The Central Intelligence Agency released a new Mandarin-language video that aims to encourage officers and other personnel in China’s People’s Liberation Army to provide information to the United States and to contact the agency securely. The short fictional film depicts a disillusioned mid-level PLA officer who criticizes party leaders for enriching themselves, expresses concern that capable officers are being sidelined or removed in favor of politically connected replacements, and describes worries about the welfare of his family and the country's future. The video concludes by giving Mandarin-language instructions on how viewers can contact the CIA safely, and the agency said the content includes practical guidance on operational security for would-be contacts.

U.S. officials and current and former intelligence officers said the video is part of an expanded public-facing campaign that treats China as the CIA’s top intelligence priority and seeks to attract information from Chinese officials and citizens concerned about the country’s direction. Agency officials said earlier Mandarin-language videos reached wide audiences, generated leads, and produced submissions via a CIA dark-web portal, though they have not disclosed exact recruitment numbers. The CIA acknowledged that major U.S. social media platforms are blocked inside China but said its content can still circulate despite the Great Firewall.

Chinese government spokespeople condemned the effort as interference, with the foreign ministry saying attempts by foreign anti-China forces will not succeed and warning that Beijing will take necessary measures against foreign espionage, infiltration, and sabotage. The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment on this video.

The release coincides with visible leadership changes and disciplinary actions within the PLA. Reporting and officials noted recent high-level removals and investigations, including an announcement that Gen. Zhang Youxia, who served as vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, was under investigation for “serious violations,” and that of the seven members of the Central Military Commission in 2022 only Xi Jinping and one general remained in place amid removals or probes. Chinese leader Xi Jinping publicly highlighted anti-corruption efforts and described the rank and file as trustworthy in a virtual address. U.S. officials interpret recent personnel moves as relevant to the themes portrayed in the film.

Public evidence of the campaign’s overall effectiveness remains limited in public reporting; U.S. officials point to broader reach and volunteer responses as indicators, while historical setbacks to U.S. intelligence operations in China are noted without specific casualty figures or detailed outcomes attributed to the current videos.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (china) (investigation) (sabotage) (espionage) (treason) (whistleblower) (entitlement) (outrage) (scandal) (betrayal) (traitor) (expose) (leak)

Actionable information: The article supplies no practical steps most readers can use. It reports that the CIA released a Mandarin-language video advising people how to contact the agency safely, but it does not reproduce those contact instructions, explain secure methods, or provide alternatives a civilian could adopt. For a typical reader there is nothing in the article to “do soon”: no guidance on how to verify such videos, how to follow up safely, or how ordinary people in or outside China should respond. Thus, from the standpoint of immediate, usable instructions, the piece offers no action.

Educational depth: The article gives some surface context — that the video targets potential informants inside China, that China has tightened surveillance and lost human sources, and that a recent reshuffling in military leadership is underway — but it does not explain the systems and mechanics behind those facts. It does not analyze how public-facing recruitment differs from covert operations, how electronic surveillance specifically impedes human intelligence collection, or the legal and diplomatic frameworks that shape such public outreach. Numbers and personnel changes are mentioned only qualitatively, without data, sources, or explanation of why those removals matter for intelligence collection. Overall, the piece remains superficial rather than explanatory.

Personal relevance: For most readers the information is only indirectly relevant. It may interest people who follow geopolitics or intelligence community developments, but it does not affect the everyday safety, finances, health, or immediate decisions of the general public. For a narrow group — potential intelligence sources inside China or persons directly engaged in U.S.-China security matters — it could be relevant, but the article does not provide them with concrete, safe, or legally sound guidance. So practical relevance is limited.

Public service function: The article does not perform a clear public service role. It reports a government action and reactions, but it does not include safety warnings, legal context, or advice for people who might be affected. It does not, for example, warn potential targets about risks of engagement, describe possible legal consequences, or offer ways for the public to assess propaganda or foreign influence. Because it mainly recounts an event without constructive guidance, it falls short of serving readers with actionable public-interest information.

Practical advice quality: There is little to evaluate because the article offers almost no actionable tips. The only implication is that the CIA is using public videos as a recruitment channel. Without details of the recommended contact methods or safety protocols, an ordinary reader cannot follow any guidance reliably. Any implied advice about becoming an informant or contacting foreign agencies would be incomplete and potentially risky; the piece does not supply the realistic, safe, and lawful steps needed to make such a decision.

Long-term impact: The article documents a continuing pattern of public outreach by an intelligence agency, which could be part of a longer-term strategic shift. However, it does not help a reader plan, prepare, or change behavior in ways that have lasting benefit. There is no guidance on how to monitor similar developments, protect personal information, or respond if one becomes a target of recruitment or counterintelligence.

