Have you come across pro-China propaganda? Here are 5 ways to find out

By Regine Cabato

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Last March, several prominent pro-Duterte vloggers and influencers admitted in a congressional hearing that they had attended a China-funded training seminar in 2023. Former Presidential Communications Secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles confirmed that she and bloggers Mark Lopez, Tio Moreno, Philstar.com columnist Pia Morato, and lawyer Ahmed Paglinawan took part in a two-week program in Beijing run by China’s National Radio and Television Administration.

The revelation crystallized what researchers and journalists had long suspected: China is actively working to shape Filipino public opinion through social media influencers. The Philippines and China remain locked in a bitter territorial dispute over the West Philippine Sea.

These operations first became evident in 2020, under former President Rodrigo Duterte, who pivoted the country toward Beijing. Analysts found a coordinated disinformation network composed of 155 accounts with 130,000 followers and millions of interactions that promoted pro-China politicians including Rodrigo and Sara Duterte and Imee Marcos. Facebook subsequently took down these pages, saying they originated from China.

Since then, Chinese influence operations have gotten smarter and slicker. A recent Reuters investigation revealed the Chinese Embassy hired a Manila-based, Chinese-owned firm to boost China messaging using fake accounts and a fake news page. Other recent research has surfaced a consistent pattern: Pro-Duterte influencer content tends to favor China. A 2024 AidData report found Beijing “[uses] intermediaries to shape or convey its narratives without direct attribution.”

Filipinos tend to resist pro-China content that looks inorganic. In 2020, the Chinese embassy produced a music video showcasing Beijing’s assistance to the Philippines during the pandemic. The video generated so much online hate and it became apparent that pro-China content would be more effective if it featured Filipino talking heads and voices.

It is difficult to ascertain whether pro-Duterte, pro-China influencers are acting independently or are instead contracted by political clients. They may also be incentivized to produce content that they can monetize on social media platforms. Moreover, attendance in state-sponsored programs does not mean the attendee is a foreign state asset.

Whatever their motivation, these influencers produce content and propagate discourse that confuses the public with pseudo-intellectual and misleading analysis. They sow fear and distrust and, even if they cannot successfully rehabilitate China’s image, they may be able to convince their followers to keep voting for pro-China local politicians.

The following are “red flags” signalling content that, whether deliberately or not, effectively functions as pro-China propaganda.

1. Do they echo Beijing’s claims to the West Philippine Sea?

Perhaps the biggest indicator of pro-China leaning is the repetition of official thought from Beijing. For example, in a now restricted June 2024 Facebook post, Tio Moreno — among the pro-Duterte personalities trained in Beijing— posted a defense of China’s nine-dash line.

However, Moreno’s arguments have long been rebutted. In 2016, an international arbitral tribunal ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines, invalidating China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” over nearly the entire West Philippine Sea. In its defense, the Philippines presented various maps, including state-sanctioned ones from China that showed its southern border reached only as far as Hainan, lending credence to the idea that the nine-dash line was a more contemporary invention.

In addition, stone markers allegedly erected by China in 1902 on the Paracel Islands were actually found to be fake. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio obtained a copy of the confidential report exposing this in a now out-of-print book in a secondhand bookstore in Beijing, and it was included in the Philippines’ defense.

2. Are they hypercritical of the United States, but never call out China?

Anti-American sentiment has deep roots in the Philippines. Criticism of U.S. imperialism isn’t inherently propaganda—it often reflects legitimate grievances. The United States colonized the Philippines for nearly half a century and supported the Marcos dictatorship. More recent incidents, like the 2014 killing of transgender Filipina Jennifer Laude by U.S. Marine Joseph Pemberton, have fueled resentment.

During the pandemic, Reuters revealed, the U.S. ran a covert campaign, creating hundreds of fake social media accounts impersonating Filipinos to discredit China’s Sinovac vaccine in the Philippines, undermining public health efforts.

But Beijing has weaponized this historical grievance to advance its own interests. A consistent talking point in Chinese propaganda frames the Philippines as an American “puppet” or “vassal” state—Cold War-era language that strips the Philippines of agency in its own territorial disputes.

The tell-tale sign of pro-China propaganda isn’t criticism of the United States—it’s the glaring double standard. Pro-Duterte influencers regularly condemn American “imperialism” while remaining conspicuously silent about China’s own expansionist actions: building artificial islands on Philippine-claimed reefs, ramming Coast Guard vessels, deploying water cannons against Filipino sailors, and driving fishermen from their traditional grounds.

