Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans

The ideological context of Peter Schweizer’s Blood Money is embedded in a conservative critique of globalization, elite corruption, and the perceived weakening of American sovereignty. A controversial book, Blood Money situates itself within the broader framework of right-wing discourse in the United States, particularly focusing on allegations of corruption and foreign influence in American politics and the role of China in domestic affairs. The book presents a narrative that incriminates powerful political figures, particularly those on the left like President Joe Biden, President Barack Obama, and other Democratic figures, accusing them of compromising national security and public welfare for financial advantages, provided by their connection to China, particularly with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Schweizer’s claims in Blood Money center the concept of “unrestricted warfare”—an idea Schweizer borrows from a 1999 book by two Chinese military strategists that describes unconventional methods to undermine an adversary, including economic and drug warfare. He uses the discourse around this concept to assert China’s deliberate use of these tactics—regarding the fentanyl crisis for example—to destabilize the US from within:

In the 1990s, two senior Chinese military officers analyzed the power of the US military extensively and concluded that it was futile for Beijing to try to match it. Instead, in a book called Unrestricted Warfare, they suggested the use of creative strategies to defeat the United States. Just weeks after it was released in 1999, CCP officials seized all copies of the book and removed it from circulation. Apparently, they were not angry with the authors, who would go on to have stellar careers, one retiring as a high-ranking general, the other as an influential professor in Beijing (6).

Claims that the 1999 book represents China’s political strategy have also received heavy criticism. While Schweizer posits the existence of Unrestricted Warfare as evidence of his theories, he leaves the fact that many books about military strategy are written in the US yearly that do not accurately present the US’s international relations strategy uninterrogated.

Based on the idea of unrestricted warfare, Schweizer builds his entire narrative regarding the alleged collaboration of Chinese authorities with organized crime networks like the triads to flood the US with fentanyl and other illicit drugs. He further suggests that many American elites are complicit in enabling such warfare due to their financial ties to China. He frames these accusations as part of a broader conspiracy where American leaders prioritize their personal wealth and political ambitions over national security.

This ideological framing exploits a key component of contemporary right-wing discourse in the US: the belief that corrupt global elites are actively undermining the country for their own financial benefit. Schweizer utilizes a traditional trope of the political conspiracy sub-genre, positioning himself as a watchdog uncovering the hidden networks of influence that bind US politicians to foreign powers. In doing so, he mirrors a broader right-wing narrative that sees China not only as an economic competitor but as an existential threat to American values, security, and sovereignty.

Critics of Schweizer’s work acknowledge the integration of his claims into his right-wing worldview, as well as the rhetorical strategies he employs to bolster them. Schweizer’s claims rely on the concept of elite betrayal, which has become a hallmark of right-wing populism in recent years. By accusing prominent figures like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Kerry of knowingly allowing China to destabilize the US through economic and drug warfare, Schweizer appeals to a growing segment of the American public that views the political class as corrupt and self-serving. He utilizes populist resentment toward globalization and the perception that political elites have enriched themselves through unethical dealings with foreign powers at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Schweizer’s arguments rely heavily on conspiratorial thinking, which is often criticized as lacking substantial evidence and relying on speculative connections between disparate events. Blood Money fits within a larger conservative media ecosystem that thrives on sensationalism and conspiracy. Critics question his professional affiliation with right-wing think-tank Breitbart News and the frequent promotion of his work by right-wing news outlets and commentators who amplify his claims without critically engaging with the complexities of the issues he raises. This echo chamber effect helps perpetuate the notion that America’s problems, particularly the opioid crisis, are the result of foreign sabotage and elite betrayal, rather than a mix of internal policy failures and broader global dynamics.

Blood Money has gained significant attention in conservative circles for its controversial claims, inspiring even an investigation by the House of Representatives’ House Committee on Oversight and Reform, initiated by Republican congressman James Comer, into the alleged “unrestricted and disintegration warfare by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aimed at undermining U.S. national security” (Comer, James. [Letter to United States Secretary of Defense]. Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 2024).

Blood Money relies on the ideological context of a polarized political landscape in the US and draws on anxieties about foreign actors, the instability of US economy, social issues like gun violence and drug trafficking, and general fears about the future of the US as a whole. While critics may concede that Schweizer’s book points to some legitimate concerns about US-China relations, they also argue that it often stretches the evidence to fit a conspiratorial narrative that aligns with broader conservative anxieties. Schweizer’s work, while influential in certain circles, earns critical examination for its tendency to oversimplify complex issues and its reliance on partisan rhetoric rather than nuanced analysis.