TAYLOR HATHORN: Economic espionage cases committed by Chinese Nationals have gone up 1300% in the last decade.

Data is still data, even if it makes us uncomfortable. @TomCottonAR is right, at present, Chinese nationals should not be trained on our weapon systems or educated in our engineering institutions to bring that information back to China to ultimately use against us. @IWF pic.twitter.com/3xLxou9JG5

— Taylor Hathorn (@TaylorHathorn) February 7, 2026

How do we stop this transnational repression by the CCP?

First and foremost, you have to call a spade a spade.  You have to call it out when you see it.  I wrote an article recently about the number of students that come into the United States from China to study here and the fact that they are focusing on engineering fields and the fact that they're focusing on AI fields and they are getting that training in the United States and taking it back to China . . . .  "Hybrid Warfare, Student Visas, and Chinas Trojan Horse," Taylor Hathorn, Townhall, September 27, 2025.

Economic espionage cases committed by Chinese Nationals have gone up 1300% in the last decade.  I mean you've got trade best secret cases happening in the United States, 60% of which are attributed to the CCP.  And so the data is there and it shows it.  It shows that we are educating these students and employing these students and they are taking what they're learning here and using it against us in the United States.  I need to be very clear that I am not vilifying all Chinese students.  I do not think that is a problem here.  But we need to create a better awareness pipeline to understand where the students' allegiance are.  And I think the reality is people don't understand that when many of these students come here from China they are given a very strict out processing from China interview and an in-processing interview every single time they come home to make sure that they have not been too heavily influenced by the United States.  To date, there are nearly a quarter of a million Chinese students studying at universities inside the United States, and we have less than a thousand American students studying inside of China.  And China has great universities too, so it makes you wonder, why that tactic?  Why is that being implemented and not the other way around if it really was a shared partnership among education institutions? 

TAYLOR HATHORN: The CCP is inflicting hybrid, asymmetric warfare on the U.S. A lot of scary realities tied to China’s covert tactics.

Thank you to J. Michael Waller. 

The CCP is inflicting hybrid, asymmetric, mental, whatever academic word you want to call it on the U.S. and it’s easy to make jokes about things like TikTok, but there are a lot of scary realities tied to China’s covert tactics. @IWF pic.twitter.com/NRI8OMYjV2

— Taylor Hathorn (@TaylorHathorn) February 7, 2026

With students what is the long-term strategy here and talk to us about Chinese students and Scholars associations in the US.

So really there are two methodologies that you can have in any kind of mental warfare and really this is mental warfare, right.  So you've got your overt strategies and you have your covert strategies, and really what China is super good at is the covert strategies.  If they were focused on the overt strategies, you wouldn't have Prime Minister Carney in Canada talking about how they wanted to ally and align themselves with China moving forward with this values-based realignment that he talked about in Davos not too long ago. 

And so really you're looking at these covert strategies and covert tactics.  So what does that look like?  It looks like mental manipulation. Our society regrettably is incredibly susceptible to influence from the outside world.  Our youth, because of their involvement on social media, on web platforms, where they have access to information all around the world are incredibly susceptible to this influence.  I wrote a series of articles for Independent Women at the start of last New Year about the Tik Tok ban, "Tik Tok Ban: The Battle Is Not Over Freedom of Speech," Taylor Hathorn, Independent Women, January 26, 2025, and several of my friends were like, "Man, Taylor, you need to get over it.  It's not that big of a deal. It's not that big of an influence."  What a lot of people didn't realize is that the algorithms for Tik Tok in China students were rewarded, vastly rewarded, for looking at videos and watching what videos and promoting their algorithms focused on engineering, education, medicine, reading, literature.  They were promoted and rewarded for that, while the same algorithms in the United States existed for United States students they were promoted for doing Tik Tok dances and Tide pod challenges and their ratings went up for that.  So that is just one example of a covert strategy that has direct effects on the mental capacity, truthfully, and on the educational abilities of our students.  

PETER SCHWEIZER: So they know what you're saying, they know what you're communicating. They also know who your families are back home.

"The Invisible Coup" author @PeterSchweizer detailed how China is using the U.S. student visa program to extract sensitive national security information during our Fight Club Founders' Roundtable. pic.twitter.com/Ss82fbZvYE

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) February 7, 2026

Now if you're a student from China in the United States, you are expected to have and communicate the only app that you were supposed to have on your phone for communication is WeChat and the government monitors that.  So they know what you're saying, they know what you're communicating.  They also know who your families are back home.  So even if you have no interest in damaging the United States, no interest in stealing secrets, if you were working in a sensitive Lab at Yale or Brigham Young or UCLA, and government wants you to steal on their behalf, they will pressure you.  They will say that your family is at risk, and you will be forced to comply.  Those are just the realities that exist for students, and to pretend that that reality does not exist and to pretend that this is not a problem caused by the Chinese government, I think it's just being naive.  

