Staff Reports
New reporting this week has put a spotlight on how some American reporters were quietly shuttled to China on trips organized by a group with close ties to Beijing. The investigation names a roster of U.S. journalists and specifically lists David Rohde — now MS NOW’s senior national security reporter — as one who took part in a China delegation organized by the China‑United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF). That development raises sharp questions about disclosure, newsroom ethics, and what counts as foreign influence in journalism.
What Natalie Winters’ investigation revealed about CUSEF trips
Investigative reporter Natalie Winters compiled archived CUSEF program rosters, brochures and U.S. FARA filings to identify dozens of journalists who attended CUSEF‑organized delegations. Winters’ reporting says these trips were funded or arranged by CUSEF, an organization tied to senior Chinese political bodies, and argues the delegations aimed to generate favorable coverage of Beijing. The documents Winters cites are the kind of primary records journalists love: rosters and filings. The interpretation — that these were influence operations — is what’s now driving the debate.
Where David Rohde fits into the story
The new list includes David Rohde, who is currently identified on MS NOW’s staff pages as senior national security reporter. Rohde has written about China in the past and did travel to China in the early 2010s. Winters and the follow‑on reports point to archived material showing Rohde among journalists on a delegation organized by CUSEF. There’s been no public, detailed response from Rohde or MS NOW that explains whether travel was fully disclosed to editors or readers at the time.
Why this matters: journalist ethics and foreign influence
Journalism ethics are not optional entertainment. The Society of Professional Journalists tells reporters to refuse gifts and free travel that could compromise credibility. When a nonprofit tied to a foreign government pays for trips, even a well‑meaning reporter steps onto a conflict of interest minefield. The real harm is not always a secret paycheck handed under the table; it can be the slow erosion of trust when readers learn that reporting came on someone else’s dime.
How this ties to President Trump’s warnings
President Trump raised the topic of Chinese efforts to influence U.S. public opinion during his primetime address, saying China sought to identify U.S. journalists and pay them to write negatively about him. Winters’ findings don’t prove the exact allegation of direct pay‑for‑negative‑coverage, but they do show Beijing‑linked actors courting U.S. journalists. If you’re a media consumer, the takeaway is simple: transparency matters. If you’re a journalist, the takeaway should be even simpler — disclose, disclose, disclose.
This story isn’t closed. Newsrooms should answer whether any sponsored travel was disclosed to editors or readers and whether their policies match the basic ethics standard of refusing gifts that could skew reporting. MS NOW and David Rohde owe their readers clarity. The public deserves to know when foreign actors have rolled out the red carpet — and whether reporters tipped their hats in return.
