GOP congressman explains why he proposed bill to stop delivery of ‘China Daily’ on Capitol Hill
On his first day in a Capitol Hill office, Congressman Abraham J. Hamadeh, R-Ariz., found a copy of China Daily waiting in the mail, a discovery that set off alarm bells about foreign influence inside our institutions. He responded by crafting legislation to stop unsolicited delivery of publications controlled by the Chinese Communist Party to House facilities. That move is about protecting the workplace, taxpayer resources, and the integrity of our representative body.
Hamadeh framed the issue bluntly and memorably when he wrote, “America is not for sale,” and he has insisted U.S. taxpayers should not be footing the bill for the delivery of China Daily. His bill would make clear that CCP-controlled propaganda cannot use taxpayer-subsidized channels to seed offices with messaging meant to shape opinion. At the same time, the legislation preserves the right of members and staff to subscribe personally if they choose, keeping the focus on taxpayer-funded distribution rather than private access.
Practical supporters of the idea quickly surfaced. House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., chair of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, moved to ensure the House would ban distribution of China Daily and similar CCP-controlled publications. That bipartisan-looking enforcement within the Republican conference signals a broader recognition that some foreign state media operate more like influence arms than independent newsrooms. Republicans driving this effort are framing it as common-sense housekeeping, not censorship.
Why this matters
This is a national security and sovereignty issue dressed up as a mailroom policy problem, because the CCP has a long track record of using state-controlled outlets to project soft power and shape narratives abroad. When a publication directly controlled by a hostile foreign government appears in congressional offices with taxpayer-paid delivery, it creates a conflict of interest and an avoidable avenue for influence. Cutting off that vector is a narrow, targeted step to deny adversaries footholds in places where policy and oversight are decided.
There are two separate but related principles at stake: one is fiscal prudence and the other is institutional integrity. Taxpayer dollars should fund the legitimate functions of Congress, not the distribution of foreign propaganda. Institutional integrity means preventing hostile states from normalizing influence efforts inside the buildings where laws and budgets are debated, especially when those efforts are not transparent to the public.
Some will pose free speech concerns, and those deserve a direct answer: this policy does not ban Americans from reading or subscribing to foreign publications, nor does it muzzle members of Congress in their personal capacities. It simply denies the use of government-paid channels to deliver material produced by an authoritarian regime that directs and controls content at the state level. That distinction is important and defensible on constitutional and practical grounds.
From a conservative perspective, the issue is also cultural and moral: we should not treat adversaries’ state organs as equivalent to independent media, and we should not provide them a veneer of legitimacy through taxpayer-funded distribution. The CCP’s information operations are part of a broader strategic design that includes economics, technology, and political influence. Refusing to subsidize state-directed messaging is a small but meaningful act of pushback.
Policy mechanics are straightforward and workable: label and restrict materials identified as state-controlled, tighten distribution rules in House facilities, and require transparency about the origin of any foreign publication that attempts to circulate. These are administrative fixes that can be implemented without infringing on legitimate speech or scholarly access. They also create a record for accountability so the public knows what materials are being used to influence lawmakers and staff.
Republicans pushing this change should pair it with broader oversight of foreign influence operations, increased support for independent journalism, and clearer guidance for congressional mailrooms. Enforcement matters: if rules exist on paper but are ignored in practice, the benefit disappears. Conservative lawmakers can use this moment to demand rigorous application and to expand scrutiny to any material coming from state-directed entities of hostile powers.
This is also a test of political will. Too often, Washington tolerates small incursions that over time become normal, and normalizing foreign propaganda inside our democratic institutions is a slow erosion we should refuse to accept. By moving quickly and decisively, conservatives can set a standard that other branches of government and civic institutions should follow. The message is simple: we will not subsidize foreign influence operations under the guise of neutral information sharing.
In the end the debate comes down to a basic choice about stewardship of public resources and defense of our civic spaces. Hamadeh’s bill is a focused, limited response that respects free choice while protecting taxpayers and the integrity of Congress. As he put it, plain and true, “America is not for sale,” and that should be the guiding principle for how we handle foreign state-controlled media in our halls of government.
