Chinatown
U.S. Visa Crackdown: China Out, India In?
The United States has launched a bold offensive to isolate China, wielding visa restrictions, tariffs, and sanctions to choke the Chinese Communist Party’s access to American intellectual, technological, and economic resources. By targeting Chinese students, imposing trade barriers, and restricting firms in critical sectors, the Donald Trump administration seeks to blunt China’s global rise.
Yet, this aggressive strategy risks fracturing international alliances, particularly as the United States courts India as a counterweight to Beijing. While scoring tactical hits, the approach alienates a $43.8–50 billion economic demographic, emboldens China’s narrative of American hypocrisy, and tests the delicate balance of United States-India cooperation, potentially complicating global partnerships rather than decisively isolating China.
On May 28, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled visa policies to revoke permissions for Chinese students linked to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in fields critical to national security, such as technology or defence, while tightening scrutiny for all visa applicants from China and Hong Kong.
A parallel policy, under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, bars foreign nationals who undermine U.S. interests, potentially including those who censor American speech, target actions such as pressuring U.S. tech platforms, or threaten citizens for social media posts on American soil. Rubio’s statement, “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China,” frames these measures as a defence against the Chinese Communist Party’s exploitation of United States universities for intellectual property theft, intelligence gathering, and military advancement. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, in a May 29, 2025, briefing, declared every visa decision a national security matter, emphasising rigorous interagency vetting to protect American interests. Her refusal to define “critical fields” or “Chinese Communist Party affiliations” preserves enforcement flexibility but sows unease among the 277,000 Chinese students who, along with Indian students, inject $43.8–50 billion annually into the United States economy.
The visa suspension, affecting F, M, and J visa categories, halts new student visa interviews to implement expanded social media vetting, as noted in a May 28, 2025, State Department cable cited by Reuters. Bruce, in her May 29 briefing, described the pause as temporary, stating, “I would not be recommending [seeking appointments] if this was going to be weeks or months,” and urged applicants to check online systems “sooner than later,” suggesting a disruption of days. A May 27, 2025, US State Department statement reinforced that consular posts would adjust “rather quickly.” The broader review of Harvard-affiliated student visas signals a sweeping clampdown, building on President Trump’s first-term revocation of over 1,000 Chinese student visas. Bruce emphasised that universities must deliver skills, not “political indoctrination,” addressing domestic concerns about campus radicalisation while appealing to parents globally.
This visa crackdown aligns with a broader United States strategy to limit China’s technological and economic influence, complemented by tariffs and sanctions. The latest in the series is the sanctions imposed by the US on Funnull Technology Inc., a Philippines-based company that the US alleged provides the critical computer infrastructure for virtual currency investment scams, and its administrator, Liu Lizhi, a Chinese national. “Fraudulent virtual currency investment scams cause serious financial harm to the American people. Today’s targets are directly connected to over $200 million in losses reported by U.S. victims, with an average cost of over $150,000 per individual,” the US State Department stated on May 29, 2025, adding that Washington “will go after those who misuse virtual currencies and internet services to perpetrate fraud and other crimes. We will continue to pursue cybercriminals who abuse the U.S. financial sector”.