Emotional and psychological impact: The tone may increase concern or curiosity about international espionage and instability inside China’s military, but it provides no calming context, no clear analysis to reduce uncertainty, and no steps a reader can take to regain control. For most people it is likely to produce interest or mild anxiety without empowerment.

Clickbait or sensationalism: The article sticks to straightforward reporting of the incident and reactions; it does not rely on sensational language or exaggerated claims. However, it does focus on an inherently attention-grabbing topic (intelligence recruitment) without supplying substantive depth, which can leave readers primed for drama rather than understanding.

Missed opportunities: The article could have been more useful if it had explained the legal, operational, and safety implications of public-facing intelligence outreach. It might have offered guidance on how to verify outreach claims, how journalists and the public can responsibly cover such actions, or how potential targets can seek legal advice or counseling. It also missed the chance to compare independent sources, give historical context for similar campaigns, or outline the likely diplomatic consequences.

Practical, general guidance the article failed to provide:

If you want to assess a government video or public outreach of this kind, start by checking whether the video comes from an official, verifiable channel associated with the agency in question and whether independent reputable news organizations are reporting it. Treat any solicitation to share sensitive information online or by unsecured channels as high risk. Before acting on any call to provide information to a foreign government, consider legal implications where you live and seek independent legal advice; do not assume public messaging removes legal or personal risk.

To evaluate claims in such reporting, compare multiple independent sources rather than relying on a single account. Look for corroboration from established news outlets, official statements, or analyses from subject-matter experts. Consider motive and audience: ask who benefits from the message and what behavior it is trying to change.

If you are worried about privacy or surveillance in general, reduce personal exposure by minimizing sensitive content on devices, using strong, unique passwords with two-factor authentication, and keeping software updated. Avoid discussing sensitive matters over unencrypted channels or social platforms. For travelers or expatriates, follow official travel advisories, limit sharing of detailed itineraries publicly, and be mindful of local laws about interaction with foreign entities.

If you or someone you know is directly approached about providing information to a foreign agency, prioritize safety and legality. Do not respond impulsively. Preserve evidence of the approach, seek confidential legal counsel, and consider contacting trusted officials or organizations for guidance depending on jurisdiction. Emotional support can also be important; dealing with recruitment or pressure can be stressful, and reaching out to qualified counselors can help manage fear and decision-making.

These suggestions are general, practical steps grounded in common-sense risk management, legal caution, and verification practices. They do not rely on external claims or specific facts beyond the universal principles of safety, verification, and seeking expert advice when faced with potentially risky or illegal requests.

"The Central Intelligence Agency released a new Mandarin-language video aimed at encouraging members of China’s military to provide information to the United States and to work toward what the agency described as a brighter future."

This frames the CIA’s goal as positive by using "encouraging" and "brighter future," which are value-laden phrases. It helps the CIA’s action look benevolent and may hide that the video targets foreign military personnel. The phrase "brighter future" pushes a favorable view without evidence. The wording favors U.S. aims and downplays potential ethical or legal concerns.

"The video follows a pattern of public outreach by the CIA that officials say targets potential informants inside China, where electronic surveillance and past losses of human sources have made traditional recruitment difficult."

This uses "public outreach" to soften an intelligence operation, which is a mild euphemism. Saying "officials say" distances the claim from the writer, but lets unverified authority stand; it hides who exactly and what evidence they used. The clause about "electronic surveillance and past losses" presents causes as facts without sourcing, which frames China as obstructive and dangerous without showing proof.

"The fictional scenario in the video depicts a disillusioned mid-level officer in the People’s Liberation Army who criticizes party leaders for enriching themselves while capable officers are portrayed as being removed from positions of power."

Calling the character "disillusioned" and summarizing his critique accepts that view as central and legitimate. The phrase "enriching themselves" is a strong accusation presented as the officer’s claim but the sentence structure blends actor and accusation, making it read like fact. This choice makes corruption seem widespread without evidence in the text.

"The video gives viewers instructions on how to contact the CIA safely, according to reporting."

"According to reporting" distances the statement but still presents operational details as legitimate. The phrase "safely" frames contacting the CIA as non-risky and helpful, which normalizes recruitment of foreign personnel and may minimize consequences for those targeted.

"The release comes after a high-level shakeup in China’s military leadership, when the defense ministry announced that Gen. Zhang Youxia, who served as vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, was under investigation for serious violations."

Using "shakeup" is a loaded term that emphasizes instability. "Serious violations" is a strong phrase, presented as the ministry’s announcement but without details. The wording highlights disorder and guilt by omission of specifics, which makes the leadership look corrupt or unstable.

"Reporting indicates that of the seven members of the Central Military Commission in 2022, only Xi Jinping and one general remain in place, with the others removed amid disciplinary actions or investigations."

