Washington Preaching Water but Drinking Wine

“He preaches water and drinks wine.” This Western proverb could not be more apt in describing those “honorable” members of the US Congress sitting atop Capitol Hill.

The US Senate and House just greenlit the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. Sure, it hikes defense spending. Buried in there are special provisions targeting China that would make any objective observer squirm.

The law mandates that the US Director of National Intelligence publish a public report disclosing the global financial status of Xi Jinping and other top Chinese leaders – plus their relatives. We're talking about all Politburo and Standing Committee members, their family members, including the so-called "white gloves" – financial agents managing assets on their behalf.

It’s specified that the report must be unclassified, available online for anyone with an internet connection to read. A similar clause appeared in the 2023 NDAA but got dismissed as superficial. However, this version is detailed, explicit, and loaded with congressional pressure to expose what the US lawmakers claim is hidden Chinese wealth.

Capitol Hill's Shameless Overreach

Watching these American legislators operate is infuriating. They slip targeted clauses against Chinese leaders into a domestic bill, essentially broadcasting to the world that China's leadership sits on vast private fortunes – corruption implied. Since the law requires public release, this isn't about genuine investigation. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

First question: what right does the US have to do this? If Congress passes a bill investigating American citizens' assets, nobody can object. But investigating foreign leaders' finances? That's a different story entirely.

Another country's leadership finances should be handled by that country's own institutions – not Washington's long arm. This arrogance stems from "American Exceptionalism," a concept that still drives US foreign policy today.

The term "American Exceptionalism" was coined back in 1831 by Alexis de Tocqueville. It expresses the notion that America is unique – founded on liberty, individualism, equality before the law, and laissez-faire capitalism. Through this lens, America stands stable, prosperous, and incomparable to any other nation – an ideal constitutional republic.

When Kitchens Became Battlegrounds

From this belief emerged a foreign policy where the US sees itself as a chosen nation entitled to impose its "perfect" system on others – even launching color revolutions to topple governments and force them to replicate American democracy. During the Cold War, Americans framed this ideological struggle as "freedom and democracy" versus "Communist tyranny." The famous "Kitchen Debate" perfectly captured this mindset.

In July 1959, at the American National Exhibition opening in Moscow, 46-year-old Vice President Richard Nixon sparred with 65-year-old Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev inside a model American kitchen on display. The exhibit showcased washing machines, refrigerators, and household appliances as symbols of capitalist prosperity.

Before the cameras, Khrushchev remarked that Soviets cared only for practicality, not luxury. Nixon shot back that under capitalism, Americans enjoyed the freedom to choose how they lived – to buy or not to buy. Most observers concluded Nixon won that round, largely because America's material abundance stood in stark contrast to Soviet austerity.

But today? Time has turned the tables. If Donald Trump visited China and rode a high-speed train, we might witness a new "High-Speed Rail Debate" – one where US capitalism would find itself at a distinct disadvantage.

  

Yet American politicians still cling to "American Exceptionalism," believing they hold the right to meddle everywhere. Now that America's strength has waned – its system corroded, its manufacturing hollowed out, its infrastructure decayed, its streets filled with drug-addled zombies – US lawmakers' persistence in policing the world reeks of dark comedy.

America's Fading Exceptionalism

Second question: what moral ground does the US stand on? Washington claims to expose corruption by investigating Chinese leaders' wealth, yet it ignores rampant corruption among its own politicians.

Take Trump. During his campaign, he enthusiastically championed cryptocurrency, promising to promote the sector once elected. Then, on the eve of taking office, he launched his own meme coin – "$Trump." By Chinese Mainland standards, that's textbook corruption: promoting a policy and, before assuming power, issuing a financial product that would benefit from that same policy. It's retail investor fleecing, plain and simple.

Here's the damage: $Trump launched before Trump's inauguration and peaked at USD 49.26. As of December 19? It's plunged to USD 5.07 – a brutal 90% collapse. Retail investors got ruthlessly fleeced, yet no one dares speak up.

The Stock Goddess Retires

Then there's Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker – the real "Goddess of Stocks," outperforming even Warren Buffett. In 2023, Pelosi's family achieved an 84.3% investment return, crushing Buffett's numbers. Their fortune ballooned from USD 41 million in 2004 to USD 120 million in 2023, with some holdings soaring 96% in just a few years.

Market observers almost universally believe Pelosi trades on insider information – how else could anyone consistently outperform world-class fund managers? Her trades became so influential that investors created tracking tools and even an ETF fund mirroring her stock picks.

Pelosi denies any wrongdoing and dismisses accusations that lawmakers profit from nonpublic information. But she can't explain her uncanny market timing – a godlike ability that defies rational explanation.

Even some American progressives find this intolerable. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) proposed multiple bills to ban congressional stock trading. But as a minority voice, her proposals failed. No one can stop Capitol Hill's "Stock Goddess." Now that Pelosi announced plans to retire in 2027, investors mourn as if the market lost a guiding star – with no more Pelosi trades to follow for profit.

In the end, this is what "American democracy" has become – a system that openly permits abuse of power. Yet these very same legislators have the audacity to pass laws investigating the wealth of Chinese leaders. They preach water but drink wine – a hypocrisy so absurd it chills the spine.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

When a Hong Kong court convicted Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai for conspiring to collude with foreign forces, the reactions from Washington and London couldn't have been more different. 