A Philstar.com investigation, for example, tracked six pro-Duterte YouTube vloggers, who portrayed U.S. military exercises with the Philippines as provocative while downplaying China’s militarization of disputed waters.

Lawyer Ahmed Paglinawan, who co-runs the Facebook page Luminous with former presidential press secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles, exemplified this deflection in a February 2025 post. The lawyer, who also attended the Beijing training, dismissed concerns about Chinese expansionism by arguing that China has “so much vacant land” within its borders. “Tingin ko, yung mga taong praning na sasakupin na ng China ang WPS, Palawan, buong Pilipinas, lahat ng oceans, at pati na ang buwan, ay di pa nakapunta sa China,” Paglinawan wrote. “Kaya tigilan na yang kaka-walwal na ganyan. Ignorante lang ang nagpapaniwala sa ganyan.”

(Translation: My view is, those who are paranoid that China plans to conquer the West Philippine Sea, Palawan, the whole Philippines, all the oceans, and even the moon have never been to China. China has so much vacant land… So stop this worrying. Only the ignorant fall for that.)

The argument ignores a basic fact: China’s actions in the West Philippine Sea aren’t about needing more land, but about controlling strategic waters, resources, and trade routes. By framing legitimate security concerns as paranoid hysteria, influencers like Paglinawan discourage Filipinos from being vigilant about their territorial rights.

3. Do they swing between downplaying and exaggerating China’s threat, depending on what helps their narrative?

Pro-China influencers employ a contradictory but deliberate strategy: they minimize China’s aggressive actions when convenient, then pivot to catastrophic fearmongering when it serves their purpose. The goal isn’t consistency—it’s confusion and paralysis. By simultaneously telling Filipinos that China poses no threat and that resisting China will lead to devastating war, influencers create a psychological trap: either concerns about Chinese aggression are overblown paranoia, or acting on those concerns will bring disaster.

Downplaying the threat: A January 2024 study by political economist and sociologist Alvin Camba documented how influencers cherry-pick and misrepresent academic arguments to downplay China’s aggression. In one example, influencer Sass Rogando Sasot posted only the abstract of a 2017 academic paper about Chinese fishing fleets in disputed waters. The paper discussed how local Chinese governments coordinate fishing boats and suggested that international observers might be overemphasizing the military dimensions of these activities. Sasot used this to argue that U.S. and Filipino concerns were overblown, treating a complex situation as an exaggerated military threat.

But Sasot conveniently ignored crucial context. The paper was written in 2017, before China had dramatically escalated its activities. By the time she posted it years later, China had built artificial islands with military installations, the Chinese Navy and Coast Guard had become far more aggressive, and Chinese vessels were regularly using water cannons and blocking maneuvers against Filipino ships. The paper’s nuanced analysis was outdated for current realities, but Sasot presented it as proof that current concerns were manufactured hysteria. The message: Filipinos worried about Chinese aggression are simply falling for Western propaganda and overreacting to normal fishing activities.

Excessive fearmongering: But when Filipinos criticize China’s actions, the same influencers suddenly pivot to doomsday warnings. In a January 6, 2025 post, Mark Anthony Lopez—who also attended the Beijing-sponsored content seminar in 2023—claimed the Philippines was “a target for nuclear annihilation” and “doomed to oblivion” following the Balikatan exercises. The U.S.-Philippine war games are an annual event. These narratives are alarmist and defeatist, designed to scare the public from pushback against China.

The fearmongering also extends to exaggerating economic consequences. In a January 25, 2025 post, Lopez claimed Sinophobia was being used as a tactic, “kahit na ang magiging dulot nito sa ating ekonomiya at international relations ay makakasama para bansa, at lalung magpapahirap sa atin (even if this would only hurt our economy and international relations and worsen the country, and make us poorer).”

This narrative relies on exaggerating Philippine dependence on China. Camba’s research shows reality is more complex. During the administration of former president Benigno Aquino III, while Philippines-China relations were severely strained over maritime disputes, Chinese foreign direct investment actually increased because of the strength of the Philippine economy. When China briefly restricted Philippine banana imports and tourism in retaliation, these sectors represented only a tiny fraction of overall trade. China did not ban imports of Philippine nickel and other resources because China needed them too. Trade is a two-way street; the Philippines has more economic leverage than influencers acknowledge.