A United States Court of International Trade ruling invalidated Trump’s “Liberation Day” and fentanyl-related tariffs as an overreach, exposing legal vulnerabilities. United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a May 29, 2025, interview, noted that trade talks are “a bit stalled,” suggesting high-level intervention may be needed. Sanctions on Chinese firms in critical sectors, such as semiconductors, aim to curb China’s technological ambitions, but China’s resilient supply chains limit their impact. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, on May 29, declared that “tariff and trade wars have no winners,” condemning the visa policies as “fully unjustified” for violating Chinese students’ rights and disrupting exchanges. She warned of damage to America’s reputation and a “spillover effect” on trade talks. Ning also escalated the critique, branding U.S. actions as driven by a “Cold War zero-sum mentality” and responding to U.S. Representative John Moolenaar’s call for a “reset” to counter Chinese “aggression.” She asserted that such rhetoric would face opposition from China’s 1.4 billion people. She condemned the United States’ reported plans to increase arms sales to Taiwan, labelling them a violation of the one-China principle and the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, describing the Taiwan issue as a “red line” that risks escalating tensions. Mao also defended China’s rare earth export controls as “non-discriminatory,” contrasting them with the United States’ restrictions on Chinese firms, framing America as the aggressor in a technological and ideological showdown. On May 30, 2025, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian responded to a New York Times report on the U.S. suspension of engine sales to China’s aerospace manufacturer COMAC, stating that China firmly opposes the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security and abusing export controls. He described China’s export control measures as non-discriminatory, not targeted at any specific country, and aimed at maintaining stable global supply chains, while accusing the U.S. of politicising trade and tech issues to suppress China, vowing to defend China’s legitimate rights.
India emerges as a pivotal player in this United States-China standoff. On May 28, Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau met Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri in Washington. He reaffirmed the United States-India partnership as a “key component” of 21st-century United States foreign policy, emphasising fair market access, cooperation on migration and counternarcotics, and regional stability. This meeting, timed with the visa and tariff escalation, underscores India’s role as a strategic counterweight to China, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. India, with its growing technological and economic clout, stands to gain from trade opportunities. In the wake of Operation Sindoor, India-China relations have become considerably strained and put a question mark on a January 21, 2025, statement which emphasised China’s commitment to stable bilateral relations with India, advocating for mutual respect and cooperation, signalling Beijing’s intent to maintain strong ties with India.
Is the United States’ strategy effective in limiting China’s influence? The visa restrictions, as per the US claims, disrupt Chinese Communist Party access to United States academia, a key channel for technological and intelligence gains, but the temporary suspension risks alienating students who may turn to Hong Kong’s fast-track doctoral programmes, as Bruce acknowledged. A February 14, 2025, US State Department report noted a 15% drop in international student applications since 2024, highlighting the economic cost of $43.8–50 billion in Chinese student contributions.
Tariffs and sanctions, weakened by the court’s ruling, face China’s resilience, as Mao Ning’s defence of rare earth controls suggests. Mao’s warning of a “spillover effect” on trade talks, coupled with Bessent’s stalled negotiations, underscores limited United States leverage. India’s alignment with the United States, as Landau’s meeting suggests, bolsters the anti-China axis, but India’s economic ties with China—China is the second largest trading partner of India after the US, with $127.7 billion two-way commerce in 2024-25 – temper its commitment, risking a fragmented Indo-Pacific strategy.
Rather than fully isolating China, the United States risks straining global partnerships. Mao’s accusations of United States hypocrisy resonate with Global South nations, strengthening China’s diplomatic outreach. The Taiwan arms sales, condemned by Mao, heighten regional tensions, potentially entangling the United States’ allies like Japan. The visa policies’ symbolic weight, coupled with deportations for protest-related activities, projects an anti-foreign stance that could strain relations with partners like Canada, whose Prime Minister Mark Carney was congratulated by Bruce on April 29, 2025, for countering Chinese Communist Party influence. The censorship policy, while bold, lacks enforcement clarity, as a May 28, 2025, State Department analysis noted challenges in identifying digital culprits. India’s cautious engagement, balancing United States security goals with Chinese trade, underscores the risk of complicating key alliances.
The United States’ strategy yields short-term disruptions but courts long-term peril. It curbs Chinese Communist Party influence but sacrifices economic and diplomatic capital. A May 28, 2025, White House statement reaffirmed national security priorities, offering no trade concessions, signalling a hardline stance. China’s restrained response, avoiding concrete retaliation, preserves trade prospects, but visa restrictions on United States citizens or trade barriers remain plausible.
As the United States rolls out social media vetting and expands its Harvard student visa probe, precision is critical. There are possibilities that missteps could cede soft power to China, strain alliances, and complicate a global balance, with India’s pivotal role highlighting the delicate balance between containment and chaos.
*Senior journalist