Trump went sentimental. At a White House event on December 15, the US president expressed sadness over Lai's conviction. "I spoke to President Xi about it, and I asked (him) to consider his release. He's not well; he's an older man, and he's not well. So I did put that request out. We'll see what happens," Trump said. He mentioned discussing the matter with President Xi but didn't specify when.

Note what Trump didn't do. He didn't attack the trial process. He didn't condemn the Hong Kong National Security Law. His entire pitch boiled down to: "The guy's old now. Show some mercy and let him walk."

This is the same Trump who launched a trade war with China back in 2018. The same leader who, during the peak of the 2019 black riot, had Vice President Mike Pence meet with Lai, prompting him to become a pawn in the US-China struggle. Six years later, everything's changed. A trade deal is done. China has eased restrictions on rare earth exports to the US and Trump wants to visit China next April. The last thing he needs is to offend Beijing. Jimmy Lai, bluntly put, has become America's discarded chess piece.

London's Theatrical Toughness

The UK, by contrast, struck a firmer tone—at least on the surface. Labour's Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper took center stage. In Parliament, she announced that the Foreign Office, acting on her instructions, had summoned Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang to convey the UK's position "in the strongest terms." Cooper pointed out that Lai holds British citizenship and was being persecuted for peacefully exercising his right to free speech. She called the prosecution politically motivated and demanded his immediate release.

China hit back hard. Ambassador Zheng met with senior UK Foreign Office officials to lodge a serious protest over Britain's criticism of the Hong Kong court verdict. He urged the UK to abandon its colonial mindset, stop interfering in Hong Kong's judiciary and China's internal affairs, and cease shielding anti-China elements destabilizing Hong Kong. 

Zheng made it clear: the UK's attempts at interference would only expose its malicious intent to disrupt Hong Kong—and would ultimately end in failure. He emphasized that Lai was a primary mastermind and participant in a series of anti-China riots, far from the "peaceful" exercise of free speech the British claimed.

But here's where the UK's "toughness" reveals itself as pure theater. When British MPs pressed Cooper on whether Prime Minister Keir Starmer would cancel his potential January visit to China, sanction Hong Kong officials, or place China alongside Russia and Iran in the "enhanced tier" of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, she dodged every question. She claimed that maintaining engagement with China is vital—that only through such contact can the UK directly express its strong position on specific issues.

Watch the Labour government perform, and the pattern becomes clear: loud words, soft actions. They don't want to damage Sino-British relations. They want to keep doing business with China. If Trump is a "true rogue" who openly treats Lai as a discarded pawn, the UK is a "hypocrite"—supporting Lai verbally while backing off in practice, effectively discarding him all the same.

When Britain Tramples Freedom

The UK loves to preach about freedom. But a recent news story exposes exactly how Britain tramples on the very freedoms it claims to champion. After the Russia-Ukraine war erupted in 2022, the UK followed US instructions to impose various sanctions on Russia—including the seizure of assets belonging to so-called Russian oligarchs. One prime target: Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich.

The British government forcibly placed Chelsea under trusteeship and barred Abramovich from entering the country. American businessman Todd Boehly then purchased the club for £2.5 billion. But the UK government seized those funds and failed to return the proceeds to Abramovich. Recently, The Guardian reported that the UK government issued a formal ultimatum to Abramovich, demanding he transfer the £2.5 billion to a fund supporting Ukraine—or face prosecution.

Think about what happened to these wealthy Russians who moved to the UK years ago. They've become losers. Had they maintained good relations with Putin and kept their assets in Russia instead of moving them to the UK, their wealth would be safe. But once war broke out, the UK lashed out, seizing the assets of these oligarchs based on vague allegations of "close ties to Putin"—without producing concrete evidence.

The Kleptocracy Hunters

The UK government even established a new team within the National Crime Agency with the dramatic code name "K-Cell." The "K" stands for kleptocracy—a system where rulers use power to steal national resources. The K-Cell's mission: make life difficult for sanctioned Russian oligarchs and confiscate their assets.

Vladimir Putin is watching the West’s asset-grabbing spree with a smirk. During his 2023 State of the Nation address, he highlighted how the Western "safe haven" for capital turned out to be a total mirage, leaving Russian elites who ignored his warnings to get robbed of even their legitimate money. He mocked these businesspeople for making themselves sick "running from courtroom to courtroom" in the West trying to save their wealth—exactly as he predicted. For Putin, it’s a simple lesson: the West isn’t a partner; it’s a predator.

Back in 1941, on the eve of war with Japan, US President Roosevelt delivered his famous speech on the Four Freedoms, including "Freedom from Fear." At the national level, this means security from foreign aggression. At the individual level, it means not living in terror.

The UK's arbitrary seizure of investor assets has plunged investors into a state of immense fear. Paraphrasing Cooper's criticism of Hong Kong: these Russians were merely exercising their rights to invest and own private property in a capitalist society, yet they faced persecution by the British government. We could just as easily call on the UK to immediately lift sanctions on these Russian businessmen and return the £2.5 billion to Abramovich.

This incident perfectly exposes British hypocrisy. Sometimes, a hypocrite is far more loathsome than a blatant rogue.

Lo Wing-hung