4. Do they weaponize Sinophobia to shut down criticism?

Another tactic pro-China influencers use is falsely accusing critics of racism. By conflating legitimate criticism of the Chinese government’s actions with prejudice against Chinese people, these influencers attempt to shut down all debate about China’s behavior in Philippine waters. The strategy is deliberately confusing: they blur the line between criticizing a state and attacking an ethnic group, making it appear that any objection to China’s territorial aggression is actually bigotry against Chinese people.

This is textbook deflection. Using racial slurs against Chinese people is indeed Sinophobic and wrong. But criticizing China’s water cannon attacks on Filipino sailors, its blocking of Philippine supply missions, or its militarization of disputed reefs is a legitimate response to violations of Philippine sovereignty. The Chinese government and the Chinese people are not the same thing.

In the abovementioned January 25 post, Lopez accuses Armed Forces of the Philippines chief Romeo Brawner of instituting “Sinophobia.” In another post dated January 30, 2025, Tio Moreno on January 30, mocked former Gabriela Women’s Party representative Arlene Brosas: “Yong galit ka sa China at mga Chinese pero nagcecelebrate ka ng Chinese New Year (You’re mad at China and the Chinese but you celebrate Chinese New Year).”

Celebrating Chinese New Year—a cultural tradition embraced by many Filipinos of Chinese descent and non-Chinese Filipinos alike—has nothing to do with opposing the Chinese government’s territorial aggression. The Filipino-Chinese community is an integral part of Philippine society, and many Filipino-Chinese citizens themselves oppose China’s actions in the West Philippine Sea.

Military historian Jose Custodio noted that the talk point is a “carryover of the Duterte era.” Its main idea is that if you are critical of China, then “you shouldn’t buy China products.” This idea was recently floated by acting Davao mayor Sebastian Duterte, and refuted by Coast Guard spokesman Commodore Jay Tarriela as “false equivalence.” By suggesting that criticizing Beijing means rejecting Chinese culture, influencers create a false choice designed to silence or intimidate dissent.

5. Do they exaggerate military discord and civil instability, and smear non-partisan military and security professionals?

Undermining the credibility and cohesion of the Philippine military serves a clear strategic purpose for China: if Filipinos don’t trust their own armed forces, they are less likely to support government efforts to defend territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea. Pro-China influencers pursue this goal through two complementary tactics—fabricating stories about military instability and systematically attacking the reputations of those in the defense sector who refuse to advance pro-China narratives.

In late September 2024, the Armed Forces of the Philippines publicly rebuffed multiple false claims circulating on social media about instability within military ranks. One fabricated narrative alleged that internal divisions were emerging around anti-corruption rallies. Another even more outrageous claim—which the military called a “vile and malicious fabrication”—alleged that the CIA was backing a coup plot involving the military and defense secretary. These weren’t random conspiracy theories; they follow patterns consistent with coordinated disinformation campaigns.

A 2024 Philstar.com investigation documented how Chinese social media accounts amplified content about potential civil war when former President Duterte threatened that Mindanao should secede from the Philippines. By boosting secessionist rhetoric and civil war fears, these information operations aim to create the impression that the Philippines is on the verge of collapse—a fragmented, unstable country incapable of defending its territorial interests. If Filipinos believe their nation is falling apart, they are more likely to accept the argument that confronting China is reckless and accommodation is the only safe path forward.

Military historian Jose Custodio said this narrative is an attempt to agitate the military, as well as “paint a picture to the public that the Marcos administration is suffering instability in a hope to lower its approval rating.” However, this has largely been successfully dispelled by official military statements and a lack of a critical mass supportive of the Dutertes.

Beyond fabricating instability, influencers systematically target individual military and security officials who have been most effective in exposing Chinese aggression. The Philippine Coast Guard’s transparency campaign—documenting Chinese water cannon attacks, blocking maneuvers, and harassment with photos and videos—has been particularly successful in building international support for the Philippines. Officers like Coast Guard spokesman Tarriela, who pioneered this “assertive transparency” approach, have become prime targets for character assassination. A pro-China website, for example, tagged Tarriela as a “tainted source, PMA reject, CIA operative, US dog.”

While these attacks have not seemed to dent public support for Philippine claims in the West Philippine Sea, this form of influence can be sticky for the pro-Duterte supporter base or confusing to casual doomscrollers who have not kept abreast of geopolitical developments. Custodio says that while Filipino audiences may be skeptical of China today, China “plays the long game” — so disinformation is a long-term threat.

“The Philippines, throughout history, has always produced traitors. They are a dime a dozen,” said Custodio. “We will always be fertile ground for China operations. That’s why we need vigilance.”—PCIJ.org