A recent report exposes the concerning ways in which the Chinese Communist Party has leveraged the University of California system to shape California’s climate and energy policies — prioritizing China’s strategic interests while undermining American economic independence, energy stability, and national security.
Titled “Behind the Climate Curtain: China’s Hidden Role in California’s Energy Mandates and University Partnerships,” this report by Ian Oxnevad, senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars (NAS), examines how California’s aggressive climate agenda, facilitated through partnerships between the University of California (UC) and China’s Tsinghua University, has benefited Beijing’s economic and military ambitions at the expense of the U.S. interests.
California’s cooperation with China on climate issues dates back more than two decades. It was formalized in 2013 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, longtime practitioner of subnational diplomacy with China, signed a memorandum of understanding committing the state to joint efforts on carbon reduction, electric vehicle (EV) adoption, and green technology development. In 2015, the University of California system and Tsinghua University (often called “China’s MIT”) signed their own memo of understanding to expand collaboration on energy and climate change, explicitly aiming to influence policy not just in California but across the United States.
However, Tsinghua University, from which Xi Jinping graduated, poses significant national security risks. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute rates it as high to very high risk due to its deep ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and military-civil fusion initiatives. The university hosts advanced defense laboratories engaged in projects relating to military artificial intelligence, air-to-air missiles, and rocket technology. It has also worked alongside China’s nuclear weapons program and has been implicated in cyberattacks targeting U.S. entities and Tibetan communities, according to the NAS report.
Leadership Ignores Risks
Despite these red flags, California’s Democratic leadership either ignored or downplayed the risks. In 2019, following Brown’s meeting with Xi in Beijing, UC and Tsinghua University established the California-China Climate Institute (CCCI), housed at UC Berkeley Law School. The institute promotes joint research, policy coordination, conferences, and aggressive “zero emissions” goals. Its leadership includes prominent CCP-linked figures such as Xie Zhenhua, alongside prominent California policymakers and regulators such as Brown and longtime chair of the California Air Resources Board Mary Nichols.
Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, the partnership deepened. In 2021, the Democrat-led legislature passed Assembly Bill 39, which Newsom signed into law, giving the CCCI statutory backing and embedding it within the UC system. The bill effectively formalized subnational diplomacy with China, elevating California to the status of an independent actor in international climate negotiations and bypassing federal oversight. In 2023, Newsom met personally with Xi, further signaling California’s alignment with Beijing on climate policy.
Constitutional and Security Concerns
The NAS report identifies several serious problems with this arrangement. These MOUs function as de facto treaties between a U.S. state and a strategic adversary, raising constitutional concerns about federal supremacy in foreign affairs. More alarmingly, the CCCI provides CCP officials and intelligence agents access to not only cutting-edge research but also influential Californian politicians and regulators.
California’s self-imposed energy crisis is dire. Currently, the state imports a staggering 64 percent of the oil it needs from abroad, while consistently boasting the highest gas prices in the nation. This crisis can be traced back to policies that the CCCI helped promote, such as strict environmental regulations, cap-and-trade programs, and the closure of refineries. These policies have fueled higher living costs, pushing businesses to relocate, causing job losses, and leading to record levels of outmigration.
California has doubled down on its Advanced Clean Cars II mandate, requiring 100 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035. This push heightens our dependency on Chinese-made EVs and associated supply chains that China dominates, such as EV batteries, rare earth minerals, software, sensors, and connectivity modules. The risks associated with Chinese-made EVs are alarming: they raise serious national security concerns regarding data collection, potential remote sabotage, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. These issues are significant enough that the Trump administration has effectively blocked direct Chinese-made EV imports through high tariffs and bans on connected vehicles.
It would be naïve to believe the CCP’s strategy stops at California’s borders. There is saying, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” Beijing clearly hopes California’s climate and energy policies will serve as a blueprint for the rest of the country.
American universities have unfortunately become some of the weakest links in the U.S.-China strategic competition. The CCP has effectively leveraged the open nature of these institutions to enhance its influence through financial funding, recruit top-tier scientists to propel China’s modernization, steal sensitive technologies that often have military implications, spread party propaganda, and shape public opinion through state-funded institutions such as Confucius Institutes. The NAS report shows this pattern continues, and now with direct consequences for American energy prices, supply chain security, and national sovereignty.
Recognizing the Problem
The report urges policymakers, university leaders, and the public to recognize the CCCI and similar partnerships for what they truly are: not benign academic exchanges, but strategic tools of economic warfare employed by an adversary.
America cannot afford to allow its universities and its largest state to serve as conduits for China’s dominance in critical technologies and supply chains. If California’s model spreads nationwide under the banner of “climate leadership,” the United States risks sacrificing its energy security, economic sovereignty, and autonomy in exchange for superficial green rhetoric, all while strengthening its foremost competitor.
Yet meaningful reform faces a major obstacle: the persistent complacency of California’s Democratic leaders. By consistently placing climate ideology above economic realities and national security imperatives, they have enabled the CCP’s influence operations to take root. As long as these state officials refuse to acknowledge the dangers documented in the report, the NAS recommendations, such as stronger enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), closing research loopholes, federal investigations into subnational agreements, and prioritizing American energy independence, are unlikely to be implemented in California.
