Xi’s Antipathy for the US

How a former friend of Iowa became America’s fiercest rival — and why it wasn’t personal, it was strategic.

In 1985, a little-known Chinese official named Xi Jinping arrived in Muscatine, Iowa, as part of an agricultural delegation from Hebei Province. Just 31 years old and working in a rural county party office, Xi was housed with a local family and spent several days visiting farms, processing plants, and schools. He ate potluck dinners, drank root beer, and asked lots of questions. His hosts later described him as “curious,” “respectful,” and “deeply attentive to American life.”

The visit left a positive impression on both sides. When Xi returned to the U.S. in 2012 as China’s Vice President, he made a special trip back to Muscatine to reunite with his old hosts. Photographs of smiling Midwesterners hugging the future Chinese president made headlines and seemed to reinforce the hopeful narrative that Xi Jinping understood the value of U.S.-China friendship at a human level.

But that hope turned out to be misplaced.

Xi Jinping today is the most anti-American Chinese leader in decades, pursuing policies and partnerships aimed not only at countering U.S. influence, but at weakening American society from within. This antipathy did not emerge overnight. Nor, I would argue, was it born of emotion. It was a calculated shift, shaped in large part by a powerful network inside the Chinese Communist Party: the Ye brothers, Ye Xuanning and Ye Xuanping.

From Iowa to Fujian: A Strategic Reeducation

Shortly after his Iowa visit, Xi Jinping was transferred to Fujian Province, a coastal region long known for its role in smuggling, military operations, and intelligence activity. It was here that Xi fell into the orbit of the Ye clan, one of the most powerful and secretive political families in China.

Ye Xuanping, then a senior political figure in Guangdong, and Ye Xuanning, his brother, were sons of Marshal Ye Jianying, one of the founding fathers of the People’s Republic. But more importantly, Ye Xuanning served as the head of the PLA’s General Political Department, overseeing sensitive intelligence and political warfare operations. He was China’s kingmaker operating in the shadows, leveraging a deep network of military officers, princelings, and United Front operatives.

In Fujian, under the watchful eye of the Ye network, Xi was groomed not just for promotion, but for transformation. The worldview he had glimpsed in Iowa of mutual respect, curiosity, and cooperation — was systematically replaced by a new framework: one in which the United States was not a partner, but a threat.

The Ye brothers reportedly promoted a fierce, zero-sum mindset, rooted in historical grievance and strategic ambition. They encouraged Xi to see power not as something shared but seized and to treat American openness as a vulnerability to exploit.

The Reverse Opium War: Revenge in Slow Motion

This new worldview culminated in what some have come to call “The Reverse Opium War” — a term used to describe the CCP’s decades-long efforts to flood Western societies with narcotics, corruption, and influence operations, in a historic reversal of the humiliation China endured in the 19th century.

Under Xi, these tactics escalated dramatically. China became the world’s leading source of fentanyl precursors, while United Front organizations expanded across the U.S., targeting everything from universities to local governments. Chinese companies, some with deep ties to the state, acquired media outlets, purchased farmland near military bases, and sponsored research centers on American campuses.

These are not accidents. They reflect a deliberate strategy to hollow out U.S. sovereignty from within, while presenting a peaceful facade to the outside world — a strategy that draws directly from Ye Xuanning’s legacy of political warfare.

Alliance with Russia: Thwarting the West at All Costs

Nowhere is Xi’s anti-American posture more evident than in his increasingly close alliance with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global condemnation, Xi has stood firmly by Putin’s side offering rhetorical support, increased trade, and diplomatic cover. In February 2022, just before the war began, Xi and Putin declared a “no limits partnership.”

This was not a casual alliance. It was a signal: the world’s two largest authoritarian powers would work together to challenge U.S. leadership, rewire global institutions, and reshape the world in their own image.

Xi’s embrace of Moscow, even at great reputational cost, shows the depth of his anti-American commitment. He does not seek mere coexistence with the United States. He seeks displacement.

A Final Blow: The Tech War and Export Controls

Another revealing example of Xi’s hostility toward the U.S. came in the form of China’s aggressive technology policies, particularly its goal to dominate strategic industries like semiconductors, AI, and quantum computing. Under Xi’s “Made in China 2025” plan, state-backed firms were tasked with displacing foreign competitors by any means necessary — including industrial espionage, forced tech transfer, and cyber theft.

In response, the U.S. placed export controls on advanced chip technology. But Xi doubled down, urging national mobilization in science and tech and framing the U.S. restrictions as acts of imperialist sabotage. In this way, he weaponized American resistance as further justification for confrontation, spinning domestic control and economic nationalism into rallying cries.

Conclusion: It Was Never About Friendship

Xi Jinping’s positive experience in Iowa was real — but in the harsh world of CCP elite politics, it was meaningless unless it served power. When Xi entered the Ye brothers’ domain in Fujian, he was introduced to a different path, one that cast the United States as an obstacle to China’s rise, and hostility as a tool for advancement within the Party.

Over the next three decades, Xi used this framework to transform China’s domestic governance and foreign policy. The results have been devastating: growing authoritarianism at home, decoupling abroad, and a deliberate campaign to weaken American institutions through influence, division, and narcotics.

It was not inevitable. Xi could have chosen another path. But he didn’t.

And now, America is left to deal with the consequences from hollowed-out industrial towns and fentanyl overdoses to compromised institutions and geopolitical instability. For this, Xi Jinping should be held accountable. Not just by history, but by a world that must learn to recognize how friendly smiles can mask long-term strategic deception.