American institutions from Hollywood to universities are increasingly engaging in self-censorship, not in response to domestic law, but to foreign influence, particularly from the Chinese Communist Party. The result is a restriction of free speech and public debate without a single law being passed.

This form of voluntary censorship is driven primarily by economics. The Chinese market, with its 1.4 billion consumers, has become a carrot and stick for American institutions. The “carrot” is access: lucrative markets, massive audiences, and funding for research. The “stick” is exclusion, blacklists, revoked visas, pulled investments, and the death of entire careers for stepping out of line.

Recommended Stories

• Renew the terrorism risk insurance program
• Merit-based advancement is key to military excellence
• For the US military, the standard is excellence

TRUMP’S FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF DC LED CRIME INCIDENTS TO DROP AND ARRESTS TO INCREASE

Nowhere is this dynamic more visible than in Hollywood. Studios routinely adjust scripts and cut scenes to avoid offending Beijing. References to Tibet, Xinjiang, or other politically sensitive issues are removed entirely as a form of anticipatory compliance. These changes are not mandated by law. They are profit-driven decisions that signal a willingness to let an authoritarian regime shape its narrative to the public. They’re about aligning with Beijing’s geopolitical narrative in exchange for access to its massive moviegoing market.

And it’s not just the film industry feeling the pressure. The NBA knows this terrain well. In 2019, when then-Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters, China’s response was swift: Games were pulled from state TV, merchandise disappeared from shelves, and the league scrambled to appease Beijing.

Even LeBron James, normally outspoken on social justice issues in the United States, criticized Morey for being “misinformed” — a telling pivot from a figure who has rightly spoken out against racial injustice and police brutality at home but remains silent on China’s documented human rights abuses. The message was clear: When it comes to China, silence is the safer, more lucrative option.

The chilling effect extends beyond sports and entertainment into academia. Scholars dependent on access to Chinese archives or fieldwork visas often avoid sensitive topics such as Xinjiang, Taiwan, or Tibet. During interviews with prominent China scholars for my recent book, I’ve been told off the record that certain comments should not be published for fear of being blacklisted.

This is not paranoia — it’s precedent. Academics such as Perry Link and Andrew Nathan have seen their research crippled after falling out of Beijing’s favor. Link was blacklisted for assisting dissident Fang Lizhi during the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Nathan’s co-authorship of The Tiananmen Papers, which provides an insider’s account of the decision to use force against the Tiananmen Square protesters, led to similar consequences. The very principle that draws scholars to the academy, academic freedom, is now under quiet but persistent attack.

Journalists face the same pressure. In 2019, Wall Street Journal reporter Chun Han Wong wrote an article exposing that Australians were probing Ming Chai, a cousin of Chinese President Xi Jinping, for their alleged links to money laundering and organized crime. Shortly after the publication, Wong’s press credentials were revoked.

But perhaps the most dangerous form of foreign influence isn’t imposed, it’s internalized. Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, for example, has become a prominent defender of Beijing’s narrative. A regular guest at high-level Chinese conferences and often paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements, Sachs frequently portrays China as a peaceful, Confucian nation unfairly targeted by the West.

According to this narrative, great powers with differing ideologies, such as the U.S. and China, need not be adversaries — they can coexist peacefully in a multipolar world. Through initiatives such as the Belt and Road, China is being portrayed as a benevolent global partner bringing infrastructure, digital connectivity, and opportunity to developing nations. The global narrative is designed to ease concerns about its rise and facilitate unfettered trade, investment, and technology transfer.

While Sachs is entitled to his opinions, his academic stature gives Beijing’s narrative legitimacy in elite Western discourse even as he has been criticized for downplaying mass surveillance, censorship, and the internment of Uyghurs.

The influence of such narratives within academia extends beyond public debate. This kind of censorship erodes academic freedom. Students are taught a curated, neutered view of global politics, one that omits uncomfortable truths. The result is a generation of leaders, policymakers, and journalists misinformed about the nature of authoritarian influence in the world, leaving democratic societies vulnerable to manipulation, coercion, and strategic ignorance.

This distortion deepens when universities silence dissent to preserve funding or partnerships. In doing so, they compromise their mission of truth-seeking. Research agendas are steered by geopolitics, not intellectual curiosity. Critical inquiry is stifled, turning the academy into a climate of cautious conformity.

This culture of silence is not limited to academia. When celebrities prioritize brand deals over principles, they help normalize complicity. Millions of fans hear only silence or, worse, state-approved narratives on one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time.

REPUBLICANS ARE PUSHING THESE FIVE DEMOCRATS TO FLIP ON FUNDING BILL

What we lose is not just speech, but clarity, courage, and the credibility of our institutions.

If the U.S. is serious about protecting free expression, we must demand transparency from our institutions, support those who speak uncomfortable truths, and hold accountable those who prioritize profit over principle. America’s commitment to free expression cannot be negotiable, especially when foreign authoritarian regimes seek to shape our narratives and silence dissent.

Derek Levine is a professor at Monroe College and the King Graduate School. His second book, China’s Path to Dominance: Preparing for Confrontation with the U.S., was recently released.