a probe into Walz over his China ties.

Democrats and the mainstream media, meanwhile, have sought to describe Walz’s China connections with more nuance. They have highlighted his concern for human rights in China and his meetings with the Dalai Lama and Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong.

The New York Times said Walz’s “relationship with China defies easy stereotypes”. Foreign Policy described him as a “measured critic” of the Chinese Communist Party.

But how does China view Harris’ selection as a running mate, and what could he mean for the trajectory of US-China relations?

Chinese media sees positives

Harris’ selection of Walz did not spark controversy in China. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning avoided commenting on his selection, calling for win-win cooperation with the United States.

The tightly censored media, meanwhile, downplayed Walz’s support for Tibet and a democratic Hong Kong and his criticism of the Communist Party’s human rights record. Instead, the media focused largely on three themes.

Surprisingly, Walz’s teaching in China, while duly noted in numerous reports, received the least amount of attention. An ultra-nationalist outlet, Guancha.cn, contacted his former Chinese colleague from Foshan, who described Walz as “very nice” and “well-liked”. The Beijing News highlighted Walz’s “rich life experience”, including his teaching, frequent visits and honeymoon in China, but didn’t mention his wedding date of June 4.

The Chinese press devoted more attention to explaining why Harris chose Walz as her running mate.

One outlet noted he was a “real redneck” (乡下人), referencing his ability to challenge Republican Donald Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy. The Beijing News underscored his political accomplishments, including championing progressive policies in Minnesota. The Paper, a state-owned online publication known for its liberal coverage of current affairs, focused on Walz’s appeal to independent voters and moderate Republicans.

Finally, while Chinese media analysts largely avoided discussing Walz’s stance on China, a few implied that he might advance Beijing’s agenda.

The China Daily mentioned his support for non-adversarial relations with China, praising his capacity to make “more rational and informed decisions on US-China relations”. In the same article, it noted that Vance called “China the biggest threat to the US”.

The Paper contended that Walz’s criticism of China could reflect Democratic Party “prejudices”, rather than his personal views. It concluded:

It is difficult to judge which of Congressman Walz and Governor Walz is expressing his true self in his attitude towards China, or we cannot deny the possibility that the two are not contradictory to some extent.

However, it is probably certain that Walz and his wife’s experience in China should be generally positive.

Not everyone is convinced

The China-US Focus, a publication of the China-United States Exchange Foundation, took a similar view. According to US politicians, conservative think tanks, and media reports, the organisation is a part of the Communist Party’s “United Front” influence operations to help shape foreign perceptions of the party and suppress criticisms of China.

China-US Focus examined Walz’s congressional record, his promotion of Minnesota’s relations with China and his opposition to the US-China trade war and the proposed ban of TikTok. It argued:

Walz’s unique China experience is an asset that […] will directly affect Harris’ China policy. From the Chinese perspective, Walz is a person China is willing to proactively engage with.

China-US Focus also attacked Republicans for spreading “conspiratorial” rumours and mainstream media for covering them.

Chinese “netizens”, as the country’s internet users are known, have shared the media’s broadly positive portrayal of Walz. They have praised his progressive politics and contrasted him with “Uncle Trump”, who one person referred to as a “high school bully”.

Still, not all seemed convinced about Walz’s capacity to influence US-China relations. One person commented that living in China does not automatically make someone pro-China, suggesting US politicians are generally untrustworthy. And sceptics questioned the authenticity of Walz’s friendship with China, posting his photo with Wong as evidence.

So, while some Chinese netizens remain doubtful that Walz will change Washington’s China strategy, the emerging perspective in China portrays him as the least controversial – if not the preferred – candidate in the upcoming US presidential election. Contrary to some analysts, Beijing appears to be counting on “fields of China” (田华) to lead the White House towards a more China-friendly policy.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.