This selects a narrow set of facts to portray a purge. The phrasing "only Xi Jinping and one general remain" emphasizes loss and concentrates attention on removals. Saying "amid disciplinary actions or investigations" links removals to wrongdoing without detailing outcomes, creating an impression of widespread misconduct.

"Chinese leader Xi Jinping publicly noted the military’s anti-corruption efforts and described the rank and file as trustworthy in a virtual address."

This balances the previous critical points with Xi’s comments, but it is presented as a single-sentence rebuttal and framed neutrally. The structure may make the endorsement seem weaker compared with earlier accusations, because it follows multiple sentences suggesting corruption. The placement lessens its counterweight.

"U.S. officials and former intelligence officers said the CIA continued the public campaign because earlier similar videos reached large audiences and generated intelligence leads."

"Public campaign" again softens intelligence activity into a neutral marketing term. Citing "U.S. officials and former intelligence officers" without naming them uses authority to justify the campaign. The claim that videos "generated intelligence leads" is presented as cause without evidence, which legitimizes the tactic.

"The Chinese government previously condemned two Chinese-language CIA videos as violations of international law and said it would take measures to counter foreign infiltration and sabotage."

This reports the Chinese government's response but uses the phrases "infiltration and sabotage" taken from that response, which are strong, accusatory terms. They are presented as the Chinese government's claims, not fact, but including them without similar detail about the U.S. position leaves the reader with stark claims about alleged harm.

"The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the new video."

This is a common journalistic placeholder that signals lack of rebuttal. Its inclusion highlights the absence of an immediate Chinese response and may subtly suggest avoidance or tacit admission, although it is neutral on its face. The sentence emphasizes imbalance in voices quoted.

The passage conveys a mix of worry, distrust, criticism, hope, pride, and urgency, each serving distinct roles. Worry appears in references to “electronic surveillance,” “past losses of human sources,” and “under investigation for serious violations,” signaling danger and vulnerability; its tone is moderately strong, underscoring a precarious intelligence environment and a shaken military leadership. This worry pushes the reader to see the situation as risky and unstable, creating concern about safety, secrecy, and the integrity of institutions. Distrust and criticism are articulated through the fictional officer who “criticizes party leaders for enriching themselves while capable officers are portrayed as being removed from positions of power.” That criticism is strong in tone and framed to highlight corruption and unfairness, encouraging readers to question the motives and legitimacy of those leaders. The effect is to breed skepticism about the ruling authorities and to align the reader’s sympathies with the disillusioned officer rather than with the leadership. Hope and an appeal to betterment are embedded in the CIA’s stated aim of encouraging members “to provide information to the United States and to work toward what the agency described as a brighter future.” The hope is mild to moderate in strength; it casts the outreach as offering a positive alternative and invites readers to imagine improvement, which functions to motivate action or cooperation. Pride and reassurance surface when Xi Jinping “described the rank and file as trustworthy” and when the passage notes anti-corruption efforts; these lines carry a comforting, confident tone meant to restore faith in the military’s loyalty and discipline. Their strength is moderate and they serve to counterbalance criticism, guiding the reader to see official responses as stabilizing. Urgency is implied by phrases about “a high-level shakeup,” “only Xi Jinping and one general remain in place,” and the CIA’s continued public campaign because previous videos “reached large audiences and generated intelligence leads.” This creates a brisk, pressing feeling that events are consequential now; urgency is fairly strong and is intended to prompt attention and imply that timely action or vigilance matters. The emotions guide the reader’s reaction by setting up a tension between fear and hope, distrust and reassurance: worry and distrust make the outreach seem necessary and the leadership suspect, while hope and pride suggest alternatives or official remedies, steering readers to weigh both the problem and possible responses.

The writer uses emotional language and storytelling techniques to heighten these feelings and persuade the reader. Specific words and phrases—such as “disillusioned,” “enriching themselves,” “removed from positions of power,” “serious violations,” and “reached large audiences”—are chosen for their emotional weight rather than for neutral description; they cast actors as either corrupt or hopeful and events as consequential. The inclusion of a fictional personal scenario (the mid-level officer’s criticism) is a storytelling device that personalizes abstract political conflict, making the stakes feel real and inviting empathy. Repetition of themes—corruption, investigation, outreach, and countermeasures—reinforces the contrast between failings and responses, sharpening the reader’s impression of a contested struggle. Comparative framing appears when the passage contrasts the alleged enrichment of party leaders with capable officers being sidelined, which amplifies perceived injustice by setting two states against one another. Presenting official reactions—Xi’s remarks and the Chinese Embassy’s silence—creates a back-and-forth narrative that makes the situation appear dynamic and unresolved, increasing tension. These tools increase emotional impact by zeroing attention on human motives and consequences rather than dry facts, steering readers toward concern, skepticism, or sympathy depending on which elements resonate most.