Code Pink, an organization once known for its resolute stance against global militarism and oppressive regimes, has surprisingly shifted its narrative on China in recent years. This change raises concerns about the extent of influence that external forces have over the once-respected “Women for Peace” group.

In the past, Code Pink was no stranger to criticizing China, particularly its treatment of human rights defenders. Jodie Evans, the group’s founder and former Democratic adviser, was once seen rallying against China’s “brutal repression of their women’s human rights defenders.” However, a striking shift in narrative occurred around 2017, a change that coincided with her marriage to socialist millionaire Neville Roy Singham.

Singham isn’t just any millionaire. He is someone who has given “hundreds of millions of dollars” to various far-left nonprofits. These organizations now suspiciously echo Chinese government talking points, intertwining their narratives with those broadcasted by the Chinese state media. Singham, who has been documented attending a Chinese Communist Party propaganda forum, resides in China and is actively involved in the nation’s propaganda campaigns.

But what does this connection mean for Code Pink? After Evans’ marriage to Singham, the tone of Code Pink dramatically changed. Gone were the days of criticizing the oppressive communist regime. Instead, the organization began lauding China as “a defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war.” The New York Times has even reported a staggering sum of $1.4 million being funneled into Code Pink from entities linked to Singham.

The drastic shift in Code Pink’s narrative doesn’t stop at praising China’s economic policies. Evans has even defended China’s controversial actions towards the Uyghur community in Xinjiang, labeling them as “terrorists.” This is a troubling position, especially when considered against the backdrop of reports detailing the massive human rights violations being perpetrated against the Uyghurs. The Chinese regime’s actions include imprisoning over 2 million Uyghurs due to their ethnicity and religion, bulldozing thousand-year-old cultural heritages, and even restricting common religious practices.

Code Pink’s transformation has been startling. Once a group that represented vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy and global injustices, it now mirrors the propaganda efforts of the Chinese Communist Party. Their webpage now prominently features campaigns like “China Is Not Our Enemy,” and Evans has taken part in webinars arguing against the “US propaganda” that supposedly vilifies China.

Concerns aren’t just limited to Code Pink’s newfound narratives. The organization’s connections are equally alarming. Ties to groups like the Qiao Collective, known for promoting “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” further reveal the extent of the influence that pro-China entities might have over the group.

This deviation from the group’s principles, especially in the face of evidence showcasing China’s severe human rights violations, is disconcerting. Code Pink’s willingness to downplay the gravity of the situation faced by Uyghur Muslims exhibits both racism and Islamophobia.

Code Pink’s alarming pivot towards a China-friendly agenda is a stark reminder of the subtle, yet powerful influence that China can gain with relatively low amounts of money over established institutions. It is tough to imagine how many times this same pattern has been copied across American media. Code Pink is corrupted beyond salvation. But who has been corrupted that we don’t know about?