So how do you deal with that? You're not going to be able to get the Chinese government not to pressure students.  You're not going to be able to get them to study comparative lit instead of chemical engineering.  So I think you have to look at curtailing the numbers because they are stealing us blind.  

Breitbart Fight Club Founders Roundtable.

MARC LANDERS: Cannabis users' brains look YOUNGER! People who used cannabis showed better scores on various thinking tests (multiple areas of cognition / mental performance).

Cannabis users' brains look YOUNGER!

People who used cannabis showed better scores on various thinking tests (multiple areas of cognition / mental performance).

The brain changes linked to cannabis and the better thinking abilities appeared together across many different brain… pic.twitter.com/Ek46pubSNi

— Marc Landers (@marclanders) February 8, 2026

SAMA HOOLE: This is the first time the U.S. government issues dietary advice to the entire population. There's no precedent. No framework for how to proceed. They're making it up as they go.

1977: Senator George McGovern chairs the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. They're investigating dietary causes of chronic disease. The political pressure for action is immense.

The committee hears testimony from multiple researchers. The testimony is… pic.twitter.com/cuJeV7v2lp

— Sama Hoole (@SamaHoole) February 8, 2026

1977: Senator George McGovern, 1922-2012, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. They're investigating dietary causes of chronic disease. The political pressure for action is immense. The committee hears testimony from multiple researchers. The testimony is divided. Some support dietary fat restriction. Others say the evidence is insufficient for population-wide advice. Dr. Pete Ahrens, one of the era's leading lipid researchers, explicitly warns against premature guidelines. Ahrens testifies: "This is a gamble. We are not certain about the effects of dietary change. We should wait for better evidence before making recommendations that will affect the entire population." The committee ignores him. They feel political pressure to do something. Heart disease is killing thousands. The public demands answers. Saying "we need more research" isn't politically viable. McGovern later admits in interviews that they knew the science was uncertain but felt compelled to act. In 1977, they publish "Dietary Goals for the United States" recommending Americans reduce saturated fat, increase carbohydrates, and replace animal fats with vegetable oils. This is the first time the U.S. government issues dietary advice to the entire population. There's no precedent. No framework for how to proceed. They're making it up as they go. The American Medical Association opposes the guidelines. They issue a statement saying the evidence doesn't support population-wide dietary change. The AMA argues for individualized advice rather than universal recommendations. Food industry lobbying intensifies. Beef producers oppose fat restriction. Dairy farmers fight against recommendations to limit butter and whole milk. Grain producers support increased carbohydrate consumption. Everyone sees how this affects their markets. The final guidelines reflect political compromise more than scientific consensus. They're softened slightly compared to drafts to appease meat and dairy lobbies. But the core message remains: eat less fat, more carbs. These guidelines become institutional policy. USDA adopts them. The American Heart Association endorses them. Medical schools begin teaching them. Within five years, they're established dogma. The gamble Ahrens warned about was never framed as a gamble to the public. Guidelines were presented as settled science. Nobody mentioned uncertainty. Nobody disclosed the divided expert opinion. Nobody admitted this was experimental policy affecting 200 million Americans. By the 1980s-90s, the outcomes are visible. Obesity rises. Diabetes increases. Heart disease rates don't improve. The guidelines clearly aren't working as predicted. But rather than revisit the original gamble, committees double down. If outcomes are bad, obviously people aren't following advice closely enough. The solution is more stringent fat restriction and louder public health messaging. McGovern's retrospective acknowledgment that they gambled is telling. He knew at the time that the science was uncertain. He chose to issue guidelines anyway because political circumstances demanded it. This established a precedent: nutritional guidelines could be based on incomplete evidence if political pressure was sufficient. Later committees would follow this model. Advice would be issued before evidence was definitive. Course correction would be avoided to preserve institutional credibility. The McGovern guidelines weren't the careful result of overwhelming scientific evidence. They were a political response to public anxiety, shaped by industry lobbying, issued despite scientific uncertainty, and never revised despite failing outcomes.

Your dietary guidelines began as an admitted gamble by politicians who felt pressured to do something even when scientists said the evidence was insufficient. The gamble failed. Nobody acknowledged it. And you're still following advice from 1977.